Donate Bitcoin

Donate Paypal


PeakOil is You

PeakOil is You

THE Solar System Thread (merged)

Re: Current Model of Solar System Incorrect?

Unread postby vision-master » Tue 21 Aug 2012, 14:47:45

Yeah, most planetary systems ARE binary star systems.

Our Solar System is a huge Vortex with the Planets following the Sun, not orbiting it as quackademicians have claimed for several hundred years. Dr. Bhat has proved the quackademicians of astronomy are dead wrong with their goofy theories about the Cosmos. They are in fact so lost it is not possible to explain in this small box, just how deep into the pit these quacks have taken humanity so that they may have a job, status and a false sense of knowledge. Their absurd theories are guesses not knowledge. Quackademic astronomy is officially dead!

Vortex Solar System, The Dynamic Helical Trajectories of Sun and Planets
vision-master
 

Re: Current Model of Solar System Incorrect?

Unread postby steam_cannon » Tue 21 Aug 2012, 15:12:17

In my opinion the moderators should delete this thread for lack of brain function and draining relevance from peakoil.com

That said...

vision-master wrote:It this model of our solar system BS?
No it's the well studied and confirmable science of astronomy.

vision-master wrote:Do the Planets really circle around the Sun in a nice orderly plane?
Orderly circles? They travel in ellipses, predictable though imperfect circular orbits. This is well studied.

vision-master wrote:Does the Sun really just sit static in the Milky Way?
No the star we call the sun and planets are moving with the other stars in a branch of the the larger star cluster we call the milky way.

Beery1 wrote:We've known for decades that this is not the case.
More specifically elliptical orbits were confirmed hundreds of years ago by Johannes Kepler (1571-1630) using the highly accurate volumes of data collected by Tycho Brahe (1546-1601) and the foundation for collecting that data was laid by Nikolaus Copernicus (1473-1543).
"The multiplication force of technology on cognitive differences is massive." -Jordan Peterson
User avatar
steam_cannon
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 2859
Joined: Thu 28 Dec 2006, 04:00:00
Location: MA

Re: Current Model of Solar System Incorrect?

Unread postby vision-master » Tue 21 Aug 2012, 16:16:45

In my opinion the moderators should delete this thread for lack of brain function and draining relevance from peakoil.com


So you are lacking in brain function?

Remember - this thread is Open Topic Discussion
Post all non-peak oil news here. The Open Forum is for other topics that may be of interest or benefit to our members.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The rising of Sirius, the brightest star in the heavens and important to Egyptians as the signal for the annual flooding of the Nile, was assumed by the French physicists to move with relation to the sun as do the constellations of the zodiac. It does not, however, as we see here.
Image
The curved line dividing the lit from the dark regions represents the horizon near Dendera. The blue lines show the locations of the ecliptic with respect to the horizon at five helical risings separated by hundreds of years. The vernal points mark the equinoxes at these times, and the circled numbers on the lower right indicate the corresponding positions of Sirius. Sirius remains about the same distance from the equinoxes—and so from the solstices— throughout these many centuries, despite precession.

http://binaryresearchinstitute.org/srg/ ... ntro.shtml
vision-master
 

Re: Current Model of Solar System Incorrect?

Unread postby dissident » Tue 21 Aug 2012, 16:36:06

Beery1 wrote:
dissident wrote:
vision-master wrote:You are not going to get any planetary system around binary star systems...


That's weird, because I just read of just such a planet having been found:

http://www.space.com/12963-tatooine-pla ... r-16b.html


Nothing says it is a stable planetary system. Eventually this Jupiter sized object will be ejected. They have observed such ejections too. This little blurb is full of Star Wars references and very few facts, such as how old is this binary star system? Also, good luck finding any planets that are not the single gas giant this binary has in orbit.
dissident
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 6458
Joined: Sat 08 Apr 2006, 03:00:00

Re: Current Model of Solar System Incorrect?

Unread postby vision-master » Tue 21 Aug 2012, 16:52:16

The BIG BANG is BS... Never happened, nothing more than a teenage sexual fantasy. :)
vision-master
 

Re: Current Model of Solar System Incorrect?

Unread postby AgentR11 » Tue 21 Aug 2012, 17:27:48

vision-master wrote:Do the Planets really circle around the Sun in a nice orderly plane?


Circle? No.
Plane? No.
Orderly? Only vaguely.

Ok. So where did you get this un-model of our solar system with which you decided to throw a rant party for?

Does the Sun really just sit static in the Milky Way?


The sun (and its orbiting debris) is zooming at LUDICROUS SPEED in an orbit within the Milky Way. Nothing static or sitting about it.

Things only seem static to our mortal eyes because we see such a minute slice of the picture during our entire lifetime.
Yes we are, as we are,
And so shall we remain,
Until the end.
AgentR11
Light Sweet Crude
Light Sweet Crude
 
Posts: 6357
Joined: Tue 22 Mar 2011, 09:15:51
Location: East Texas

Re: Current Model of Solar System Incorrect?

Unread postby vision-master » Tue 21 Aug 2012, 17:52:00

AgentR11 wrote:
Circle? No.
Plane? No.
Orderly? Only vaguely.

Ok. So where did you get this un-model of our solar system with which you decided to throw a rant party for?


American Freedom Radio. :)
vision-master
 

Re: Current Model of Solar System Incorrect?

Unread postby seenmostofit » Tue 21 Aug 2012, 19:18:34

vision-master wrote:So you are lacking in brain function?


Not him.

vision-master wrote:Remember - this thread is Open Topic Discussion
Post all non-peak oil news here. The Open Forum is for other topics that may be of interest or benefit to our members.


Apparently you fail the following criteria, if the response to your post is any indication. May we suggest a crackpot astrology site (with tales of Atlantis and alien designed pyramids and numberology thrown in for fun) where opinions posted in a bong induced haze are the norm, and might be of interest or benefit?
seenmostofit
Permanently Banned
 
Posts: 399
Joined: Mon 02 Apr 2012, 12:19:50

Re: Current Model of Solar System Incorrect?

Unread postby vision-master » Tue 21 Aug 2012, 19:37:36

Crackpot?

Image

Why does Venus rotate clockwise?

Image
vision-master
 

Re: Current Model of Solar System Incorrect?

Unread postby seenmostofit » Tue 21 Aug 2012, 19:50:44

vision-master wrote:Crackpot?


Sure. We've all seen the type, looking for (and finding) Atlantis around every corner, reptilian overlords, Nirubu and/or Planet X, the healing powers of the pyramids, that sort of stuff.
seenmostofit
Permanently Banned
 
Posts: 399
Joined: Mon 02 Apr 2012, 12:19:50

Re: Current Model of Solar System Incorrect?

Unread postby Beery1 » Tue 21 Aug 2012, 20:17:34

dissident wrote:Nothing says it is a stable planetary system.


Nothing says it isn't either.

Eventually this Jupiter sized object will be ejected. They have observed such ejections too.


When? How exactly would they witness such an ejection? How would they confirm it?

This little blurb is full of Star Wars references and very few facts


That's because it's just a fluff article. But I assure you, the science is there. This planet you claim to be impossible exists, whether you like it or not.

such as how old is this binary star system?


I dunno. Maybe it popped into existence 20 years ago, or maybe it's been around for billions of years. How would the age of the system have any bearing on whether it has a planet or not. It has a planet. This has been confirmed.

Also, good luck finding any planets that are not the single gas giant this binary has in orbit.


So? I hate to burst your bubble, but finding any extra-solar planet much smaller than Jupiter is virtually impossible with our current technology. And don't try to deflect the discussion away from the fact that you claimed that planets couldn't orbit a binary star.

In short, I call bullshit. How about you try posting on subjects you know something about?
"I'm gonna have to ask you boys to stop raping our doctor."
Beery1
Tar Sands
Tar Sands
 
Posts: 690
Joined: Tue 17 Jan 2012, 21:31:15

Re: Current Model of Solar System Incorrect?

Unread postby Laromi » Wed 22 Aug 2012, 05:24:22

You mean something like a sociological uncooked haggis? Oh, goody. :shock: :lol:
Laromi
Peat
Peat
 
Posts: 196
Joined: Sun 15 Feb 2009, 00:07:25

Re: Current Model of Solar System Incorrect?

Unread postby dissident » Wed 22 Aug 2012, 13:22:30

Beery1 wrote:Nothing says it isn't either.


Typical internet amateur blather. I can clearly see you have never taken any university level courses in dynamical systems theory. The three body problem does not have enough invariants to allow orbit solutions where you can establish stability bounds. So small perturbations can and do build up into large amplitude disturbances.

When? How exactly would they witness such an ejection? How would they confirm it?


According to you planets can form independent of stellar formation. Please publish a paper on the subject, you will be famous.

I dunno.


Sums it up accurately.


So? I hate to burst your bubble, but finding any extra-solar planet much smaller than Jupiter is virtually impossible with our current technology. And don't try to deflect the discussion away from the fact that you claimed that planets couldn't orbit a binary star.


Totally irrelevant to binary stars! They are finding rocky planets around single stars and not a single one around
a binary system. Note that there is no particular reason why they can't. They can track barycenter anomalies for binary star systems as well.

In short, I call bullshit. How about you try posting on subjects you know something about?


Get an education.
Last edited by dissident on Wed 22 Aug 2012, 13:54:35, edited 1 time in total.
dissident
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 6458
Joined: Sat 08 Apr 2006, 03:00:00

Re: Current Model of Solar System Incorrect?

Unread postby dissident » Wed 22 Aug 2012, 13:51:49

Lecture notes (PDF)

The above is for people who don't get their education from sci-fi.

Binary + planet stability (PDF)

This paper identifies the stability limits for a small mass planet around a binary star system. It has been known for centuries that the three body problem admits stable orbit solutions if the third body has a very small (infinitesimal) mass (i.e. that it does not significantly disturb the two dominant masses). This paper extends to the case of a small but finite mass.

The three body problem where all three bodies are similar in mass is not stable. That does not mean that transient orbital states do not exist. So the Kepler-16 system is not some sort of paradox. The references to Tatooine are simply inane. If you tried to add even a small mass planet to the Kepler-16 system it would be totally unstable. The very existence of a pseudo-stable orbit for the gas giant implies the absence of other planets in the system.
dissident
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 6458
Joined: Sat 08 Apr 2006, 03:00:00

Re: Current Model of Solar System Incorrect?

Unread postby vision-master » Wed 22 Aug 2012, 14:27:29

NASA spots first planet in binary star system
NASA's Kepler space telescope, searching for planets around distant suns, has discovered a Saturn-size world orbiting two stars 200 light years from Earth, a long-sought "circumbinary" planet reminiscent of the fictional world Tatooine in the Star Wars saga.

"This is the first definitive detection of a circumbinary planet and the best example we have of a Tatooine-type world," said Laurance Doyle, a researcher at the SETI Institute's Carl Sagan Center for the Study of Life in the Universe and lead author of a paper in the journal Science describing the discovery.
vision-master
 

Re: Current Model of Solar System Incorrect?

Unread postby Beery1 » Wed 29 Aug 2012, 09:01:48

NASA chips in with a binary with multiple planets. So... yeah.

http://www.nasa.gov/home/hqnews/2012/au ... inary.html

"NASA's Kepler mission has discovered multiple transiting planets orbiting two suns for the first time. The system, known as a circumbinary planetary system, is 4,900 light-years from Earth in the constellation Cygnus.

Coming less than a year after the announcement of the first circumbinary planet, Kepler-16b, this discovery proves that more than one planet can form and persist in the stressful realm of a binary star. The discovery demonstrates the diversity of planetary systems in our galaxy."

But I'm assured that's impossible. Maybe someone should shoot an email off to NASA.
"I'm gonna have to ask you boys to stop raping our doctor."
Beery1
Tar Sands
Tar Sands
 
Posts: 690
Joined: Tue 17 Jan 2012, 21:31:15

Re: Current Model of Solar System Incorrect?

Unread postby Beery1 » Wed 29 Aug 2012, 09:11:25

dissident wrote:If you tried to add even a small mass planet to the Kepler-16 system it would be totally unstable. The very existence of a pseudo-stable orbit for the gas giant implies the absence of other planets in the system.


Oh now you're changing the rules as you go along: now you're talking about 'small mass planets' and 'instability'. Let's backtrack for a second. You said:

dissident wrote:You are not going to get any planetary system around binary star systems.


You didn't say "Well gas giants might exists... in a very unstable orbit... for a bit... " You said no planets around binary stars. They've now found three.

It's okay to admit that you're wrong. Hell, I don't even care that you're wrong. I don't even care that you call me uneducated even though NASA seems to be proving you wrong on that too. But I will care if you aren't mature enough to admit that you're wrong. An apology would be nice too, but I'm a realist.
"I'm gonna have to ask you boys to stop raping our doctor."
Beery1
Tar Sands
Tar Sands
 
Posts: 690
Joined: Tue 17 Jan 2012, 21:31:15

Re: Dwarf Planet

Unread postby Tanada » Wed 21 Nov 2012, 16:34:33

basketballjones wrote:the scientists who are in the 'what constitutes' a planet camp are probably just a bit green that they didn't discover this planet :)

It's larger than pluto which has been classified a planet for 70+ years.


New observation results have been released.

Astronomers have obtained an important first look at the dwarf planet Makemake - finding it has no atmosphere.

One of five such dwarfs in our Solar System including former planet Pluto, Makemake had until now eluded study.

But in April 2011, it passed between the Earth and a distant star, and astronomers used seven telescopes to study how the star's light was changed.

A report in Nature outlines how they unpicked Makemake's size, lack of atmosphere, and even its density.

Few battles in the astronomy community are as fierce as the one surrounding the demotion of the planet Pluto from planet status in 2006 to one of what the International Astronomical Union then dubbed "dwarf planets".

Pluto shares the category with four other little worlds: Ceres, Haumea, Eris and Makemake.


More at http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-20426114
Alfred Tennyson wrote:We are not now that strength which in old days
Moved earth and heaven, that which we are, we are;
One equal temper of heroic hearts,
Made weak by time and fate, but strong in will
To strive, to seek, to find, and not to yield.
User avatar
Tanada
Site Admin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 17050
Joined: Thu 28 Apr 2005, 03:00:00
Location: South West shore Lake Erie, OH, USA

Re: THE Solar System Thread (merged)

Unread postby vision-master » Wed 21 Nov 2012, 16:51:50

Select the correct picture?

Image

Image
vision-master
 

Re: THE Solar System Thread (merged)

Unread postby AgentR11 » Wed 21 Nov 2012, 18:18:04

Since the scales are broken on both images, it is impossible to select between the two, and in fact, given arbitrarily selected scaling factors on select axis.. the two images are the same.


nb... the top one is prettier.
Yes we are, as we are,
And so shall we remain,
Until the end.
AgentR11
Light Sweet Crude
Light Sweet Crude
 
Posts: 6357
Joined: Tue 22 Mar 2011, 09:15:51
Location: East Texas

PreviousNext

Return to Environment, Weather & Climate

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 74 guests