Mysterious Planet Nine might have tilted our whole Solar System 

Posted: September 19, 2016 by oldbrew in Astrophysics, solar system dynamics

A long way from the Sun: theoretical Planet Nine

A long way from the Sun: theoretical Planet Nine

This story surfaced two months ago but – better late than never – we’d like to draw it to the attention of Talkshop readers, at least those who haven’t seen it already.

Two recent studies have shown that the existence of a mysterious, hypothetical Planet Nine could explain why the planets in our Solar System don’t fully line up with the Sun, reports ScienceAlert.

Researchers have been speculating about a ninth planet since January this year, and these latest studies add more weight to the hypothesis that, at some point in time at least, there was an extra planet orbiting our Sun.

In fact, if Planet Nine does exist (or did), it would help to explain something that scientists have puzzled over for decades – why the Solar System is tilted.

What does that mean? Well, basically, all of the main eight planets that orbit our Sun do so on the same plane, making the Solar System look like a disc. The problem is that the Sun spins at a different angle, with its axis roughly 6 degrees off from the rest of the planets.

In the past, researchers have attempted to explain this slant by blaming the temporary tug of a passing star, or interactions between the Sun’s magnetic field and the disc of dust that formed our planets. But none of these hypotheses have fully accounted for the misalignment. But now the two new studies – complete independently from one another in the US and France – show that the existence of Planet Nine could explain the tilt.

“Because we think Planet Nine has a significant inclination, if it exists, then that means it would tilt things,” one of the researchers in the US study, Elizabeth Bailey from the California Institute of Technology (Caltech), told New Scientist’s Rebecca Boyle. “It’s one puzzle piece that seems to fit together, and it really seems to be in support of the Planet Nine hypothesis.”

In case you’re unfamiliar, Planet Nine is a hypothetical planet that might orbit the Sun (or did at one point). Researchers think that it’s most likely an ice giant measuring roughly five to 20 times the mass of Earth. And while nothing about the potential planet has ever been proven, some researchers say that it could have once been an exoplanet that got stuck in the Sun’s gravitational pull back when the Solar System was in its infancy.

According to both teams, the addition of Planet Nine to the Solar System could have been enough to jostle the other planets away from the Sun’s axis, causing the tilt we see today. This hypothesis was first tested earlier this year by the Caltech team who plugged the hypothetical mass of Planet Nine into a complex computer model that simulated how it would affect some of the smaller, icy dwarf planets that linger at the outer edge of the Solar System. In the end, they concluded that a hypothetical Planet Nine could account for the dwarf planets’ odd movements.

Now, the team says the same thing could have happened to the giant planets closer to the Sun. “Using an analytic model for secular interactions between Planet Nine and the remaining giant planets, here we show that a planet with similar parameters can naturally generate the observed obliquity as well as the specific pole position of the sun’s spin axis, from a nearly aligned initial state,” the team states. “Thus, Planet Nine offers a testable explanation for the otherwise mysterious spin-orbit misalignment of the solar system.”

In the French study, conducted by astronomers at the Côte d’Azur Obersvatory in Nice, the team suggests that Planet Nine’s tilt is likely to blame for this misalignment, rather than its mass. According to the researchers, while mass is often used to explain why objects in space influence one another – and that’s what the Caltech team looked into – in this case, it would mean that Jupiter – the juggernaut of our Solar System – could have caused the tilt, which it didn’t.

“What is important is that the perturbing planet is off-plane. Jupiter cannot cause its own tilt,” team member Alessandro Morbidelli told New Scientist. Instead, their models showed that Planet Nine’s tilt could have skewed everything else – coming to the same conclusion as the Caltech researchers.

Combined, the results of both the studies add a significant amount of evidence that Planet Nine exists, though not enough to actually prove it. Instead, the studies seem to say that something influenced the early Solar System and made the mysterious 6-degree tilt – and Planet Nine fits the profile.

Full report: Mysterious Planet Nine might have tilted our whole Solar System – ScienceAlert

Paper: The inclination of the planetary system relative to the solar equator may be explained by the presence of Planet 9
– Rodney Gomes, Rogerio Deienno, Alessandro Morbidelli (Submitted on 18 Jul 2016)

  1. oldbrew says:

    ‘Jupiter cannot cause its own tilt’ – that probably sums it up.

  2. tallbloke says:

    It’s very much a ‘gravity only’ article. What if EM is involved in the tilts of orbits and the inclinations of planets? The Sun is asymmetric magnetically.

  3. oldbrew says:

    It gets worse: Pluto’s inclination is over 11% to the Sun’s equator.

    But that’s nothing…
    Eris is similar in size to Pluto and has greater mass.
    Its inclination is 44% no less.

  4. The solar system–and the detailed surface of the Earth–was deliberately re-formed, and re-oriented, to a great design. It’s all part of what I found as the single objective origin of all the “Ancient Mysteries” of perennial interest, and which I call “The Great Design of the gods”. It is the next paradigm for science, replacing “undirected evolution” of all that we observe in the world today, including the world entire.

    See also my most recent blog post, “Undirected Evolution: The False Religious Dogma Strangling Science”, and its mention of the ever-growing list of “cosmic accidents” modern scientists keep coming up with to “explain” the development of the Earth (and in the present case, the development of the solar system). It took more than the energy of a single planet to remake and re-orient the entire solar system; it took a second Sun, and additional planets (remembered in Greek myth as “the birth of the new gods”). It’s all in my book, “The End of the Mystery” (2004, in two volumes 2008).

  5. suricat says:

    oldbrew says: September 19, 2016 at 9:55 pm

    “‘Jupiter cannot cause its own tilt’ – that probably sums it up.”

    Do you consider that our ‘Sol’ system is the result/outcome of/from a ‘conjoined stellar interaction’?

    This would make sense in the way that posits are made for the ‘Thea and Proto-Earth’ interaction.

    IMHO, when two stars ‘orbit/make close contact’ with one-another, the star with the greater mass ‘absorbs’ mass from the star with the lesser mass. If Sol had the ‘greater mass’, mass would be absorbed from the ‘other star’. Could this ‘other star’ have been what we now call ‘Jupiter’?

    Best regards, Ray.

  6. oldbrew says:

    Ray: have you been watching Arthur C. Clarke’s 2010: Odyssey Two😉

  7. tallbloke says:

    Harry: Milankovitch’s fantasies of a perpetual motion of repetitive orbital instability

    There’s a perfectly reasonable explanation for these which doesn’t involve any gods playing billiards with the solar system, or ‘perpetual motion’.

    All systems contain feedbacks. All feedbacks in stable systems produce oscillations either side of means. The ~100kyr oscillation of the Earth’s orbital shape is due to the perturbation of the other major planets in the system. So it’s not an ‘instability’. It’s just the ‘path of least resistance’ for little old Earth amongst the cyclic conjunction patterns of (primarily) the Gas Giants.

    Getting back to the question the thread poses, the whole solar system is tilted at an angle to the direction of motion of the solar system travelling around the galactic core. Motion through an electro-magnetic medium by the Sun, which generates its own large magnetic field, is going to produce a force. That force will tilt the axis of the Sun. The Quadrupole moment produced by the Sun acting on the planets gravitationally should gradually force the planets towards an orbit around the solar equatorial plane. But this will take a long time, because the Sun is nearly spherical, and the planets have 98%+ of the solar system angular momentum.

    The path of the solar system around the galaxy isn’t a smooth orbit either, because it is pulled up and down by passage above and below the spiral arms. So the 6 degree disorientation between the Sun’s spin axis and the plane of invariance (the average plane of the planets) is likely due (in my humble opinion) to a lag between changes in the Sun’s axial orientation due to EM interaction between the heliomagnetic and galactic fields as it moves above and below the galactic plane, and the planets slowly drifting back towards alignment with the solar equatorial plane.

    If we’re still around in a few million years to measure it, we’ll probably find the 6 degree tilt between Sun and invariant plane has changed in proportion to the position of the solar system relative to the galactic plane.

    No ‘cosmic collisional coincidences’ or brawny armed ‘designers’ required. Talkshoppers know how annoying I find these lazy brained ‘explanations’.

  8. oldbrew says:

    Report: Astronomers discover five new Neptune trojans

    An international team of astronomers led by Hsing-Wen Lin of the National Central University in Taiwan has detected five new so-called “Neptune trojans” – minor bodies sharing the same orbit as the planet Neptune.

    The newly detected objects have sizes ranging from 100 to 200 kilometers in diameter.

    “There is a dynamically unstable zone between 10 and 18 degrees inclination, but the real reason for two groups of trojan is still unknown,” Lin said. [bold added]

    Read more at:

    NB Neptune’s own inclination is 6.43° to the Sun’s equator

  9. ivan says:

    Unfortunately tallbloke this is what is being passed off as science today. I blame the universities fot being more concerned with diversity and PCism than teaching real science and how to think.

  10. suricat says:

    oldbrew says: September 20, 2016 at 9:12 am


    Apologies oldbrew, I just couldn’t resist the ‘leg-pull’ (not).😉 🙂

    Though theoretical, its quite plausible that two ‘proto stars’ may well compete for mass from the ‘cloud’ that ‘gives/gave birth to them’ and ‘then’ battle together for a ‘mass/volume density’ to ‘strike fusion’.

    The proto Star’s ‘battle for mass’ may well disrupt other solidified conglomerations within the ‘proto stellar system’ and lead ‘later observation’ into the ‘expectancy’ of a ‘disruptive mass’ agent, AKA ‘planet 9’!

    How long would this type/configuration of system take to stabilise? I don’t know, but I’m sure that I’ll be ‘dust’ before it does.

    A. C. Clarke’s novel and the film ‘added’ mass to Jupiter and rearranged it, and didn’t ‘remove’ mass. A star was born, it didn’t die as I posited. In another universe perhaps? Anyway, I hoped to add a little insight to the humour of the preceding advert (a pesky emoticon follows [grumpy]).🙂

    Best regards (perhaps), Ray.

  11. suricat says:

    suricat says: September 21, 2016 at 1:04 am

    RSVP oldbrew.

    Please make the consideration that this subject is of/for ‘dark matter’ in your response.🙂


  12. E.M.Smith says:

    Either it is the Tenth Planet, or it is a dwarf planet… The Oort Cloud and Kuiper Belt have not been “cleared”… so with the present definition of planet, it isn’t; but ignore the clearing requirement (which I think is a bogus requirement) and Pluto comes back as #9…

    Personally, I’d vote for returning Ceres to planet status and Xena too… but they didn’t ask me…

  13. oldbrew says:

    Ray says: ‘Please make the consideration that this subject is of/for ‘dark matter’ in your response.’

    In that case they may never find it😎

    @ EM Smith
    Pluto is smaller than the Moon. It also has less mass than Eris.

    Eris (minor-planet designation 136199 Eris) is the most massive and second-largest dwarf planet known in the Solar System…Eris is 27% more massive than dwarf planet Pluto, though Pluto is slightly larger by volume.

    [See ‘Orbit of Eris’ graphic above: September 19, 2016 at 11:06 pm]

  14. JB says:

    I’m a spectator here, trying to absorb the significance as well as the details of various discussions. During college, I tested out of the science requirements with a phenomenal score, but I take that as no indication of perspicacity on my part when it comes to some of these subjects. From time to time I find myself scratching my head while examining a technical dictionary.

    My question is simply: Why hasn’t anyone looked at the effects of a binary/trinary sun system when trying to explain planetary/solar obliquity (or several other “disturbing” discoveries)? I keep coming across assertions in scientific literature that most stars have this arrangement. Indeed, when one inspects Tony Peratt’s laboratory experiments, current flows tend to behave in similar fashion as binary systems–the harbinger of galactic spirals. Yet when it comes to accounting for the orbital dynamic effects on unexplained behavior it is (or seems to be) completely neglected.

  15. oldbrew says:

    @ JB
    You could try here…

    The problem with binary sun theory is of course ‘where’s the binary star’? Not to say it’s not there, but so far we don’t have one.

  16. JB says:

    Been there, done that, followed that stuff before BRI was founded. Seems to me there’s a pretty good case for it. Last week I could not find there the articles about Sirius as a strong candidate. That’s what Cruttendon started with in his book, and it seemed to line up with a lot of historical details. His foray into the metaphysical side didn’t help his case IMO.

    It seems odd that all our planets have an obliquity within ~±3º of each other but one, while the sun is at 6º

    But rather than coming up with these ridiculous explanations for a ninth planet way off the norm, would not making observations directed toward locating a companion star make more sense as part of the model for solar system peculiarities? In my career as an EE the holistic/system approach to RCA always filled out the puzzle. So my thinking is put this accruing planetary data in a different (binary) model and see if things start to line up. It just doesn’t make sense to assert the universe is built a certain way, but then analyze it neglecting a critical aspect of it when doing local investigations. Something along the lines of :

    which is similar to Piers Corbyn’s presentation at EU2014. My thought is we often get too narrowly focused to fill out or look at the bigger picture.

  17. suricat says:

    oldbrew says: September 22, 2016 at 9:04 am

    “In that case they may never find it😎”

    Now you’re taking the piss. Dark matter within Sol’s system is ‘illuminated’ by Sol, and ‘visible’. The ‘signature’ of ‘dark matter’ ‘outside’ of ‘Sol’s sphere of irradiance’ is but a shadow against the cosmic backdrop.

    You need to do better to persuade me of your conviction (if you have one).


    JB says: September 22, 2016 at 10:02 pm

    “Why hasn’t anyone looked at the effects of a binary/trinary sun system when trying to explain planetary/solar obliquity (or several other “disturbing” discoveries)? I keep coming across assertions in scientific literature that most stars have this arrangement. Indeed, when one inspects Tony Peratt’s laboratory experiments, current flows tend to behave in similar fashion as binary systems–the harbinger of galactic spirals. Yet when it comes to accounting for the orbital dynamic effects on unexplained behavior it is (or seems to be) completely neglected.”

    I concur JB. However, ‘binary forces/forcings’ tend to affect the entire system for each binary subject. The ’tilt’ to planetary orbital aberration would be universal to all orbits within each system.

    Look again at oldbrew’s link:


    Now tell me that ‘planetary dispersion’ at the ‘sheer-edge’ couldn’t permit the capture of various ‘planetoids’ by Sol’s gravity field.

    This acceptance would go a long way towards explaining both ‘precession’ and ‘orbital plane variation’ IMHO.🙂

    Best regards, Ray.

  18. JB says:

    No, I wouldn’t tell you that. It was Moeckel & Veras’ 2012 paper that put me on to the possibility that the fabled planet Phaeton Allan & Delair postulated wreaked havoc within the solar system around 10,500 BC that got me thinking maybe they had something plausible. Dr Brophy in his The Origin Map showed that at that time period the solar system was in “alignment’ with the Galactic Center, that is the northern culmination vernal equinox on the Giza plateau. Yukteswar places the periapsis with the binary star at 11,500 BC, while Brophy’s computer model places it at 10,909 BC. Such an alignment would have made it quite possible a planet was ejected from the binary companion’s orbit and was caught up with ours, which suggests to me some possible swapping at precession rates.

    Moeckel & Veras’ paper:

    The part that bothers me, and doesn’t quite set up right about the CIT proposal is both BRI and the profhorn graphic suggest that the earth’s obliquity, (along with Mars and Saturn) points in the direction of the hypothetical binary companion, and the earth’s obliquity wobble follows the precession cycle. What the profhorn graphic seems to indicate is that the earth has been roughly in the same obliquity for 400K+ years. Corbyn’s slides at the EU2014 presentation also bear the 43K tilt and 26K precession cycles within the Vostok ice core graphic for the same duration.

    That suggests to me that this ninth planet is not the body that is influencing our obliquity, for its orbital cycle is likely to be far shorter than precession, and if it was having an effect (wobble) on the earth’s obliquity, that cycle would appear in the Vostok ice core graphic. At least having some modest effect on earth’s climate anyway. The other thing that bothers me is the ice core graphic suggests something extraordinary happened at the periapsis, for the peak which appeared every ~102K year cycle was suddenly missing. The cycle has been flat for the last 12K years, unlike the previous ones.

    These apparent disparate facts aside, I’ve also wondered what force maintains the existing planets both large and small within the sun’s equatorial plane. Is there any evidence in telescopic observations suggesting that planets orbit around a star at such a high inclination to the equatorial plane? Would not the sun’s EMF (if indeed that is what keeps our planets in the sun’s equatorial region) preclude such phenomenon? I really don’t know, I’m looking at this from an EE’s POV.

    Now I don’t pretend to have a handle on any of this. All this stuff is just an interest of mine. And I certainly do not intend to poke anyone in the eye for overlooking something important. My original question was meant to sniff out someone who has directly dealt with this idea–the binary star’s possible effects on the solar system’s planetary axial deviations.


  19. oldbrew says:

    Ray: have you read this?

    Researchers find ‘new natural law’ that challenges dark matter theory

    “Galaxy rotation curves have traditionally been explained via an ad hoc hypothesis: that galaxies are surrounded by dark matter,” said David Merritt, professor of physics and astronomy at the Rochester Institute of Technology, who was not involved in the research.

    “The relation discovered by McGaugh et al. is a serious, and possibly fatal, challenge to this hypothesis, since it shows that rotation curves are precisely determined by the distribution of the normal matter alone. Nothing in the standard cosmological model predicts this, and it is almost impossible to imagine how that model could be modified to explain it, without discarding the dark matter hypothesis completely.”

  20. E.M.Smith says:


    Mass only enters into planetary definition as “self rounding”, so relative mass of moon and Pluto is irrelavant.

    These are not my definitions… but the IAU.

    Old definition of planet was, roughly, self rounding and orbiting the sun.
    New definition added “clears the neighborhood” so as to exclude TNOs like Xena and others big enough to be planets. That bounced Pluto out.

    Now some new TNO is either under the new definition, and not a planet, or the old definition and Pluto is back in. Please argue the definitions with the I.A.Union…

    BTW, the Moon never goes retrograde in orbit of the Sun. I’d class the Earth Moon system as a binary planet system. The I.A.U. pulls in barycenter outside surface instead of always convex orbit and never retrogade, so calls it a moon. The problem with that is over time the moon will drift outward and suddenly become a planet… kind of messy…

    So just to be clear, I’m not saying which definition is right, only that they pick ONE and stick with it. The new TNO is either another Dwarf Plant having not “cleared the neighborhood” (new definition) or it is a planet (old definition) and that requires Pluto to be one again, so it becomes 10 (or really more like 14 due to other large TNOs like Xena) as Pluto reclaims #9.

    I don’t care which choice they make, but calling it 9 is wrong either way.

  21. tallbloke says:

    Ceres is pretty round. Just saying.

  22. suricat says:

    JB says: September 24, 2016 at 7:18 am

    “No, I wouldn’t tell you that.”

    You just did by your reference to papers.🙂

    I’m not ‘comfortable’ in this area of discipline either JB, but I do my best.

    I’ve saved the paper in your link and I’ll read it soon. At first perusal it looks to be about the subject I raised with oldbrew.


    oldbrew says: September 24, 2016 at 9:49 am

    “Ray: have you read this?”

    Yes. I’ve done a lot of reading for this site recently and found the ‘definition’ in your link for “dark” and “normal” matter to be obfuscation!

    As an engineer (not an astronomer, though I have an interest in that subject), I can only say that from your link I understand both ‘dark’ and ‘normal’ matter to both be in the order of a ‘massive object’ scenario!

    The difference IMHO is that the, so called, “dark matter” to be ‘absorbent’ and ‘reflective’ of an ‘EM emission’ that it ‘may/may not’ encounter in its manifestation. OTOH, the, so called “normal matter”, is more like the ’emitter’ of a ‘thermionic valve/tube’, but ‘massive’ also!

    ‘Dark’ is ‘absorbent/reflective’ mass, and ‘normal’ is an ‘EM emitter’ mass for radiative purposes for this definition? We need greater definition between ’emission’ and ‘absorption/reflection’ for these scenarios. They all seem to relate to ‘mass’!

    IMHO this needs to be reconciled into a more ‘descriptive/separated’ ‘dialogue/definition’ for ‘the/any’ ‘massive/EMR’ scenario/s. Though ‘interactive links between them’ (atractors) should be promoted to ‘highlight’ the direction of ‘energy transfer’. This may well become/be a ‘natural density distribution’ for the ‘mass’ contained within a galaxy, and ‘not’ the ‘black and white’ assumptions that turn to grey. ‘Matter’ is ‘mass’, whether its ‘illuminated’ (or not) or ‘radiant’.

    Best regards, Ray.

  23. JB says:

    @suricat Not entirely sure you grasped my negative; but no matter. Moeckel has since published another related paper which I have yet to read. The part in the CIT article I have a problem with is the presumption that the universe is mass/gravity only which seems to allow in their minds the probability that bodies can take up orbits around another star (planet) arbitrarily– in this case at a high angle relative to our sun’s equatorial plane. In my thinking, the galaxy is disc shaped because of the force(s) imposed by an electromagnetic field, as is our solar system, both represented as a slice out of a plasma jet extending along a galaxy’s axis, or a cluster of galaxies in a string. To get a flavor of such fields you can inspect Dr Scott’s EU2014 presentation on the structure of an electric current and the associated magnetic field. What blew me away was the revelation that the various concentric layers he described followed the same Phi relationship discussed elsewhere on this site relative to the solar system. If there is a deviation from this there would have to be a field to capture an ejected body and captivate it at such an angle. Gravity just can’t compete with the magnetic force for capturing and circularizing an errant body’s orbit. From my experience with electric and magnetic fields this would be a highly unusual situation. Perhaps it’s possible, my work experience is confined to power and deflection E/M fields. I’m just very skeptical.


  24. p.g.sharrow says:

    @JB;you point out something that should be explored. It appears to me that gravity, mass/inertia are effects caused by EMF fields in the Aether generated by mater. “Dark mater” is an explanation of that effect that is caused by the gross fields of actual mater in the Aether.
    Too bad Astrophysicists are not trained as Electricians first. Electronic propagation through space requires something that carries the signal. Every “Electron” in the Universe is effected by the action of every other “Electron”. The Universe is jam packed full of something. Something that is effected by EMF fields generated within mater…pg

  25. JB says:

    @pg Curious about your lament. It is disturbing to find what is neglected in various “hard” science disciplines. I once investigated the curriculum of geology at a randomly picked university after reading some of Robert Schoch’s books. To my horror there was a bare minimum of calculus, as also physics and nothing about electricity, magnetics, or related physical subjects. I checked another university just to make sure I hadn’t encountered an anomaly. Same deal. I also observed that a geologist’s curriculum for an undergraduate degree was far short of the technical instruction an EE is required to complete. EEs typically must complete 30-50% more physical science related coursework, and 3X the mathematics as geologists. I don’t know that a geologist needs that much math (indeed certain EE disciplines either), but it underscores the educated ignorance that seems to be rife in other fields like astronomy and so-called “theoretical physics.”

    Some time ago there was in the science news an article about some “mysterious” ferrous/metal balls that the researchers were trying to figure out how they were created. In a private discussion with Wal Thornhill I remarked those folks were way too compartmentalized, for I knew exactly what they were, as did any journeyman welder who had to deal with arc splatter (I’ve arc-welded many a project myself). The phenomenon has been known for so long it struck me as inexcusable for it not to be discussed in physics 101.

    As for dark matter/energy, I am not in agreement with this hypothesis, for it is based on the idea that such is not detectable, only inferred. Again, from my EE instruction and experience, all measuring instruments depend on sampling either energy or matter for registering its presence , magnitude, or dimension. In addition, electrical detectors depend on sampling some of the measured energy, and therefore interfere with the current or charge in question, thereby changing however slightly its behavior. To me this strongly indicates that dark matter/energy cannot even be inferred to exist, since its presence would affect other energy fields or matter associated with those fields, and since any man-made detector has a similar registration problem, inference by that means is also impossible. When an hypothesis is advanced that purports the existence of something which cannot be detected or inferred, it falls in the unfalsifiable class of hypotheses and should be discarded.

    This contradiction also underscores to me the negligence of academia in solidly grounding their students in fundamental concepts. An example of such stupidity is the pervasive use of magnetic “lines” of force, their disruption and reconnection, with all the nonsense associated with that idea to explain the sun’s behavior, etc.. The magnetic phenomenon is a field phenomenon. The idea of “lines” in discussions of magnetic field properties arose out of graphical sketches back in the day before computer graphic artwork was invented to help the student visualize the field’s contours. Some people got the idea that fields had actual lines of force because they saw photographs or observed ferrous “powder” in the vicinity of a permanent magnet attempting to conform to the field in co-linear bunches. They apparently did not consider that ferrous powder is not a very effective way to demonstrate a field. Is it any wonder that most astronomers neglect the idea of fields surrounding astronomical bodies in their hypotheses, even in the face of recent announcements of such surrounding the earth and sun?

    Another matter is instructing students at an early age that in mathematical equations, all units of measure must cancel out, as well as the fact that the concept of “zero” is not identical to the concept of “infinity”, and as such cannot be imposed in any equation that intends to represent a physical analog. Concepts of the mind cannot be assigned a symbol and used in like manner as other math symbols that represent real world behavior. This is really basic stuff, yet scores of scientists over the last century repeatedly make this error in advancing hypotheses which are built upon a house of cards. I don’t know that I can over-emphasize this trend.

    Another example is when I was once reading a Wal Thornhill blog discussing “mass-less” charge. So I cornered him on the idea that charge can be conveyed from one point in space to another without matter in some form present to contain the charge. Charge may propagate by way of the æther, but it must originate with a particle of matter. He acknowledged the principle was sound, and subsequently in later blogs continued using the phrase, “mass-less” charge. It seems that in science, ideas die hard like laws/taxes get rescinded in politics.

    I would really enjoy seeing somebody expend some of those funds dissipated at CERN (or on some of these satellites which are defective by improper design from the get-go) on something more useful, like locating a binary companion to our star, so that discussions here about the effects of the gas giants and the sun’s cycles (both internally and externally sourced) can be fitted into a comprehensive topology that has rational meaning.


  26. suricat says:

    JB says: September 27, 2016 at 5:28 am

    “@suricat Not entirely sure you grasped my negative; but no matter.”

    Sorry, I’ve not read/connected with your link yet. My comms have been compromised and I needed to go back to a ‘restore point’ due to ‘win system corruption’ on this/my device (a long story that I’ll not go into here).

    “Moeckel has since published another related paper which I have yet to read. The part in the CIT article I have a problem with is the presumption that the universe is mass/gravity only which seems to allow in their minds the probability that bodies can take up orbits around another star (planet) arbitrarily– in this case at a high angle relative to our sun’s equatorial plane.”

    IMHO this probability is true. However, a disproportionate ‘equitorial plane’ between conjoined ‘stellar systems’ is a prerequisite to an objective observaton for an exchange of orbital mass that interchanges massive objects at a/an ‘divergent/obtuse’ angle to the recipient or doner system. Do we have such an observation? Not as far as I know.

    Generally, a gravity field extends its influence to a greater ‘proportional distance’ than an electric field does (I’m talking ‘PD’ [Potential Difference] here).

    This makes it ‘counter intuitive’ for the ‘electric field effect’ as a mediator for such an event!

    How can this/these ‘contrary scenarios’ be resolved?

    Firstly, we must realise that an ‘electrostatic field’ exists within the near environs of ‘all’ mass/matter (though, [euphemistically as I write] not neutrons), and that any ‘movement’ of a ‘mass/matter’ object creates an electric current, thus, a ‘magnetic field’ is generated by all/any mass on the move within a ‘reference frame of observation’ (I use the term ‘reference frame of observation’ because ‘relativistic’ issues are in play here).

    Secondly, let’s deal with my euphermism. Neutrons are devoid of ‘charge’ and can’t produce or create/generate a ‘current’ or ‘magnetic’ field of any kind. Their sole purpose is to provide a ‘mass/gravity’ quotient to anything that they are ‘bound to’. Neutrons are extant in all molecular and atomic structures, but not in ‘ionic’ or ‘plasma’ environments. This is all I can say just now.

    More later.🙂

    Best regards, Ray.

  27. p.g.sharrow says:

    @suricat: Ray; you might have a better argument if you assign Neutrons to be charge “Balanced” rather then “chargeless”. The Proton is positive static charge and it’s electron shell is negative static charge. The Neutron is a “mini atom” of both with a balanced surface charge. This balancing causes the Neutron to exhibit more mass/inertia and gravity then the Proton and electron would exhibit. The charge balancing allows the Neutron to appear negative to it’s proton twin and positive to the encircling Electron shell.

    I wrestled with with this problem for over 30 years. The Standard model we were taught just didn’t add up. Finally I assigned deep space or Aether “Charge” or Negative static and Mater “lack of charge” or Positive static. Electron, Photon, etc. demonstrate some characteristic of charge in motion to be detected and vanish when drained of all energy in motion. The Proton on the other hand is a different animal, at least to us. It appears to be a real THING with a deep lack of charge, a singularity, a black hole of charge with a high mass/inertia or gravity relative to space or Aether.

    After that things just seemed to fit together and mass/inertia as well as gravity worked correctly

    What do you expect from an old dirt farmer😉 …pg

  28. JB says:

    @pg Assuming your last statement was not hyperbolic, I’m in your camp; I spent a portion of my life in dry/dairy farming, and most of the professional time in the lab. As a result of experiencing physics with the five senses, I tend to think along the same lines as BG Wallace and DB Larson with regard to atomic modeling. Much of the nonsense coming out of CERN for example, is indicative of how far afield scientific “research” has deviated from reality, driven by the engines of virtual modeling.

    @suricat I can well appreciate your state of distress as there is no other single person on the planet I rage at more for the bestowal of their abominations upon the human race than Bill Gates. I am exceedingly weary of picking up the physical and immaterial pieces exploded from faulty programming. My bucket list no longer includes such restorative activities where I can help it. All my computers are as old as I can get away with, refusing to participate in the subduction of mankind with these intellectually masturbatory devices masquerading as “4G” and the like.

    I believe I’m nearing the limits of my ability to communicate my thoughts without the aid of graphic illustrations. In this Word Press environment I have no idea how to insert JPGs to facilitate comprehension of so many parameters and their relations.

    As a matter of background, my technical/professional experience for many years was centered in CRT displays, both electrostatic and magnetic. I began as a youth tinkering with TVs, and built a basic oscilloscope using a 3BP1 and a SW radio for power + signal as a science fair project at age 14. From there it progressed to graphic and imaging displays up until flat panels made them obsolete. I never got into the fine details of the theory of such except reading about it. My presumption is that the effects I dealt with are scalable in the manner Birkeland/Alvén/Peratt have written about.

    I am currently most of the way through Moeckel’s 2nd paper, and while there is a great deal to digest (leaving aside the mathematical representations and their accuracy), two things were readily apparent. 1) It is a Gravity/Mass based theoretical model, and 2) of necessity it is a static model attempting to simulate a dynamic model through iterations with practical constraints. I don’t have a problem with their approach as a means of explaining exoplanet behavior. But one must keep in mind the presumptions upon which it is built. I noticed that a number of variables were not defined, leaving the reader to assume what they are, and were probably defined in some of the reference papers. For us peons who come from a dirt-clod laboratory background this is a conundrum.

    My understanding is that the EM force is 10^39 times greater than the gravimetric force. In some circles, there is thought that the gravimetric force is a derivative of the EM. Because of such a large differential I have difficulty accepting a gravity model of the universe, especially when Newton’s errors with regard to gravity and force are so glaring. In addition, the G/M model Moeckelet al postulate assumes a uniform and exponential diminishing of Gravimetric force. In the EM models, there are two conceptions; one, a toroidal field shape (such as theorized to explain the Van Allen belts), and the 3D spiral plasma current around the sun painted by Mr Hall at NASA in 1977. Which of all these is the real McCoy? Please stand up.


  29. suricat says:

    “@suricat: Ray; you might have a better argument if you assign Neutrons to be charge “Balanced” rather then “chargeless”.”

    I’ll consider your point PG.

    “The Proton is positive static charge and it’s electron shell is negative static charge.”

    That is the ‘model’.

    “The Neutron is a “mini atom” of both with a balanced surface charge.”

    So we now have an ‘atom’ within an ‘atom’? Surely this is a ‘worlds within worlds’ scenario that doesn’t stand up to scrutiny. An ‘atom in a sub world’ is still covered/surrounded with/by electrons.

    “This balancing causes the Neutron to exhibit more mass/inertia and gravity then the Proton and electron would exhibit. The charge balancing allows the Neutron to appear negative to it’s proton twin and positive to the encircling Electron shell.”

    That’ll be because the ‘neutron’ has no charge! Its a ‘different animal’ that posses ‘mass’ without ‘charge’! Tell me if/how I’m wrong.

    I need to close this dialogue now, its ~3 am in my time.

    Best regards, Ray.

  30. p.g.sharrow says:

    @suricat; It has been known from the early days of atomic research that when liberated from the confines of the nucleus the Neutron will become a hydrogen atom. Atomic energy industry is based on this. Einstein’s E=M*C2 is based on the reduction of mass as energy is released during this conversion. As to the concept of an atomic mini planetary system, It may be that the Electron is a energy construct and not a thing. The electron shells are regions of harmonic energy created from activities within the Proton. A set of force fields of charge, if you will, that surround the proton. I would assume that these are created in the interface between Proton and Aether.
    As a visual of a Hydrogen atom, think of a soccer ball or basket ball size Proton within a shell 3,000miles in diameter! A neutron is slightly larger then a Proton.
    When a Neutron converts back to a Hydrogen atom with electron shell it increases in apparent size to 10 to the 6th power at the speed of light, releases a Gama Ray burst and loses a tiny bit of mass/inertia.
    LENR seems to be the reverse of this, in that a Neutron mini atom is reformed from a Hydrogen atom and slips back into the atomic shell to increase the isotopic weight as Neutron or Proton with it’s shell added to the others…pg

  31. JB says:

    @ pg & suricat; I could spend days discussing and reading about atomic models. The question is, how does this relate to CIT’s press release? The discussion suddenly “devolved” from the macro to the micro universe. I want to understand the relevance.

  32. E.M.Smith says:


    You keep a very tidy mind… I like that…

  33. JB says:

    @EMS Thank you kindly. At the moment, I cannot recall any particular comments of yours, but I do recognize the name. Roger has a fabulous thing going here. It is a rare find. I’ve not been so captivated technically and socially for a very long time. I hope that in some however insignificant way to contribute to understanding the physical world we inhabit. In a manner, giving back for so much insight these posts have imparted to me.

    I presume by the relative silence on topic no one has any further thoughts on CIT’s proclamation. I have some ideas that would be fun to lay out, but being new to this kind of forum and its editing features getting it together to post is a bit of a challenge. Perhaps the moment will come in time.

    Nice to make your acquaintance.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s