| Author |
 Topic  |
|
Peter Nielsen
Australia
183 Posts |
|
|
Peter Nielsen
Australia
183 Posts |
|
|
tvanflandern
USA
2793 Posts |
 Posted - 19 Jun 2005 : 07:19:17
|
quote:
Originally posted by Peter Nielsen
Such "close to zero" values would also be consistent with the theory just referred to in this topic because ... the Sun is currently in an extreme inner position of the local spiral arm of the Galactic System, consistent with virtually zero transverse velocity.
On its face, this claim appears to be nonsensical. There is a continuum of stars around the Sun at all distances for several kiloparsecs in every direction, showing that the Sun is not at any "extreme inner position". Moreover, the mean speed of these stars relative to the Sun is 25 km/s, which is a very high relative energy. And the laws of dynamics forbid 2-body capture, so comets cannot arise from outside the Sun's gravitational sphere of influence.
Can you explain your meaning in the light of these considerations?
Then there is the list of over 100 lines of evidence in chapter 11 of Dark Matter, Missing Planets and New Comets showing that the EPH, and only that theory, can explain the data without ad hoc helper hypotheses. -|Tom|-
[still on travel until end of June] |
 |
|
|
Peter Nielsen
Australia
183 Posts |
Posted - 20 Jun 2005 : 01:41:02
|
Dear Tom,
I have enormous respect for Astronomy and other Science, including dissident Science, for all the measurements made and organised so impressively . . .
As a physicist, I must say that it is not quite true that "the laws of dynamics forbid 2-body capture". In any case, when we are talking about putative "Sosah" (Stellar Oscillations across Spiral Arms Hypothesis) cometary capture, the idea of comets being swept up from across the local spiral arm in the path of the Sun, the Solar System is far from being a 2-body system.
The gravitational slingshot effect which makes 2-body capture unlikely, is complicated for objects as small as comets by the slingshot effects of the Solar System's planets, especially its "gas giants". Sosah-style cometary capture thus becomes much more likely.
This would be especially so for the eph-candidate comets observed by astronomers having "energy parameter values close to zero, the threshold of gravitational escape . . ."
Tellingly, while this observation has been used to corroborate eph, it is very much a side issue for Sosah, or my S1, S2, even eph in my mutualistic explanation at . . . http://metaresearch.org/msgboard/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=691 and
http://metaresearch.org/msgboard/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=692
I am discussing it on this MessageBoard, because of such apparent mutualities, which brings me to: The Solar System's cometary capture cross-section would be much larger for the "slow" comets predicted by eph and actually observed, than the generally faster comets that Sosah is compatible with . . .
An analogous phenomenon occurs in nuclear reactors: A "moderator" (usually water or heavy water) is used to slow "fast" neutrons down. Neutron collision cross-sections are thus increased and this increases nuclear reaction rates.
Has this biasing phenomenon been taken into account? . . . If such bias has not been accounted for, then cometary observations of "energy parameter values close to zero, the threshold of gravitational escape . . ." would be exagerrations . . .
The trajectories of slow eph-candidate comets are bent towards the Sun across a huge cross-section, to be so seen while faster comets, their trajectories much less attracted towards the Sun, generally pass more quickly, much further away unseen . . .
Sosah's spiral arm oscillations are transverse, so the fact that the "mean speed of . . . stars relative to the Sun is 25 km/s" may not be relevant, particularly because the volume referred to is "several kiloparsecs in every direction", hardly the local region.
As for "the Sun's position at the inner edge of the Orion spiral arm ...", this again is hardly critical, and I do not pretend to be an astronomer. I got this preceding quote amongst similar quotes by Googling, at
www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread75002/pg1 - 99k
I got the idea originally from Sosah's http://mb-soft.com/public/extinct.html :
". . . We happen to currently be near the inner edge of the Arm we are in, so there are a lot of nearby stars all gravitationally pulling us toward them toward the centerline of the Arm . . ."
Peter Nielsen
Email: uusi@hotkey.net.au
Post: 12 View St, Sandy Bay 7005, Australia
|
|
|
|
Jim
1607 Posts |
Posted - 20 Jun 2005 : 19:21:43
|
| What is the law that forbids two body capture? Is there an equation that show how this process of forbiden capture plays out? What kind of capture is allowed? |
|
|
|
Peter Nielsen
Australia
183 Posts |
Posted - 21 Jun 2005 : 21:46:23
|
I just now Googled on '"two body capture" forbids' and this was all that came up, a nuclear physics reference: physics.ut.ac.ir/~bayegan/publications/article1.pdf
In this paper, "Forbids" refers to the Quantum Mechanical Pauli Exclusion Principle, not at all relevant to Astronomy.
"Forbids" is too strong a word for any dynamical use beyond Quantum Mechanics, relevant to the extremely small . . . I was quoting you in my last post, and assuming you were alluding to the gravitational Slingshot Effect, which confounds two body capture in astronomical contexts . . .
The particles fired at atoms in Rutherford's historic experiment were similarly Slingshot Effect-ed. They were strongly scattered in all directions, proving that atoms are mostly empty space instead of "plum puddings". Atoms were thus obviously nucleii surrounded by thin clouds of electrons.
The electrons had little effect on projectile trajectories because they were 1,000s of times smaller than projectile and target nuclear particles, nucleii.
In the case of Solar System cometary capture, the collisional scenario is very different. The relevant Physics is Newtonian, worked out incrementally, in little steps by computers, the Relativistic effects being negligible:
The Solar System's capture cross-section is much larger to planetary-sized cometary "projectiles" than the Solar cross-section, because of strong interactions between comets and planets. Also, as explained in my last post, there is an additional effect relevant to capture:
More easily deflected than fast comets, slow comets would have greater capture cross-sections, just as in nuclear interactions, slow neutrons have greater fusion/fission cross-sections than fast neutrons.
This speed dependence of cometary capture probabilities would give rise to an important observational bias; slow comets would be more observable than fast comets.
Has this bias been fully accounted for by astronomers? . . . A well-meant, important question relevant to eph, Sosah, S1-2 . . .
Peter Nielsen
Email: uusi@hotkey.net.au
Post: 12 View St, Sandy Bay 7005, Australia
|
|
|
|
Jim
1607 Posts |
Posted - 22 Jun 2005 : 17:08:48
|
| There seems to be two laws being used here-one law forbids two body capture and the other law permits the capture. TVF said the law of dynamics forbids the capture and Peter says the law permits it. I don't know what either law is. Can you tell me what laws are cited? |
|
|
|
Peter Nielsen
Australia
183 Posts |
Posted - 22 Jun 2005 : 20:04:02
|
Loss of energy, mostly to impact, permits cometary capture, whenever velocity thus falls below the escape velocity. Escape velocity will be maintained by any falling body so long as it loses no energy to such things as impact, electric currents (dynamo effect), and so on.
In the case of nuclear reactions, impact often leads to nuclear fission, or fusion of nucleii with other nuclear particles, mostly neutrons or other nucleii.
In the case of comets, the most conspicuous effects of impacts would be fission, fusion analogs. Hence my impact explanations of S1, S2 at http://metaresearch.org/msgboard/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=692
So one could say that the Law of Conservation of Energy forbids two body capture, so long as bodies fall freely, which they nearly always do . . .
Such use of "forbids" does not Google, presumably because Newtonian Physics is generally considered commonsensical. Fundamentalist terms such as "forbid" are seen as appropriate only in non-commonsensical Quantum Mechanics (QM). Even Relativity and String Theory seem sensible after QM.
I was wrong about something I wrote earlier: While "the particles fired at atoms in Rutherford's historic experiment were . . . strongly scattered in all directions", proving that atoms are mostly empty space, they were not: "similarly Slingshot Effect-ed". Both projectile and target nucleii were repulsively positively charged.
Peter Nielsen
Email: uusi@hotkey.net.au
Post: 12 View St, Sandy Bay 7005, Australia
|
|
|
|
Jim
1607 Posts |
Posted - 24 Jun 2005 : 12:05:48
|
| Since I am trying to understand gravity the introduction of other forces only muddles me more than normal. If we can stay with gravity for a long enough time to clear up one point it would be great. The point is how a capture can be made by two bodies and it seems the capture by one body is not clearly described. You say a comet will excape a gravity field if the velocity of the comet is above excape velocity. It seems to me this is not correct because a body aimed correctly will crash into the center of the gravity field where a mass of some kind will be located. That crash will stop the comet assuming it is a small mass comet. So, how do you explain if the comet is above the excape velocity to begin with? Going beyond that exact aim a slightly off the mark aim can be altered by a third body and capture will result. It seems to me there are a lot of ways for capture to occur even if TVF says it defys dynamic laws. |
|
|
|
Peter Nielsen
Australia
183 Posts |
Posted - 25 Jun 2005 : 08:22:44
|
Jim,
Capture does not happen easily because it requires loss of energy, most often to impact, while space is almost entirely empty. Nearly all bodies fall freely without ever being captured, around stars, across spiral arms, around galaxy centres and so on.
Note consistency of my "Loss of energy, mostly to impact, permits cometary capture, whenever velocity thus falls below the escape velocity . . ." with your impacting "body . . . crash[ing] into the center of the gravity field where a mass of some kind . . . will stop the comet, assuming it is a small mass comet."
Most Sosah proto-comets would approach the Sun fast, with more than escape velocity. They would be deflected hyperbolically, usually only slightly, and continue past the Sun, often unseen by astonomers.
"Slow" Sosah proto-comets' speeds relative to the Sun would be close to escape velocity. Their trajectories would be almost parabolic, with the Sun at the focus of the parabola. Many of these slow proto-comets would be seen as new comets. Many of their orbits would intersect the Solar System, possibly a planet or asteroid, possibly even the Sun, depending on chance, your "aim", and so on.
Such cometary orbit intersections with asteroids or planets would manifest as explosive impacts. Hence my S1, S2 at http://metaresearch.org/msgboard/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=692 .
Some explosion fragments would escape the Sun. Others would become new comets or asteroids in elliptical orbits, with the Sun at one of the foci. The evidence that this and/or other forms of planetary explosion have been happening is explained in TVF's eph . . .
An easy way to imagine escape and orbital velocities: A super cannon atop Mount Everest shoots horizontally. Assuming no atmosphere, the projectile has to exceed 5 miles per sec to orbit the Earth, 7 miles per sec to escape the Earth, anything less and it orbits or falls to Earth.
In reality, such projectiles would impact with the atmosphere and explode. A projectile fired at greater than the escape velocity would thus in fact remain captured, because of its loss of energy upon impacting the atmosphere.
Peter Nielsen
Email: uusi@hotkey.net.au
Post: 12 View St, Sandy Bay 7005, Australia
|
|
|
|
Jim
1607 Posts |
Posted - 27 Jun 2005 : 12:10:43
|
| If you do the math you will find the fast or slow speed of approch will result in a comet being very near excape the same speed as it nears a star because of acceleration. In the real universe all the mass is found in bits we call atoms,dust,stars and in clumps we call galaxies and all are moving at about the same speed in patterns we call spirals or whatever. So, a comet if it comes from some place outside the solar system it is coming into the gravity system of the sun at a speed above the excape velocity of the sun's gravity and will slow down relative to the excape velocity as it nears the sun. It seems to me capture is a likely outcome as the comet nears the sun and that can and does happen in thr real universe. I know models say it cannot happen but that onlt means the model is in need of repair. |
|
|
|
tvanflandern
USA
2793 Posts |
Posted - 02 Jul 2005 : 11:58:17
|
quote:
Originally posted by Peter Nielsen
Peter Nielsen wrote: As a physicist, I must say that it is not quite true that "the laws of dynamics forbid 2-body capture".
The exact statement is: “2-body capture is impossible when gravitation is the only force acting.” This property of Newtonian dynamics is well known and easy to prove. Your later messages suggest that you have begun to understand why it holds.
quote:
when we are talking about putative "Sosah" (Stellar Oscillations across Spiral Arms Hypothesis) cometary capture, the idea of comets being swept up from across the local spiral arm in the path of the Sun, the Solar System is far from being a 2-body system.
On the contrary, for cometary capture, only the Sun has significant mass, and the 2-body rules apply. There are no significant non-gravitational forces acting in the case of comets that can assist interstellar capture. The average hypothetical interstellar comet, much like all the stars in the solar neighborhood, would have a typical rms velocity of +/- 25 km/s relative to the Sun. To capture such a high-speed body would require more energy than to vaporize it.
quote:
The trajectories of slow eph-candidate comets are bent towards the Sun across a huge cross-section, to be so seen while faster comets, their trajectories much less attracted towards the Sun, generally pass more quickly, much further away unseen . . .
Indeed, no such interstellar comet has ever been seen, even though the law of averages says we should have seen several by now if they existed.
quote:
This speed dependence of cometary capture probabilities would give rise to an important observational bias; slow comets would be more observable than fast comets. Has this bias been fully accounted for by astronomers?
Yes, of course. There is only a small difference in the average visibility time because zero-initial-velocity comets are traveling at 42 km/s by the time they reach the vicinity of Earth’s orbit, whereas a typical interstellar comet would have a speed of 49 km/s near Earth's orbit. -|Tom|- |
|
|
|
Peter Nielsen
Australia
183 Posts |
Posted - 03 Jul 2005 : 23:43:08
|
Tom,
In your last posting: ". . . There are no significant non-gravitational forces acting in the case of comets that can assist interstellar capture . . . To capture such a high-speed body [as an interstellar proto-comet] would require more energy than to vaporize it."
Yes, proto-comets would generally be explosively vaporised in their impacts with planets and asteroids, but No, such explosions "can assist interstellar capture": As explained in my last posting, fragments would often be produced which ". . . would become new [eph-consistent] comets or asteroids . . . The evidence . . . is explained in TVF's eph . . ."
"[Multiscale] Sosah proto-. . . cometary orbit intersections with asteroids or planets would manifest as explosive impacts. Hence my S1, S2 at http://metaresearch.org/msgboard/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=692 ."
Note that S1, S2 events can be plausibly rare, of the order of ~1 S1 event per 100s of million years (myrs) , ~1 S2 event per 1,000 myr in the Solar System. Note the consistency of such rarity of these most energetic events with Sosah explanation of a much more frequent, 26 myr cycle of much lower energy terrestrial mass extinction impact events in terms of a projected Solar System 52 myr period of Sosah oscillation. Sosah impact energies are maximal at spiral arm centres because relative speeds of objects moving in opposite transverse directions are maximal there.
Multiscale Sosah impact is thus indicated, via eph, S1, S2 explanation, as a fundamental ultimate cause of cometary capture.
Peter Nielsen
Email: uusi@hotkey.net.au
Post: 12 View St, Sandy Bay 7005, Australia
|
|
|
|
Jim
1607 Posts |
Posted - 05 Jul 2005 : 11:42:50
|
| The speed of an interstellar comet near the Earth would be very near 42,000m/s no matter what the its speed was prior to entering the gravity field of the sun. It can be less than that by the comet passing close to an encounter with Jupiter. |
|
|
|
Larry Burford
USA
1355 Posts |
Posted - 05 Jul 2005 : 16:16:04
|
Hmmm. Slow things speed up as they fall, fast things slow down as they fall ...
And the dividing line is 42. (I suspect Doug is chuckling about that.)
Interesting. |
|
|
|
Peter Nielsen
Australia
183 Posts |
Posted - 05 Jul 2005 : 20:22:21
|
Jim,
Gravitational force between any two objects is independent of their relative speed, so already fast comets only become faster as they approach a star. Impact is the only phenomenon that could slow Sosah's very high speed, central spiral arm proto-comets down as much as you suggest. Any other explanation would be against the Law of Conservation of Energy.
When I wrote "[Multiscale] Sosah proto-. . . cometary orbit intersections with asteroids or planets would manifest as explosive impacts. Hence my S1, S2 at http://metaresearch.org/msgboard/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=692 .", I was alluding to what C. Johnson had written very plausibly, the whole article is plausible, just above the "When" heading in the middle of his article at
http://mb-soft.com/public/extinct.html :
". . . near the [spiral arm] centerline, there are two complicating circumstances . . . the Sun (and Earth) enters that area with a substantial lateral velocity, around 23.8 km/sec (around 51,000 mph), and . . . there are OTHER stars and objects (half a cycle out of phase with the Sun) that are moving in the opposite direction at around the same velocity! These are tremendous differential velocities! Head-on collisions, even with relatively small objects, could have ferocious impacts!¡±
Note that we won¡¯t be in this situation for another ~20 myr.
Peter Nielsen
Email: uusi@hotkey.net.au
Post: 12 View St, Sandy Bay 7005, Australia
|
|
|
|
Jim
1607 Posts |
Posted - 05 Jul 2005 : 20:23:24
|
| Relative to the excape velocity fast moving objects are slowed and slow moving objects are speeded up in a gravity field. It is logical because the time a slow moving object spends being accelerated is much greater than a fast moving object spends getting from the same starting point to the same finish point in the field. You need to eliminate angular momentum first, of course. |
|
|
|
Larry Burford
USA
1355 Posts |
Posted - 08 Jul 2005 : 13:17:55
|
[Jim] " ... fast moving objects are slowed and slow moving objects are speeded up in a gravity field."
This is an unusual model of gravity you have presented here. Is it your own, or did you borrow it from someone else?
LB |
|
|
|
Jim
1607 Posts |
Posted - 09 Jul 2005 : 15:57:51
|
| LB, There seems to be a lack of focus here. The relative speed and not absolute speed is the focus of the statement you are questioning. |
|
|
|
Larry Burford
USA
1355 Posts |
Posted - 09 Jul 2005 : 21:48:10
|
Jim,
There is no such thing as absolute speed. I'm pretty sure you already know this, but I'm not sure why you would think I don't.
LB |
|
|
|
Jim
1607 Posts |
Posted - 10 Jul 2005 : 16:07:37
|
| LB, I believe in absolute zero in all topics even speed and the point is you are missing the point. |
|
|
|
Topic |
|
|
|
Stellar Oscillations across Spiral Arms
