No Sun or Moon

[littlemanpoet]

Originally Posted by alatar

Regardless of what I think of his conclusions and methods, I still found his ideas interesting. What's disconcerting is that, in order to 'prove' astronomical events from the past, such as Joshua's long day, Velikovsky has to bend and twist more established science such as the Law of Angular Momentum, which, as I showed my son by having him swing a bucket of water upside down. Same simple law that keeps that water in place keeps those planets in place as well; that's what makes the Law a law, and using ad hoc arguments to placate possibly mythological events and subvert this Law makes me wonder: is this new science or old hat?

Of course, a Law in science is nothing more nor less than a statement by humans about the way physical nature appears to work. And every Law of science must of necessity be considered in the context of discovered phenomena. So what seems to be a universal Law on Earth, or near Earth, may not be as universal as we think. For example, gravity as a constant, G, apparenlty is not constant at all outside our solar system; at least, that's what I've been reading lately. If G is not constant, what causes it not to be so? And how does that affect Angular Momentum? And there is also this phenomenon called plasma (named so by its discoverer because it seemed to have characteristics similar to human blood), which are fields of charged particles in space. In other words, there are fields of active electricity throughout the universe; in fact, 99.9% of the universe is made of plasma (electrically charged particles). Wherever this is the case, one will necessarily be confronted with magnetic fields (moving charged particles). Question: why are the popular descriptions of our solar system devoid of any of the effects of the magnetic fields and plasma fields that act like "veins and arteries" throughout the solar system, connecting the sun and all the planets? Why is the powerful action of these magnetic fields not factored in to our understanding of the solar system, not to mention the galaxy and the universe?

[alatar]

This thread is becoming the 'science blog.'

Originally Posted by littlemanpoet

Of course, a Law in science is nothing more nor less than a statement by humans about the way physical nature appears to work. And every Law of science must of necessity be considered in the context of discovered phenomena. So what seems to be a universal Law on Earth, or near Earth, may not be as universal as we think.

Exactly; much agreed. A 'Law' usually means that something is true in all observed instances; however, overturning a Law can and does happen (think Newton). This differs from divine revelation, which is believed to be true regardless of any negative evidence.

For example, gravity as a constant, G, apparenlty is not constant at all outside our solar system; at least, that's what I've been reading lately. If G is not constant, what causes it not to be so? And how does that affect Angular Momentum?

I don't know if that's true or not, but that's what makes it interesting. Science does not throw its hands up and says, "We can never know." It will start to chew away at that problem as it can, trying to gather data from different sources, hash out some hypotheses, and see where it goes from there. It will use the Law until an experiment shows it to be in error; better that than to start completely anew with no frame of reference.

And there is also this phenomenon called plasma (named so by its discoverer because it seemed to have characteristics similar to human blood), which are fields of charged particles in space.

You're not saying that plasma is in any way similar to blood?

• In medical terminology, plasma is the liquid part of blood or lymph, as distinguished from the suspended elements.

• In cosmology, plasma is an electrically neutral medium of positive and negative particles, as defined here.

Not that we're not made of "star stuff" (was that Sagan?), and not that we won't return to being stars again sometime in the future, but the only similarities between blood and plasma are that they consist of particles (but then again, isn't everything?).

In other words, there are fields of active electricity throughout the universe; in fact, 99.9% of the universe is made of plasma (electrically charged particles). Wherever this is the case, one will necessarily be confronted with magnetic fields (moving charged particles). Question: why are the popular descriptions of our solar system devoid of any of the effects of the magnetic fields and plasma fields that act like "veins and arteries" throughout the solar system, connecting the sun and all the planets? Why is the powerful action of these magnetic fields not factored in to our understanding of the solar system, not to mention the galaxy and the universe?

I don't know enough about the field (or pretty much any field) to know if these things are being factored in or not. The Chandra X-ray observatory seems to be looking into the issue regarding plasma and gravity, as indicated by these 'challenges to plasma atomic physics.'

Isn't the universe a glorious place? And yet we can feel something for characters created by a man who put them under a sun and moon possibly like our own.

[littlemanpoet]

Originally Posted by alatar

This thread is becoming the 'science blog.'

Not such a bad thing, eh?

Originally Posted by alatar

I don't know if that's true or not, but that's what makes it interesting. Science does not throw its hands up and says, "We can never know." It will start to chew away at that problem as it can, trying to gather data from different sources, hash out some hypotheses, and see where it goes from there. It will use the Law until an experiment shows it to be in error; better that than to start completely anew with no frame of reference.

What I meant be "throw everything out" was not actually to start from scratch. To ignore all the discoveries would be idiocy. The only thing (or set of things) I would like to see thrown out is the arrogance of not letting new ideas be funded and tested, even if they are 180 degrees opposite of those held by the current group in power. But it's just not like that. These things are always battles.

Originally Posted by alatar

You're not saying that plasma is in any way similar to blood?

Only by analogy. Here's the image I'm using to convey the point: plasma fields are equivalent to veins and arteries; the planets, asteroids, and moons are equivalent to pulses; the sun is equivalent to the heart; and the charged particles, electric currents, magnetic fields, and lightning strikes (that reach earth during thunderstorms for example) are equivalent to blood. The whole complex is meant to convey how the solar system (and the galaxy for that matter) is a physical unit (as the body is an organic unit) in which all phenomena affect each other.

Birkeland currents are huge electric fields that stretch across and through entire galaxies. When our solar system passes through a part of a galactic Birkeland current, it is going to have an effect on the solar system, indeed, on earth. What kind of effect? It depends upon the nature, intensity, etc., of the Birkeland current. Some physicists believe that Birkeland currents are responsible for sunspots (and thus solar wind and lightning storms on earth, which results in shifting weather patterns on earth, etc., etc.).

Originally Posted by alatar

Isn't the universe a glorious place? And yet we can feel something for characters created by a man who put them under a sun and moon possibly like our own.

Quite.

[alatar]

Originally Posted by littlemanpoet

Birkeland currents are huge electric fields that stretch across and through entire galaxies. When our solar system passes through a part of a galactic Birkeland current, it is going to have an effect on the solar system, indeed, on earth. What kind of effect? It depends upon the nature, intensity, etc., of the Birkeland current. Some physicists believe that Birkeland currents are responsible for sunspots (and thus solar wind and lightning storms on earth, which results in shifting weather patterns on earth, etc., etc.).

According to catastrophists, only a couple thousand years (or even less) is required for a planet's rotation and revolution to stabilize, because of how plasma fields and magnetic fields of the other bodies (relatively) near the planet function. For example, Venus is recorded by many ancient cultures as having been THE COMET per excellence, and now is a relatively stable planet (not a stable atmosphere mind you - that takes longer).

2) "Space probes show solar system is dented: astronomers long thought it be circular". Appaerently, Voyagers 1 & 2 have reached the end of the solar wind at different distances from the sun. The solar wind is charged particles moving away from the sun in every direction. Remember, moving charged particles = a plasma field. The scientists are saying "it's like a hand pushing it in". Perhaps it's an extra-solar system plasma field (Birkeland current?) pushing it in. This is precisely what I was talking about, how the solar system is electromagnetically affected by the galaxy.

My understanding of these Birkeland currents is that they exist and could 'tie' things together like the earth and sun. But the word 'tie' and like the hand-pushing metaphor above may be misconstrued. These electrical forces, relative to local gravity, are several orders of magnitude smaller. Something the size of Venus isn't going to be slowed down/stopped by something so weak. It would be like trying to slow down billiard balls as they bounce around a table with the photons from a flashlight (torch).

Ever think that the 'dragon in the sky' and the subsequent global amnesia that all of our ancestors had was really due to a Glaurung-type flying dragon? Maybe it was just playing some nasty game, but was slain before it was able to remove the curse, as with Niënor Níniel.

That's a rather clever explanation. Plausible too.

It's a pretty common reading of ancient history, and not just my sly observations, as can be read here.

[Bêthberry]

Originally Posted by alatar

Ever think that the 'dragon in the sky' and the subsequent global amnesia that all of our ancestors had was really due to a Glaurung-type flying dragon? Maybe it was just playing some nasty game, but was slain before it was able to remove the curse, as with Niënor Níniel.

I've always considered Tolkien's love affair with dragons--including here his discussion of his love in OFS--as an example of how we are hard wired to fight or flee sabre toothed tigers. They may no longer exist, but we still invent them and go to great measure to fight them.

Not sure if this has anything to do with sun or moon.

[alatar]

Originally Posted by Bêthberry

I've always considered Tolkien's love affair with dragons--including here his discussion of his love in OFS--as an example of how we are hard wired to fight or flee sabre toothed tigers. They may no longer exist, but we still invent them and go to great measure to fight them.

I think that you mean 'snakes.' When was the last time you encountered a dangerous/poisonous snake? Bet that the odds are higher that you'll have a fatal encounter with a bus/lorry/motor car than with a small reptile, yet more people fear snakes than large land-roving machines.

Not sure if this has anything to do with sun or moon.

I'm sure that it does... Sabre-teeth look like sickle moons.

[littlemanpoet]

Originally Posted by alatar

My understanding of these Birkeland currents is that they exist and could 'tie' things together like the earth and sun. But the word 'tie' and like the hand-pushing metaphor above may be misconstrued. These electrical forces, relative to local gravity, are several orders of magnitude smaller. Something the size of Venus isn't going to be slowed down/stopped by something so weak. It would be like trying to slow down billiard balls as they bounce around a table with the photons from a flashlight (torch).

Please take this in the best sense, for so I mean it: could it be that you suffer from a failure of imagination? We are used to electrical currents of relatively minimal voltage. Then there is lightning. Imagine lightning strikes between planets that make lightning strikes in Earth's thunderstorms look like minor pricks. Then suppose there is electrical activity (99% of the universe is made of electrically charged particles) taking place in the formation of stars that makes lightning that flashes between planets look like static electricity shocks. Such activity would have a magnitude far exceeding that of gravity, which is in fact the weakest of the 4 known forces.

[alatar]

Originally Posted by littlemanpoet

Please take this in the best sense, for so I mean it: could it be that you suffer from a failure of imagination?

Very probably; or at least in regards to this thread. Science observes what is, not what we 'want it to be.' Keep in mind who's the poet in this discussion, and whose imagination is sparking my own.

We are used to electrical currents of relatively minimal voltage. Then there is lightning. Imagine lightning strikes between planets that make lightning strikes in Earth's thunderstorms look like minor pricks. Then suppose there is electrical activity (99% of the universe is made of electrically charged particles) taking place in the formation of stars that makes lightning that flashes between planets look like static electricity shocks. Such activity would have a magnitude far exceeding that of gravity, which is in fact the weakest of the 4 known forces.

Sorry; I'm too limited. Suppose there are these megalightning strikes between planets, suns, etc. Do they work in concert to maintain the orbit of the planets - some pushing one way, some pushing the opposite so that nothing moves closer or away from the sun?

And I keep tripping over that F=ma equation I learned sometime back (force = mass times acceleration). If we assume that the mass of Venus is constant, then to move it from the outer to the inner part of the solar system is going to take some big-time F to get the ball rolling, and then again to get it to stop, especially if we have only so much time to do this in. More time, and we can accelerate/decelerate more slowly, and so less force is required (if I have that right). But we have only a few thousand years. So if this big force exists, why haven't we seen any large planet-sized bodies move in the last few hundred years?

Doesn't it ever bother anyone that all of the fun miracles and myths occurred when the data resolution was less than we have today? Why do those dragons live only on the edges of maps?

[littlemanpoet]

Originally Posted by alatar

Very probably; or at least in regards to this thread. Science observes what is, not what we 'want it to be.' Keep in mind who's the poet in this discussion, and whose imagination is sparking my own.

Ah, but any poet worth his salt is dealing in words, which in the Greek = logos which is the same root word from which we derive logic. A good poet has to be a good logician. The same is true of a good composer. In other words, anybody with a reasonably educated intelligence can think and talk about scientific phenomena profitably. All it takes is informing oneself.

Originally Posted by alatar

Sorry; I'm too limited. Suppose there are these megalightning strikes between planets, suns, etc. Do they work in concert to maintain the orbit of the planets - some pushing one way, some pushing the opposite so that nothing moves closer or away from the sun?

Well, I misled you and myself by concentrating on the magnitude of lightning bolts. The lightning bolts themselves are only the results of things going on in plasma fields. It's all about interaction of various electrically charged bodies in space, depending upon their size, the intensity of their electrical charge, etc.

Originally Posted by alatar

And I keep tripping over that F=ma equation I learned sometime back (force = mass times acceleration). If we assume that the mass of Venus is constant, then to move it from the outer to the inner part of the solar system is going to take some big-time F to get the ball rolling, and then again to get it to stop, especially if we have only so much time to do this in. More time, and we can accelerate/decelerate more slowly, and so less force is required (if I have that right). But we have only a few thousand years. So if this big force exists, why haven't we seen any large planet-sized bodies move in the last few hundred years?

There's no doubt that it exists. The question is, why is it not being studied? We might find out a lot of things that we currently are not aware of if we were to admit that this force exists on a galactic scale. But yeah, it would be "fun" (in a strange way) if a planet-sized body was seen in a chaotic path through the sky (but I wouldn't want its journey to affect earth). Then again, there are comets. Though not so large, these are chaotic "planets" (planet = wandering star in Greek); if they were acknowledged to be, not balls of ice, but large chunks of rock with magnetic charges, what might be learned from them?

Originally Posted by alatar

Doesn't it ever bother anyone that all of the fun miracles and myths occurred when the data resolution was less than we have today? Why do those dragons live only on the edges of maps?

Yes. It does. Which is why I can't get enough of studying them.

[Bêthberry]

Originally Posted by alatar

Doesn't it ever bother anyone that all of the fun miracles and myths occurred when the data resolution was less than we have today? Why do those dragons live only on the edges of maps?

hmmm. Because map makers have accepted the fight/flight view of sabre toothed tigers--which are better than snakes, as people do have some desire to meet dragons, but few desire to meet snakes--and overlooked the third option which some species show, freeze, which suggests there is some knowledge of said dragons.

As for where did the light came from, I've always liked the claim that, after all, our material bodies are, on the atomic/molecular level, really just energy. Energy produces sound, which leads to music, and growth, which leads to fecundity or physical development.

Once again, sorry to intrude upon your science versus myth debate with something aside from your points. But what can I say? Some of my best friends are scientists.

[Eönwë]

Originally Posted by littlemanpoet

And there is also this phenomenon called plasma (named so by its discoverer because it seemed to have characteristics similar to human blood), which are fields of charged particles in space. In other words, there are fields of active electricity throughout the universe; in fact, 99.9% of the universe is made of plasma (electrically charged particles). Wherever this is the case, one will necessarily be confronted with magnetic fields (moving charged particles). Question: why are the popular descriptions of our solar system devoid of any of the effects of the magnetic fields and plasma fields that act like "veins and arteries" throughout the solar system, connecting the sun and all the planets? Why is the powerful action of these magnetic fields not factored in to our understanding of the solar system, not to mention the galaxy and the universe?

Well, if we're are going back to mythologies, don't many ancient religions talk about the "cosmic waters" and things to that effect?

[littlemanpoet]

Originally Posted by Eönwë

Well, if we're are going back to mythologies, don't many ancient religions talk about the "cosmic waters" and things to that effect?

Makes you wonder what they saw. The ancients believed that the sky was made of stone and that now and then a piece of it fell to earth (meteorites); and that the planets hung in their own spheres, some closer some farther away; and that Saturn was the sphere of the 7th heaven, the highest; and yes, ancient cultures do talk about the waters above; even the Bible refers to the waters above and the waters below the firmament. Wonder what they saw, to think there was so much water in the sky? And don't tell me it was just the clouds.

[alatar]

Originally Posted by littlemanpoet

Makes you wonder what they saw. The ancients believed that the sky was made of stone and that now and then a piece of it fell to earth (meteorites); and that the planets hung in their own spheres, some closer some farther away; and that Saturn was the sphere of the 7th heaven, the highest; and yes, ancient cultures do talk about the waters above; even the Bible refers to the waters above and the waters below the firmament. Wonder what they saw, to think there was so much water in the sky? And don't tell me it was just the clouds.

Or was it that they knew nothing of the cycling of water? And, without the evidence of big buckets rising to the heavens or the appearance of a large sprinkling can or garden hose, they just figured that all of the water must have already been up there, and periodically God or the gods opened windows and let it pour though. Not much more mysterious than that.

No explanation is given for placing the event at 4 billion years in the past. I wonder if it's to keep the basic uniformitarian structure in place in spite of the evidence? And I wonder if that's because they want to keep up the illusion of safety from catastrophe in our own time?

I've asked this question a few times in different ways to JPL's online computerized scientist, but he was clueless (next I'm going to ask him about Balrog's wings...) regarding the age of the impact. Probably programmed with the uniformitarian code already. My uneducated guess is that it has to do with the togography and spin of the planet. More recent craters are more 'jaggy - rough,' and spew a bunch of particulate matter into the atmosphere. The Mars impact is smooth. Also, an impact with an object the size of the planet (or planetoid) Pluto surely would make Mars wobble on its axis, which it no longer does. Guess that 3.9 billion years lets you recover from such violence.

That and there is evidence of volcanoes forming after the impact.

[littlemanpoet]

Originally Posted by alatar

Or was it that they knew nothing of the cycling of water? And, without the evidence of big buckets rising to the heavens or the appearance of a large sprinkling can or garden hose, they just figured that all of the water must have already been up there, and periodically God or the gods opened windows and let it pour though. Not much more mysterious than that.

That's a rather clever explanation. Plausible too.

Originally Posted by alatar

My uneducated guess is that it has to do with the togography and spin of the planet. More recent craters are more 'jaggy - rough,' and spew a bunch of particulate matter into the atmosphere. The Mars impact is smooth. Also, an impact with an object the size of the planet (or planetoid) Pluto surely would make Mars wobble on its axis, which it no longer does. Guess that 3.9 billion years lets you recover from such violence.

According to catastrophists, only a couple thousand years (or even less) is required for a planet's rotation and revolution to stabilize, because of how plasma fields and magnetic fields of the other bodies (relatively) near the planet function. For example, Venus is recorded by many ancient cultures as having been THE COMET per excellence, and now is a relatively stable planet (not a stable atmosphere mind you - that takes longer).