tracing a bizarre, highly elongated orbit in the outer solar system
the progenitor star would have had to be at least 15 times the mass of the Sun
Because our sample is so big we have been able to dig deeper into the analysis and can conclude that strong [internal] magnetic fields are very common among stars that have masses of about 1.5-2.0 times that of the Sun
Not to mention there would be some pretty hard evidence that a core collapse SN as they are theorized to occur by the mainstream had taken place in our solar system
Planet X or Nibiru? Can we see close up images?
I am just going by the math of the mainstream, 1.5 solar masses won't get you one their BH's via a core collapse SN
and we have some gas giants that wouldn't survive such an event at this proximity
Planet X or Nibiru? Can we see close up images?
Unfortunately not. Our biggest telescopes can only resolve Pluto on a few pixels. This objects is significantly farther, so it would appear even smaller and be even more difficult to resolve. It might be potentially resolvable via optical interferometers, but that is very finicky.
Although the model proposed herein is characterized by a multitude of quantities that are inherently degenerate with respect to one another, our calculations suggest that a perturber on an a' ~ 700 AU, e' ~ 0.6 orbit would have to be somewhat more massive (e.g., a factor of a few) than m' = 10 m⊕ to produce the desired effect.
I don't know what makes you think 60 A.U. is predicted. Did you mean 600?
You are right, 600 it is. It is 3.5 times bigger than Eris and 6 times further away. Eris is quite well resolved by Hubble, including its tiny moon. Planet X must be observable.
https://en.wikipe...mia2.jpg
Wow, I never thought we'd discover another planet in the Solar System in my lifetime. Those days were supposed to be the stuff of history books. It's... actually a really profound feeling.
indicate[d] that the outer solar system probably does not contain a brown dwarf or a large gas giant planet.
That doesn't mean WISE hasn't seen it already, just that we haven't looked at the data for that mass range yet..
it is fourth independent confirmation of my extended gravity theory.
Anyway, it's interesting how many ideas and findings long times denied with official science finally turn out to be true - in this way or another... It rather represents a rule than exception - don't you think?
Anyway, it's interesting how many ideas and findings long times denied with official science finally turn out to be true - in this way or another... It rather represents a rule than exception - don't you think?Except - I don't think this one was actually denied, Pro...
Wow, I never thought we'd discover another planet in the Solar System in my lifetime. Those days were supposed to be the stuff of history books. It's... actually a really profound feeling.
That feeling is called humility, and it only comes around once the arrogant assumptions are put aside,...
Anyway, it's interesting how many ideas and findings long times denied with official science finally turn out to be true - in this way or another... It rather represents a rule than exception - don't you think?
Except - I don't think this one was actually denied, Pro...
I don't know which is more entertaining: Reading this article, or reading the "theories" from the many armchair-astrophysicists in the comment section.
Wow, I never thought we'd discover another planet in the Solar System in my lifetime. Those days were supposed to be the stuff of history books. It's... actually a really profound feeling.
That doesn't mean WISE hasn't seen it already, just that we haven't looked at the data for that mass range yet.
There is no such planet, it is caused by missing part of gravity theory, similar to the Mercury orbit precession which was explained GR. Im glad about this discovery, it is fourth independent confirmation of my extended gravity theory.
There is no such planet, it is caused by missing part of gravity theory, similar to the Mercury orbit precession which was explained GR. Im glad about this discovery, it is fourth independent confirmation of my extended gravity theoryAnd the maths which so confirms your speculation in relation to key Physics formulae is - please ?
If they are correct about the 20 mass planet, it will be found pretty quickly given the orbital plane it must follow to stabilize the rest of the system....until someone else does math that says 2 planets could do itAh ! So Now you accept "Scientists" & their Newtonian Gravity as extended to Einstein's gravity which puts you in direct contradiction with your earlier comment, words to effect of "I can't believe matter self compresses" :P
So if the Planet-X would move directly toward us, it could still evade the attention.
or "planet IX" if you must
Technically that is a (now tested) constraint and not a possibly untestable assumption as science always do the former and (hopefully) never the latter. And it was the one that worked
they ran their simulations with a massive planet in an anti-aligned orbit
Well I don't really consider a computer model "tested", when they had to make assumptions to be able to make the test. Just because a simulation fits some observations, it doesn't mean it's absolutely correct.
makes predictions that are actually observed (which this model did)
That feeling is called humility, and it only comes around once the arrogant assumptions are put aside, such as the assumption that everything that could be discovered in our solar system has already been discovered.
Or you could think about what you read in the article – you did read it, right?makes predictions that are actually observed (which this model did)Think about what you just said. What predictions have they made that have been observed?
But the real kicker for the researchers was the fact that their simulations also predicted that there would be objects in the Kuiper Belt on orbits inclined perpendicularly to the plane of the planets... observers have identified four objects ... "We plotted up the positions of those objects and their orbits, and they matched the simulations exactly,"
@Protoplasmix: It is one thing to reject a theory or "debunk" if pseudoscience - it is giving the idea the honor it is due - it is another to repress ideas.If I had suggested the word "refuted" instead of "debunked" then the search results would have been different. I was only pointing out that some people posited the existence of a "planet x" (or "Nibirhu") while others refuted its existence, after Whydening Gyre asked if anyone had 'actually denied' its existence. I didn't mean to imply it had been "debunked", sorry for the confusion.
Batygin kept finding evidence for these in his simulations and took them to Brown. "Suddenly I realized there are objects like that," recalls Brown. In the last three years, observers have identified four objects tracing orbits roughly along one perpendicular line from Neptune and one object along another.
I would prefer real evidence of an hypothetical ninth planet than hypothetical evidences of a real ninth planet !
you detect objects like this by observing their motionSo if the Planet-X would move directly toward us,
"Earth's mass is 4.6 that of Pluto."
my2cts, Earth's mass is 456 that of Pluto, suggesting you don't have an intuitive feel for this.
all of the information we have about space arrives in the form of photons generated through particles interacting with magnetic fields.
How do millions of tons of matter NOT fall back to the suns surface Mike?
Space IS a magnetic field.
...rather it's a stellar mass black hole formed from the collapsed star of our (unknown) binary system.If it was a BH with mass at least that of our Sun, then we'd already have noticed the wobble-dance which would have to be obvious between two similarly massed objects orbiting each other around a common barycenter position in the space between them. OOrt Cloud's randomly distributed orbits indicate probably many other early-SS-formation/subsequent dynamics 'products' would have been 'gravity-interaction slingshot' into variously-inclined orbits. Probably only requiring the usual Sun-ignition "Nova", "Polar Jets", ejecting huge quantities of 'excess', shock-compressed, matter mini-clouds at various inclinations that eventually coalesced with other such mini-clouds on co-moving/intersecting paths to form variety of bodies at variety of inclinations. No companion BH necessary. :)
then we'd already have noticed the wobble-dance which would have to be obvious between two similarly massed objects orbiting each other around a common barycenter position in the space between them.
How do millions of tons of matter NOT fall back to the suns surfaceFrom my2cts:
By exceeding the escape velocity of 617.5 km/s.I suspect bschott was asking what the mechanism/process was that does the accelerating of the huge mass of plasma to make it propagate radially-spirally away from sun at a greater-than/equal-to "escape-velocity" rate, against the sun's immense gravitational strength at the plasma-mass ejection's starting location.
Known science treats space as representing a 'compound' of many types of 'fields' which overall would produce the various levels of phenomenological features/dynamics, both on the Quantum scale and larger macro scales.Space IS a magnetic field."Insane".
if the ordinary explanation I just provided does the trick
didn't acknowledge "elephant in the room" absence of the easily detected 'wobble dance' our Sun would be exhibiting
"The corona is 10^−12 times as dense as the photosphere"This may be true of average density of plasma at that altitude over periods of time when quiescent; but it's the violent perturbations which intrude huge quantities of much denser plasma from below that characterizes the process of mass-ejection. And then, consider the magnetic-field energies which would arise/reinforce/magnify when such huge plasma masses flow. Then also consider what (huge, violent, plasmoid collapses with polar jets of high temp/velocity of the plasma mass) initiates that violent process, transporting massive flows of plasma into the upper layers for further acceleration/ejection through upper layers; which layers subsequently resume their average plasma density and previously relatively quiescent magnetic field activity/pattern. It's more complex/interesting than older texts described. Recent discoveries slowly correcting same. :)
which is why CMEs can not be accelerated by it....
not that anyone who believes in gravity as the primary force for universal structure lives in the real world anyways....
He states "accelerated away from the sun by the corona".
Yes, because when you watch a video of any CME leave the sun, the matter is always accelerated through the corona.
That is incorrect "you illiterate fool".
OOPs, other than the radiative emission initiated by absorption of high energy photons and re-transmitted as IR photons. But still nocents, I would love to hear your explanation...they are always a treat.
The point was, it's more plausible/probable given known science re sun-forming "nova-polar jets"; ie, any surrounding 'excess' matter-cloud constituents plasmoid/wave-shocked-compressed to high densities; densities then act as gravity-concentrating 'nuclei' for aggregating nearby matter to form variety of bodies at the various orbital inclinations expected in that 'ordinary' scenario.if the ordinary explanation I just provided does the trickSure, your ordinary explanation is plausible..
I wasn't talking about optically resolving both 'bodies' of alleged Sun-BH-binary, as such; I meant while only 'sun' is observable, any BH-caused 'wobble' in sun's observed motion with respect to "the fixed stars" would be noted. :)didn't acknowledge "elephant in the room" absence of the easily detected 'wobble dance' our Sun would be exhibitingit wouldn't be as obvious as pluto/charon given the vastly larger mass and time one orbit would take
Hi my2cts. :)"The corona is 10^−12 times as dense as the photosphere"This may be true of average density of plasma at that altitude over periods of time when quiescent; but it's the violent perturbations which intrude huge quantities of much denser plasma from below that characterizes the process of mass-ejection.
which is why CMEs can not be accelerated by it....
sun's observed motion with respect to "the fixed stars" would be noted
It's not all-or-nothing, mate; it's a step-processes 'excursion' event, initiated below in the sun, erupting onto the sun, and proceeding/evolving into/through the corona and into space; taking some of the plasma, its currents and electric/magnetic fields/forces with it.Obviously. Also obvious is that CME's cannot be powered by the corona."The corona is 10^−12 times as dense as the photosphere"This may be true of average density of plasma at that altitude over periods of time when quiescent; but it's the violent perturbations which intrude huge quantities of much denser plasma from below that characterizes the process of mass-ejection.
which is why CMEs can not be accelerated by it...
It's the solar systems observed motion, not just the sun. We are one unit, so the "fixed stars" change the same for us. Hence, precession.There are algorithms which input all the relative motions of/between solar system bodies, including the sun. Which is why we can detect even the effect of the planets lining up on one side of the sun during a rare transient coincidings of their respective orbital positions along nearby radials. The algorithms have no problem with including info from various satellites in geo-stationary and free-path etc trajectories along/through the solar system; hence we can discern and calculate the extent of any wobble or unusual 'swerving' from otherwise predicted path of motion of the sun itself across the void and with respect to all sorts of reference points, including "the fixed stars" as the ultimate and least varying reference 'sphere' of points.
Well RC until we figure out the cause of gravity, anything not proven false is on the table for me. Nice chatting with ya
But then I won't be discussing physical reality any longer, not that anyone who believes in gravity as the primary force for universal structure lives in the real world anyways..No !
... video of any CME leave the sun, the matter is always accelerated through the coronaSad that videos are your primary input medium :-(
Obviously. Also obvious is that CME's cannot be powered by the corona.It's not all-or-nothing, mate; it's a step-processes 'excursion' event, initiated below in the sun, erupting onto the sun, and proceeding/evolving into/through the corona and into space; taking some of the plasma, its currents and electric/magnetic fields/forces with it.
Just to check something: Have you kept up with the recent discoveries which confirm that hugely powerful plasmoid processes occur at all scales in, on and above the sun itself?
anyone who believes in gravity as the primary force for universal structure lives in the real world anyways.
"Yes, because when you watch a video of any CME leave the sun, the matter is always accelerated through the corona."
There's only one way to leave the sun, though the corona.
"OOPs, other than the radiative emission initiated by absorption of high energy photons and re-transmitted as IR photons. I would love to hear your explanation... "
You said :
"all of the information we have about space arrives in the form of photons generated through particles interacting with magnetic fields".
Starlight is not generated in this way.
Gravity can never be so strong as to cause the energy (frequency) of any wavelength of electro-magnetic waves to become zero, as must be the case to prevent light from reaching escape velocity to escape the surface of a black hole. If such a gravity field exists, then transformation of energy must also be inferred according to E=mc2, the Mass/Energy Equivalence Principle of Special Relativity because a photon with zero energy content can no longer be a wave or particle traveling at light speed, it must be less, that is it must be Mass. Somehow transformation must occur because electro-magnetic waves at zero frequency cannot exist at zero frequency.E=hv=hc/ λ
where E is energy,
h is Planck's constant per particle
λ is the wavelength of the photon
E=hc/ 0= infinity
Wow, I never thought we'd discover another planet in the Solar System in my lifetime. Those days were supposed to be the stuff of history books. It's... actually a really profound feeling.
electro-magnetic waves at zero frequency cannot exist at zero frequency which by mathematical calculations corresponds to infinite wavelength:
E=hv=hc/ λ
where E is energy,
h is Planck's constant per particle
λ is the wavelength of the photon
E=hc/ 0= infinity
Your math skills, which you always speak highly of, fail you.
So you have not spotted your error yet. You should concentrate on Einstein's differential equations, do what you are good at.
So you have not spotted your error yet. You should concentrate on Einstein's differential equations, do what you are good at.
..the onus is on you to prove dividing by any number other than zero by zero does not equal INFINITY.
No the "onus" is on you to spot the simple error in your post.
.....the onus is on you to prove dividing by any number other than zero by zero does not equal INFINITY.
It would be a victory if you would spot AND admit the error in your post.
A victory for you. The first step to wisdom.
You certainly proved yours with that statement when you can't figure out that anything divided by zero always equals INFINITY, therefore cannot be real.
the onus is on you to prove dividing by any number other than zero by zero does not equal INFINITY.
It would be a victory if you would spot AND admit the error in your post.
A victory for you. The first step to wisdom.
Wisdom has nothing to do with science. I'm challenging you to prove the strength of a gravity can be so strong as to create photon deflection in such a manner as to prevent light (or any EM) from reaching escape velocity (light speed)...........waiting.
I have no intention to prove any claim I never made& then you make the claim....
I just say there is a big mistake in your post.....but you can't point it out because you know so little about SR & GR.
Find it and repent.What? Get your religion? Not a chance.
Find it and repent.What? Get your religion? Not a chance.
.....the onus is on you to prove dividing by any number other than zero by zero does not equal INFINITY.
... their simulations also predicted that there would be objects...Simulations _p_r_e_d_i_c_t_e_d_ Scroof.
@Benni
When I say "repent!" I mean that you should write something like
"ok I made a mistake" and then fix it.
You need to face the fact that you made a mistake.
It will teach you humility, without which you can not understand the world.
If you call that "religion" then I confess
Ohh, preach me another sermon, you prattle on & on, making charges you refuse to define because the Differential Equations of Einstein's section of photon deflection in GR is totally beyond your comprehension.
I'd just love to see your math proving a photon can lose escape velocity & 100% loss of energy causing it to fall back onto the surface of a black hole due to gravitational attraction impeding the speed of light (slowing it down). Where is your "field equation for gravity" demonstrating how this works?
After you've come up with your "field equation", you can then explain what is happening on the surface of a black hole with all those photons piling up moving at zero velocity.
Like I said I'm not discrediting them for their work, it takes guts to publish something that's gonna ignite planet x talk again.
Gravity can never be so strong as to cause the energy (frequency) of any wavelength of electro-magnetic waves to become zero, as must be the case to prevent light from reaching escape velocity to escape the surface of a black holeNo, you're taking utterly wrong track, ie Wrong to apply a simple static equation in that non-inertial reference frame, especially so you completely ignored Lorentz !
You certainly proved yours with that statement when you can't figure out that anything divided by zero always equals INFINITY, therefore cannot be realFor someone who claims they can solve differential equations then you should know that to apply Planck's you need to craft it as a non-trivial differential equation (DE) & admittedly this is not simple for High school students but, doable for 2nd yr uni-students but, as you have claimed to understand Einstein's field equation then instead of a Newtonian simplification offered in my last post then why can't YOU apply Einsteins Field Equation to the scenario you incorrectly tried Planck for ?
Wisdom has nothing to do with scienceDead Wrong !
... prove the strength of a gravity can be so strong as to create photon deflection in such a manner as to prevent light (or any EM) from reaching escape velocity (light speed)..Issue of magnitude, photon deflection already seen !
See my recent posts,........seldom bother with your posts.........your use of that cockney english accent creates such disconnected sentence construction that very little of what you post is decipherable enough to figure out the points you're trying to make.
..seldom bother with your posts........ disconnected sentence construction that very little of what you post is decipherable enough...Really prove it, simple equations not even differential, & to Uneducated YES, follow the Math Benni !
I'm just telling it how it is, get over it.Pffft. You're just showing everyone how you are: rude, wrong, and evidently incorrigible. It's your forum credibility and reputation. You earned it. Get out from under it.
I wonder who are GoshURStupid and GettingitDone. They always vote along with Benni.
Could Benni be sick enough to create multiple accounts to tilt the voting?
Definitely.
Until you actually study the text of Einstein's SR & GR, you will continue to sop up the side shows of media drivel that the combination of Einstein's Field Equations & Photon Deflection calculations provide a scientific basis that the gravity of black holes can slow the speed of electromagnetic waves to zero, a condition which can only be done by reducing photon frequency to zero. There's no observation of such phenomena & this equation proves it is mathematically impossible: E=hv=hc/ λ , make the denominator zero & the equation becomes meaninglessCan you not read or comprehend, the equation you tried to use is inappropriate ie Wrong ?
I wonder who are GoshURStupid and GettingitDone. They always vote along with Benni. Could Benni be sick enough to create multiple accounts to tilt the voting? DefinitelyIndeed & just to let you know one of the dumb sock puppets chose a nick close to my name to attempt to obfuscate perceptions - as if we can't see a spelling error !
..refrain from watching some plumber's videos..Wrong he's a Physics prof at Stanford :-)
You're just showing everyone how you are: rude, wrong, and evidently incorrigible
how has anything you've yet posted proves that the escape velocity of gravity at the surface of a black hole is faster than light?Beg Pardon ?
Did Einstein predict Mercury's orbit? No, he explained itBeg Pardon ?
any number divided by zero should equal that number. After all, you didn't actually divide it.:-)At Last! Someone else that 'gets it' about the 'division by zero' furphy. In mathematics, that "expression" is called "undefined". That is misleading in both logic and reality, because, as I tried many times to explain over many years on two other forums in the past, such an 'operation' is NOT an 'operation' at all! It is a NON-action, an UNreal philosophical concept/result flowing from the current mathematical system based on the equally philosophical "Point/Zero" concept (ie, a dimensionless unreal ABSTRACT entity existing only in the mathematical construct as a Philosophically-based axiomatic/entity which cannot exist in reality; "Point/Zero" itself, being in REALITY PHYSICS terms merely a "Balanced Resultant" quantity/state" between opposing entities/actions). :)
The point is,he put the wavelength to zero.That indeed corresponds to infinite energy
He wanted to put the frequency to zeroNo, that's what neophpytes like you do to buttress dumb ideas that gravity is a strong enough force for reducing energy (E) to zero. I simply set the denominator to the value you claim can be achieved at the surface of a black hole which you claim can slow the velocity of a photon below light speed.
Not that that makes any sense eitherOf course it can't make sense, photons exist at one velocity or they can't exist at all, look how long it's taken you to start figuring that out.
as there is no reason why a photon in a potentialWhat? What is "a photon in a potential"?
with an escape velocity equal to c should have zero energy.Yeah, it's impossible, which is the point I continue to make that zero λ (wavelength) in E=hv=hc/ λ creates an impossible conundrum of infinite energy at zero wavelength on a BH surface.
The point is, he put the wavelength to zero. That indeed corresponds to infinite energy. He wanted to put the frequency to zero. Not that that makes any sense either, as there is no reason why a photon in a potential with an escape velocity equal to c should have zero energy.I was not commenting on Benni's/your contentions. I was merely responding to Whydening Gyre's perceptive realization that using "Zero/Point" (as in "Nothing/Dimensionless concepts) is the Achilles' Heel of any ABSTRACT mathematical/Geometrical "spacetime" analytical construct. As demonstrated starkly where GR maths comes up against this very problem when PHILOSOPHICALLY extrapolated to some imaginary PHILOSOPHICAL SINGULARITY 'point' at an equally IMAGINARY physical space/location AT 'r=zero'.
E=hv=hc/ λ , make the denominator zero & the equation becomes meaningless.
So the virtual methods reveal the virtual planet. What a virtual evidence and science.
Hi Whydening Gyre. :)any number divided by zero should equal that number. After all, you didn't actually divide it.:-)
At Last! Someone else that 'gets it' about the 'division by zero' furphy. In mathematics, that "expression" is called "undefined".
..The life of a person can sometime be as paradoxical as the quantum world. Is Susskind a plumber..Indeed, as a teen only, see
Yeah, it's impossible, which is the point I continue to make that zero λ (wavelength) in E=hv=hc/ λ creates an impossible conundrum of infinite energy at zero wavelength on a BH surfaceONE reason you don't use that equation !
.. only bodies with strong magnetic field, which are capable to stay at stable orbit around star with help of that magnetic fieldBeg Pardon ?
vlisivka claims.. only bodies with strong magnetic field, which are capable to stay at stable orbit around star with help of that magnetic fieldBeg Pardon ?
How is it even remotely possible any planet gets "help of that magnetic field" to "stay at stable" orbit ?
If you will rotate two magnets: big one and small one, small magnet will start to orbit around big magnet at predefined distanceDoubt it, why *should* it stay at "predefined distance" & especially so why when force drops as inverse cube ?
This small effect from magnetic field of rotating planet will help it to stay at it orbit in long termIf so then the magnetic field influence should be measurable on our surface. So explain please WHY our Sun's magnetic field is NOT measurable on Earth AND why Sun is able to influence tides *only* by relative gravitational position with NO addition of *any* magnetic field effects ?
vlisivka claimsIf you will rotate two magnets: big one and small one, small magnet will start to orbit around big magnet at predefined distanceDoubt it, why *should* it stay at "predefined distance" & especially so why when force drops as inverse cube ?
See it: https://www.youtu...h7AHdwhUAnd very nice indeed as an artificial construction ie A clever arrangement, a nice toy for illustration, can you draw the field ?
vlisivka offersSee it: https://www.youtu...h7AHdwhUAnd very nice indeed as an artificial construction ie A clever arrangement, a nice toy for illustration, can you draw the field ?
But, did you notice main issues ?
If you project that to space, it is equal to _levitating_ of planet without orbiting at allNo !
Planet, which has elliptic or round orbit around Sun, is already balanced, so very tiny effect of rotating magnetic field over very large period of time (hundreds of million years) will cause significant (but not mayor) effect on planet orbitProve it with math and especially so as magentism drops off as inverse cube NOT gravity's inverse square !
It explains why planets are orbiting Sun in same plane (instead of random angles), it explains round shape of orbits, it explains rings around SaturnNo, you need to learn about angular momentum and tidal forces PLEASE !
No, you need to learn about angular momentum and tidal forces PLEASE !
My quick and very dirty math... shows that 1g of iron will change it orbit from random ecliptic to near round at orbit of Earth in less than 100 000 of years because of magnetic field aloneProve it please ?
Prove it please ?
So you think the Sun is 2e30 kg of highly magnetised iron ?
That explains. You would still be wrong though.
No, I think Sun is 1E30kg of substance which is 1E6 weaker than magnet. Math is rough, but it shows that effect is plausible: magnetic field can form ring of magnetic materials around star, so planets can form out of these rings, so we can give name "planet" only to bodies formed in such way.
Sorry, my English is far from perfect (I am from Ukraine, Eastern Europe).
Big ugly problem with Benni is he tries to marginalise people as do Uncle Ira to pull people down & both have same worry re so called "Gravitas" esp Uncle Ira, ie not smart & both try distraction to avoid challenge, ugly shallow behaviour :-(Honestly, I find it funny that you would put Benni and Uncle Ira in the same category. Ira is a middle age family man with good science literacy, a good sense of humour and a good dose of humility. I very much enjoy the guy. As for Benni he is annoying and he has no science literacy at all. He went on ignore as soon as this feature was implemented.
If you're lucky enough to be in a place where the long-distance grid lines run reasonable close enough to extend easily/cost-effectively/profitably to your place, then that is good luck for you. Not everyone is in that fortunaate position, especially in Indai, Africa, Australia etc.Also poorer people far from 'profitable' grid left in the lurch, or exploitatively exorbitant charges to extend grid power to them/excludes them. etc.
Didn't happen to us out on a farm in the middle of an empty (then, at least) North Dakota...
No, I think Sun is 1E30kg of substance which is 1E6 weaker than magnet. Math is rough, but it shows that effect is plausible: magnetic field can form ring of magnetic materials around star, so planets can form out of these rings, so we can give name "planet" only to bodies formed in such way.
Sorry, my English is far from perfect (I am from Ukraine, Eastern Europe).
Interesting vid, but I see problems;
1. Assuming the poles are top and bottom (not the edge) - since it shows the magnets
attracting at the edge, it means the polarity of one is opposed to the polarity of the other.
Our N pole points in the same direction of Sol - would be edge on repulsive.
2. Planets (small magnet) do not maintain even a small contact with a solid surface directing their motion.
3. It shows CW spin (of small magnet) rather than CCW (All planets except venus are ccw)
We should ask NASA to conduct experiment in space at ISS. I cannot answer these questions.
..funny that you would put Benni and Uncle Ira in the same..Evidence; sadly both refuse to prove claims & Uncle Ira spreads personal lies, a dark side triggered by my *only* offering a peaceful perspective re gkam's valid army experience, lucky you're not on receiving end of actual defamation, he claims
Ira is a middle age family man with good science literacy, a good sense of humour...Family fine, literacy maybe, though mostly impressions & tends to follow trends/moods, doesnt offer clarifying links & won't challenge obfuscators & went off beam re trying to tell me what I think of myself, I've no time for that. Humility selective,
.. Benni he is annoying and he has no science literacy ..Spot on
We should ask NASA to conduct experiment in space at ISS. I cannot answer these questions.
Don't ask NASA to check if the Sun is a ridiculously large piece of magnetised iron.
They might greet your question with uncontrollable laughter.
TechnoCreed offers.
Blah, blah and a bunch more blahs too.
Sun is ridiculously large magnet. See wikipedia for details.
Mike-Skippy. You are not that specialAs you keep saying, why am I so important to you ?
Just one more silly couyon on the interweb like all of usNo !
Now pull up your big boy panties...Why won't you apologise for lying & defaming me ?
As you keep saying, why am I so important to you ?
Not an engineer or physicist, so I have to ask those better trained than me -
How far away from sun and from earth do the respective field strengths equal eachother?
How many times have I come to you to be "mean and "nasty" to you? Let me give you a hint. ZERO...Bare faced LIE ! Evidence SHOWS you claimed
YOU keep coming back begging for moreNo !
Ooh, that would be the Lagrange points: https://en.wikipe...an_point
Problem is, they were worked out purely by applying gravitational theory. So they should be wrong. Funny thing is, when we put satellites in these areas, the buggers stay there! Whoda thunk it?
Now instead of stamping your feetsBeg Pardon - how so ?
and begging for apologiesNo !
..why you don't just put on your silly looking pointy capYou've said it a few times, I have no pointy caps, are you ill ?
Just wondering how magnetics and gravity might be inter-related... possibly whether they are different wavelengths of the same thing... Harmonics, maybe?There have been several lines of research for decades, All fields whether gravitational, magnetic or electric fall into Gauss' theorems re surfaces & divergence
..get the feeling gravity is more like an aggregation of all magnetic content..Entropic gravity closest
Before anyone says "prove it"No problem, you ask honest Q's (as 4 AGW) not barking claims
You are becoming unhinged and hystericalWhere is hysteria in reminding you its smart to be honourable & acknowledge you made huge mistakes making things up defaming me ?
What do you think you are going to gain by writing me all these silly postums?They are called reminders & appropriate requests you acknowledge your mistakes & be mature & apologising
Now why you don't just leave me out of your bratty rants and hysterical ravingNo. No hysteria, no ravings, you can end this easily, just apoloogise for lying ?
Send out another email or two about ol Ira-Skippy if that makes you feel better. You really are not helping your self...What emails do you keep going on about all the time ?
What emails do you keep going on about all the time ?
What pointy cap, are you ill, can't you focus on Science/Physics/useful links ?
XQuantumKnightX
Jan 20, 2016