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)
http://arxiv.org/abs/1607.05111
Tallbloke's Talkshop 
‘Jupiter cannot cause its own tilt’ – that probably sums it up.
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.
It gets worse: Pluto’s inclination is over 11% to the Sun’s equator.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pluto
But that’s nothing…
Eris is similar in size to Pluto and has greater mass.
Its inclination is 44% no less.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eris_(dwarf_planet)#Classification
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).
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.
Reblogged this on Utopia – you are standing in it!.
Ray: have you been watching Arthur C. Clarke’s 2010: Odyssey Two 😉
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2010:_Odyssey_Two
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’.
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: http://phys.org/news/2016-09-astronomers-neptune-trojans.html
—
NB Neptune’s own inclination is 6.43° to the Sun’s equator
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neptune
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.
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.
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. 🙂
Ray.
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…
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.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eris_(dwarf_planet)
[See ‘Orbit of Eris’ graphic above: September 19, 2016 at 11:06 pm]
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.
@ JB
You could try here…
http://binaryresearchinstitute.com/bri/introduction/
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.
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 :
http://profhorn.meteor.wisc.edu/wxwise/climate/earthorbit.html
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.
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).
Ray.
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: http://binaryresearchinstitute.com/bri/introduction/
See: http://binaryresearchinstitute.com/bri/evidence/sheer-edge/
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.
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:
http://arxiv.org/abs/1201.6582
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.
J
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.”
@Oldbrew:
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.
Ceres is pretty round. Just saying.
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.
Thanks. 🙂
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.
@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.
J
@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
@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.
J
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.
@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
@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.
J
“@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.
@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
@ 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.
@JB:
You keep a very tidy mind… I like that…
@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.
J
JB says: September 27, 2016 at 5:28 am
“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 sceptical.
I can understand your scepticism JB. However, the ‘gravity field’ is the ‘predominant’ mediator for this scenario. An ‘electrostatic’ scenario doesn’t ‘cut the mustard’ so well (I’m still reading the paper that you linked)!
Best regards, Ray.
How would ‘magnetic field lines’ work in 3D? Tricky 😉
Spiral arms: Protoplanetary disk around a young star exhibits spiral structure
“The observed spirals in Elias 2-27 are the first direct evidence for the shocks of spiral density waves in a protoplanetary disk”
Read more at: http://phys.org/news/2016-09-spiral-arms-embrace-young-star.html
‘…these results are a crucial step towards a better understanding how planetary systems like our Solar system came into being.’
‘…astronomers were able to trace a gigantic spiral pattern at distances between about 100 astronomical units (that is, 100 times the average distance of the Sun from the Earth) and 300 astronomical units away from the central star.’
@ suricat So, we have some professional work in common, and a good measure of skepticism is a must, along with a willingness to entertain different perspectives. To get a better handle on what I’m trying to describe you really have to watch Don Scott’s 35 minute presentation on magnetic structure. I tried inserting screenshot jpgs below, but they will not import, so their lack complicates things, especially the two graphics I modified.
Scott computer plotted Peratt’s equation to describe the magnetic field of a Birkeland current in “free” space and came up with the plot at 16:33 mins.
Notice how the plot looks suspiciously like the that of the voltage and current relationship in an inductor that is ringing at self resonance. At 24:36 mins Scott introduces in this same plot a graphic describing a “head on” view of a Birkeland current, with the radial distances demarcated.
[graphic]
The numbers he cited at various radii suggested to me a Phi relationship. Scott did not plot the equation for a sufficient range of values to treat insertion of each planet’s radius from the sun. So I edited his plot as a screenshot to extend it as far as I could. There are inevitable errors in its linearity, but it is quite evident that for planets Mercury out to Ceres, each mean location in units of million km is right where the axial and azimuthal fields are equal in strength, with a small offset. I believe that offset is accounted for by the opposing magnetic field induced in each planet which opposes the sun’s field in that region.
[graphic]
Scott does not account at 32:11 mins for the hexagonal shape in the north pole view of Saturn. But it is obvious from what Pierre Robitaille discusses about hydrogen under extreme pressure—that it forms a hexagonal lattice—the appearance of Saturn’s hexagon is hydrogen being compressed by the Lorentz force where it is highest.
To return to Scott’s statement at the beginning, where he asserts the planets all space themselves out in orbital radius where they are “comfortable”, my thought is they adhere to their particular radial locations because of the Lorentz force(s) that push them there—and holds them there. Hence, my skepticism about CIT’s modeling of another planet and asteroids orbiting at an oblique angle to the sun’s equatorial plane. As explained by Scott, the EMF and Lorentzian forces have far greater effect on matter, than the gravity “field” of a planet has in relation to a star or other bodies. If there are bodies in that oblique location, they are following the same forces extending from the sun, and would have to follow the curvature of the sun’s field in that region. While not being adept at modeling such , but observing how Newton’s GM expressions break down in so many instances, I am more inclined to reject the CIT analysis.
With regard to our sun orbiting a binary star, I am inclined to think a planet’s ejection from the companion star will follow the Lorentzian forces, rather than the GM model upon which Moeckel’s simulation is built. The EMFs of each star will get highly distorted when they pass through periapsis.
[graphic]
To me this is a better explanation for the possible ejection of planetary bodies, and explains the fabled account of Phaeton entering our solar system around 9500BCE. Allan and Delair only discuss this possibility in their book, Cataclysm! and do not address how or the effects upon the planets induced by the distortions of the respective star’s EMF would also produce.
Mathematics is not my forté, nor do I have the programming skills on a PC to model any of this for further investigation. On the BRI web site there was an article about a fellow who was logging the effect of Sirius on the earth’s rotation, and noticed there was a retardation followed by an acceleration with the occultation of our sun. If what he was observing was indeed Sirius as our binary companion, it is not a large stretch to conceive of the geological effects via earth’s erratic rotation throughout periapsis. If it has merit, it goes a long way to explaining earth’s short and long term weather effects, as well as the orbital cycles of the gas giants. And it is a strong case for our sun having a binary or trinary companion.
J
@ oldbrew No kidding. I brushed up on the “magnetic lines of force” idea and “rediscovered” it was Faraday who first came up with that phrase, apparently based on the configuration of ferrous material in proximity to a permanent magnet. Maxwell conceptualized them as tubular.
The graphic created by Werner Heil (?) in conjunction with professor John Wilcox at NASA 1977 depicting the sun’s magnetic polarities is indeed spiral.
http://wso.stanford.edu/#Magnetograms
But I think it needs updating in lieu of Peratt’s force equation.
Well, now I have to extract a foot from the wrong location. Seems there are far more satellites in oblique orbits than I had ever supposed:
http://inspirehep.net/record/793687/plots
But I don’t mind too much. It’s a great learning adventure.
Sorry for the delayed response JB. I did have a posting to you that was ‘lost’ during an ‘upgrade’ for win 10 from/for win 7 users. The post is just ‘gone’!
JB says: October 5, 2016 at 1:40 am
“Well, now I have to extract a foot from the wrong location.”
No! Leave your ‘foot in the door’ JB. ‘Inertia’ from the origin is preserved within the dynamical behaviour of mass. Look again at your link and consider why the ‘scale’ of observation is of merit.
As I think I’ve already said, ‘gravity’ (thus inertia) trumps ‘charge’ (electrostatic in this case) for grasping mass.
Best regards, Ray.
darteck says: October 6, 2016 at 3:54 am
This was ‘ME’ ‘suricat’! My dormant ‘wordpress.com’ site has messed with my login here.
I said: “As I think I’ve already said, ‘gravity’ (thus inertia) trumps ‘charge’ (electrostatic in this case) for grasping mass.”.
Let me expound. Let’s look at the ‘properties’ of ‘matter’.
‘Charged particles’ (protons and electrons) possess both ‘mass’ and ‘charge’. However, there exists a ‘third state of matter’, the ‘neutron’!
The neutron, both, has no charge, and is unaffected within a magnetic field. So would the presence of ‘neutrons’ disturb a ‘birkland current’? IMHO it does/would. ‘Mass’ and its ‘inertia’ carries the ‘electrostatic component’ of the ‘mass’ to a region where ‘magnetic’/’electrostatic’ forcings have less intense field influence.
IMHO ‘Birkland Currents’ are generated by ‘charge’ and dampened by ‘mass’. Your link to Dr. Donald Scott’s presentation seems to emphasise this JB.
Best regards, Ray.
@ suricat so on account of your upgrade you became darteck? Or an alter-avatar? Gates is my Darth Vader/Sith lord of PC operating systems. May he be consigned to the black hole of endless reboots.
Anyway, as far as atomic models are concerned I am almost as ignorant as my sociologist wife. All these presumed particles since the 60s strike me as smashing a piece of granite with a pile driver, and then labeling each debris particle with a name that exhibited a specific pattern within the mess.
However, the charge vs gravitation (really magnetic field here) relation bears out from my early days of color CRT alignment. Orient the TV to magnetic north while aligning the color convergence! The last time I was in Japan at Toshiba (1993), they were still doing this while aligning the yoke and convergence magnets. It was the only portion of the technology they could not roboticize. Because of the earth’s field, heads-up CRT displays never became effective technology in fighter aircraft. I don’t know how a proper experiment could be conducted on earth to distinguish between the effect of the earth’s gravitation and its magnetic field. Maybe some bright minds have figured that out. I just don’t see how that is possible. My understanding is there is no perfect black body, and by similar difficulty, there can be no perfectly neutral magnetic environment to isolate the influence of gravity on electric charge. In the beginning of Don’s presentation he states that a Birkeland current is generated by the movement of electrically charged particles–electrons. So I think we’re all on the same page there. My excitement was the appearance of Lorentz force at the point of equal (axial & azimuthal) magnetic field intensity also coincided with the 1/r distance of solar system planets within the sun’s magnetic field. Don said that the Lorentz force compresses matter. As I conceive what he is talking about it does more than that. But I have no way of attempting a proof.
But there is a pile of papers out there to be read, and I’ll never get to them all. 😦
Does planet 9 exist, or is it more a case of the solar system orbits another body ?
http://binaryresearchinstitute.com/bri/
Thanks to OB for the link.
J Martin: observation beats theory 😎
JB; your granite smashing is similar to my smashing of multi colored glass marbles. Then classifying the debris by their hue as different kinds of particles. Really, they are all glass, just light and heavy metal oxides. Atom Smashers, just educated monkeys with expensive hammers!…pg
@ OB & JM Thank YOU as well. I found the article I had been looking for since BRI restructured their home page. It is the story of Karl Heinz & Uwe Homann. Looks like there are a few more articles to catch up on. Especially the one about the 9th planet….
Love it when this stuff comes together.
@ pg I haven’t smashed a marble since grade school. What’s your excuse? 🙂
J
I graduated to herding Electrons… 😉 ..pg
After that I learned to make cold with heat! … 😆 pg
Clearly, this is a condition of the utmost GRAVITY, requiring careful MODULATION of the NaPoleoNs and PeNeloPes within their respective FIELDS. Substitution of hockey sticks for crooks is liable to instill an asymptotic response during acceleration of such an inchoate MASS.
You must beg my pardon for this truncated homily concerning the CERNian conflagrationists.
JB says: October 7, 2016 at 2:26 am
“@ suricat so on account of your upgrade you became darteck? Or an alter-avatar?”
No, they’re two different issues JB. A ‘free’ win 10 upgrade from win 7 lead me to ‘driver issues’ until a major update was initialised by MS that still left issues unresolved until I initiated a ‘roll-back’ to a previous ‘restore point’ (things seem stable now), but the “alter-avatar” is due to me opening a ‘sleeping account’ with ‘wordpress.com’ so as to enable the perusal of another poster’s ‘site’ with ‘wordpress.com’. I’ve not got a ‘handle’ on this ‘alter ego’ with WordPress yet! 🙂
“Gates is my Darth Vader/Sith lord of PC operating systems. May he be consigned to the black hole of endless reboots.”
Please don’t wish for that! I’ve had more than my fair share of “reboots”! 😉
“Anyway, as far as atomic models are concerned I am almost as ignorant as my sociologist wife. All these presumed particles since the 60s strike me as smashing a piece of granite with a pile driver, and then labeling each debris particle with a name that exhibited a specific pattern within the mess.”
I concur. Most ‘observers’ are looking for something ‘different enough’ to procure ‘gravy’ (funding).
“However, the charge vs gravitation (really magnetic field here)…”
Woah there! AFAIK not enough is known of the ‘gravity field’ to enable a comparison with the ‘electric’&’magnetic’ ‘fields’ yet! Please advise me of your research. I’m all ears.
WRT BB radiation and such, I concur, but Don’s presentation only demarcates/conceptualises the ‘mass:energy’ ratio for a local region. ‘Filaments’ are constructed from/with/by matter with ‘low’ mass and ‘high’ charge. Need I say more?
A nice thought here is that ‘quantum theory’ requires the existence of ‘aether’ to ‘propagate’ EM energy. Any thoughts on that?
“But there is a pile of papers out there to be read, and I’ll never get to them all.”
That’s why we’re here. Isn’t it? 🙂
J Martin says: October 7, 2016 at 9:37 pm
“Does planet 9 exist, or is it more a case of the solar system orbits another body ?”
I don’t know, but Earth’s ‘nutation’ (the periodic variation in the precession of Earth’s rotation axis, causing Earth’s poles to oscillate about their mean position) can be verified by observation ‘within’ Sol’s system. However, ‘perturbations’ to this expected observation may result in/from an anomaly ‘exterior’ to ‘Sol’s system’.
Any ‘perturbation’ to the above should be considered for a ‘stationary’ ‘outer gravitational forcing’. I say ‘stationary’ because the ‘forcing’ shall display an identical ‘precession’ (the change between astral constellation observation) to an observation from ‘Earth’ (within Sol’s system), but 180 degrees out of sink. Is this confusing?
oldbrew says: October 7, 2016 at 9:58 pm
“observation beats theory”
What’s your ‘observation’ oldbrew?
Best regards, Ray.
@ suricat My “research” = recreational reading… lotsa time, no funds side of the balance beam, aka retired.
What I meant about gravity was before convergence became a factory alignment, CRT beam orientation had to be in line with the earth’s magnetic north for setting accurate convergence. To ascertain if gravity had any effect on the electron beam would require complete magnetic isolation. I’ve never heard of anyone doing that. Mu metal which once was used to minimize stray mag fields was expensive and difficult to form, and a complete shield to my knowledge was never accomplished. And since Mu metal did not negate gravity (we never had any semi-floating CRTs), there surely would be some effect. Now maybe somebody else had the funding to perform the experiment, such as with higher energy machines but so far I’ve not heard of it.
The only filaments I know of glow in the dark and are constructed of thorium oxide impregnated tungsten. Thorium certainly makes them “high charge”, if that’s the kind you’re referring to.
It’s late. I’ll have to consider the quantum stuff.
Ray: my observation is that nobody has direct evidence either of an actual binary partner for the Sun or of a so-called planet nine. But it/they might be out there, or not.
@ suricat Generally, my thoughts on quantum theory (as well as Al OneStone’s and his friend Gorgeous Lemaître) parallel BG Wallace and Sir Hoyle: “…the overwhelming proportion of new ideas is rubbish.” p22 (Including my own) “…I do not think that the Universe—more precisely a physical system—behaves with any uncertainty, it makes one definite decision or the other. If one takes this point of view it is necessary to say that while the Universe is entirely decisive, our powers of calculations are not, and if we believe a famous investigation due to von Neumann, our calculations never can be decisive.” p35 Man in the Universe
Perhaps the connection between Gravity, æther, and action at a distance will one day be described. But not until at least one of them can be isolated, prodded & poked, with subsequent characterization. Not in my lifetime.
Because of my professional experiences, pattern recognition became an essential skill for identifying the cause of observed effects in the lab. So when Tony Peratt demonstrated in the laboratory patterns that repeat in scale I’ve taken to thinking perhaps the micro world of atoms and the macro level of the solar system/galaxy follow the same principles and order. If it does not, then misapprehension of the universe is more widespread than many would care to admit.
@JB; I believe you are correct, GOD is simple minded and uses a few things over and over. A multiplicity of simple. The K.I.S.S. method of engineering.
Gravity is not a “thing” just a result derived from static stress between mater and space.
In this case it behaves just like any other force derived from mater and accelerations…pg
@ pg One of the more eloquent descriptions of Gravity I have come across. There is a word for the replication of structure or process with scale that has eluded me for days. Alas, there is an abundance of villous growth in the noggin preventing me from latching hold on the critter. Getting a clipping this morning from the bride has not helped!
In the Beginning, there was Tinker Toys, which was superseded by Erector Sets, and finally morphed into Legos. Perhaps it is no coincidence at all that Legos were invented by a Dane, whose language follows a Lego conception. Patterns within patterns.
As customary, I’ve returned to reviewing fundamental concepts in an attempt to manage the villous weeds infesting the noggin. Today I’m reviewing for the 3rd time The Farce of Physics and have noticed a few things which I did not before. The most germane to CIT’s announcement, as well as that about the Sun by Zharkova on another thread, is that they both bear the marks of Wallace’s pathological science. That is what caused me to think this virtual modeling of the 9th planet as presented has as much substance as a hologram.
‘The problem is that the Sun spins at a different angle, with its axis roughly 6 degrees off from the rest of the planets.’
Whether planet nine is out there or not, ‘Jupiter cannot cause its own tilt’.
[Quotes are from the post]
JB says: October 9, 2016 at 5:51 am
“@ suricat My “research” = recreational reading… lotsa time, no funds side of the balance beam, aka retired.”
Me too, but don’t you find that you get more ‘time’ to ‘expand’ your ‘knowledge base’ following retirement? I do. What’s more its in the direction that I want it to go.
“What I meant about gravity was before convergence became a factory alignment, CRT beam orientation had to be in line with the earth’s magnetic north for setting accurate convergence. To ascertain if gravity had any effect on the electron beam would require complete magnetic isolation. I’ve never heard of anyone doing that. Mu metal which once was used to minimize stray mag fields was expensive and difficult to form, and a complete shield to my knowledge was never accomplished. And since Mu metal did not negate gravity (we never had any semi-floating CRTs), there surely would be some effect. Now maybe somebody else had the funding to perform the experiment, such as with higher energy machines but so far I’ve not heard of it.”
I doubt that you will ever hear of it. 🙂
“The only filaments I know of glow in the dark and are constructed of thorium oxide impregnated tungsten. Thorium certainly makes them “high charge”, if that’s the kind you’re referring to.”
I think you may realise that it/this isn’t what I give reference to JB. “Thorium” is also used in the construction of ‘selenium rectifiers’, but the ‘filaments’ that I refer to are similar to this ‘type’:
http://www.nature.com/news/light-from-ancient-quasar-reveals-intergalactic-web-1.14550
No matter, just take a look and offer a response if you’re able to. 🙂
I don’t expect/suspect that your dialogue on ‘gravity’ shall/would be ‘groundbreaking’, but your input for the ‘magnetic field’ is most welcome to both me and ‘other readers’ here (I’m sure).
Are the ‘filaments’ mostly electric, or magnetic in their property? My guess is that its a proportion of both, but what is the/their proportionality in your opinion?
“It’s late. I’ll have to consider the quantum stuff.”
No rush, only interest/curiosity on my part. 🙂
oldbrew says: October 9, 2016 at 9:20 am
“Ray: my observation is that nobody has direct evidence either of an actual binary partner for the Sun or of a so-called planet nine. But it/they might be out there, or not.”
So! Are you saying that this thread is pointless? I think not! Its a means to an end that presents possibilities that are impossible to observe for their level of obscurity and improbability (its ‘theoretical’), and its fun (I enjoy ‘brainstorming’).
JB says: October 9, 2016 at 3:09 pm
“@ suricat Generally, my thoughts on quantum theory (as well as Al OneStone’s and his friend Gorgeous Lemaître) parallel BG Wallace and Sir Hoyle: “…the overwhelming proportion of new ideas is rubbish.” p22 (Including my own) “…I do not think that the Universe—more precisely a physical system—behaves with any uncertainty, it makes one definite decision or the other. If one takes this point of view it is necessary to say that while the Universe is entirely decisive, our powers of calculations are not, and if we believe a famous investigation due to von Neumann, our calculations never can be decisive.” p35 Man in the Universe”
I concur! ‘God doesn’t play dice’ is the phrase that comes to mind!
‘When/how long’ can ‘science’, per se, live with the differentials between two divergent ‘schools’? They need to either separate, or find a ‘bridge’ IMHO!
“Perhaps the connection between Gravity, æther, and action at a distance will one day be described. But not until at least one of them can be isolated, prodded & poked, with subsequent characterization. Not in my lifetime.”
Or my lifetime perhaps, but this isn’t a reason for me to stop searching for an answer. However, the ‘atractors’ for ‘gravity’ don’t co-relate with the ‘atractors’ for ‘electrostatic/magnetic’ media!
Something is missing. Could this be something as insignificant as ‘scale’ and ‘charge’? Oops, this is heading/leading towards the ‘gauge field’ theory. See Wiki:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gauge_theory
Where an ‘introduction’ to the ‘stream of thought’ can be reached (I hope, I’ve not actually been there to read it yet).
‘What’ could this mean? It ‘could mean’ that ‘space’ is filled with a ‘gravity field’ that ‘vibrates’ as well as ‘attracts’! IOW, ‘it’ (gravity) possesses an ‘AC’ component as well as its recognised ‘DC’ component.
I’m knackered with a ‘digestive problem’! I’ll get back when I can.
Best regards, Ray.
Ray says: ‘Are you saying that this thread is pointless?’
No, or I wouldn’t have posted it. Just saying theories like this need observational evidence in the end.
Latest: New dwarf planet found in our solar system
Source: http://phys.org/news/2016-10-dwarf-planet-solar.html
@ suricat The æther is a subject I have not read about for several decades, so I have no real current knowledge of the latest speculation on what it is. (The same goes even more so for atomic models and fundamental forces.) I vaguely recall that Bill Geide treated the idea with regard to the propagation of photons, but that was some years ago and I don’t remember the details.
Scott’s presentation on the Lorentz force in association with the magnetic fields inherent in charge flow suggested to me it was bidirectional. My suspicion is in the low density of matter regions of space filaments are the charge equalizing flow between galaxies, and within a galaxy–the spiral arms. It is this passage of current induced field that compresses matter, rather than gravitation, and produces the spiral effect not only in the arms, but drives stars in binary orbits, and the force driving the planets in their orbits. From what little I’ve learned about Peratt’s plasma research it appears to confirm this fundamental behavior of matter and charge. But I am not competent to argue it merits. The behavior of ionized plasma IMO is likely to be the fundamental force driving matter, rather than the gravitational. Newton’s disingenuousness has led people down a dead end.
Mostly what I look for in my technical reading is evidence of sound reasoning, clear statements of assumptions and definitions before continuing on with any hypothesis. The reasoning must be an exposition the common person can understand–“If you can’t explain it simply, you don’t understand it well enough.” to quote good ol’ Al, one of the biggest offenders of clear concepts. If I don’t find that within the first 2-3 paragraphs I toss out the paper. Many of the papers I’ve read over the years do a poor job of laying out the conceptual groundwork upon which they build their thesis. If that groundwork isn’t there, the rest is GIGO. (Referencing the work of others as a substitute for that groundwork is shear intellectual laziness and professional ineptitude IMO.) If they rely heavily on equations to explain their hypothesis I figure they really don’t have a clear conception of what they’re proposing. I don’t recall immediately a decently composed press release that reflects this since I read a newspaper article in the early 60s exposing the faults of red-shift distance theory. That news article had a profound impact on my respect for the integrity of scientists. Even at age 14 I was wondering how these folks distinguished between light that was inherently “red”, and the Doppler effect. Of course back then quasar investigation was in its infancy, and it seemed to me there was a lot of presumption about the behavior of matter. But if I as an adolescent could discern that any theories built up on a presumption were basically a house of cards, how could anything they drummed up be worthy of consideration?
This week I finally got around to reading Karl Popper. I was struck within the introductory section that his writings should have been included in collegiate communication courses, along with the basics of logical reasoning. My degree was in applied science, but there was never a hint about what constituted science and its methodology, other than sporadic comments while introducing a concept. Decades later I look back on scientific research (mostly in fields where it is difficult to perform experiments) and see evidence of the same ineptitude I found among roughly 50% of EEs. They were proficient in their college indoctrination, but they did not understand what those indoctrinated procedures meant in the context of Nature. When faced with a problem they would resort to wild speculations, indiscriminately apply their mathematical tools (or CAD programs), looking very busy but never getting to the root cause. Only a few knew how to reason out a problem, defining precisely what they were beset with before speculating on causes or remedies. Hence my assertion that a lot of what is passed of as scientific progress is pathology. Popper treats this kind of thinking. A good communication course in college follows on the heals of basic philosophy, develops written communication skills, and the common errors of logic. I did not get that, as did virtually all I worked with. I could numerous stories, but this ain’t the place.
So while I enjoy conjectural discussions, I tend to steer away from them if they’re rooted in fundamental conjectures born of faulty thinking and horribly conceived experiments (e.g. COBE). What has drawn me to Roger’s blog is the level of professionalism–the intellectual honesty, and the lack of hierarchical splatter. I’ve learned far more here than I could ever contribute.
@JB:If your bored, you might examine my offerings;
After a great deal of thought on gravity mass/inertia I threw out the standard theory and created my own based on the things that I see or accept as fact. The creation of a true space drive based on electrical principles is my aim. A part of this pursuit included reports and pictures of UFOs as reverse engineering is easier then starting from complete ignorance. Form follows function so experimental efforts have moved in that direction….pg
@ pg Thanks for the offer. I’ll look into your stuff as soon as I get through the current reading back log. Never bored, my bucket list is longer than a business prospectus.
I sort of tossed out the standard model too, in that I decided a cosmology based on the four states of matter was more rational and reasonable. But I’m not invested in models per se, nor my own ideas. As I posted previously, what engages my attention the most is understanding everything about us; that explanations for its operation and function are rational, reasonable, simple, and therefore understandable. So necessarily out goes the BB, black holes, singularities, neutron stars, the formation and death of stars and planets, relativity, dark energy/matter, pretty much most of the cosmological models built up over the previous century. For me it’s a WYSIWYG universe. In reading Popper I find confirmation of what I concluded four decades ago entering academia: Mathematics is one of the poorest languages to describe the physical universe. It is taught like the rules of grammar in a foreign language. But the development of vocabulary and syntax along with the philosophical meanings has been sorely neglected, much less recognized and defined. That error has led to several generations of folks who appear to know what they’re talking about with their mishmash of Greek symbols, but couldn’t possibly contain the several corresponding concepts in proper relation in the noggin. Chief among them was Dr OneStone, who had serious difficulty keeping his concepts well defined and consistent, as well as performing his mathematical grammar properly. Bless his heart, he was at least honest enough to admit his house of cards was likely built on a false premise.
oldbrew says: October 12, 2016 at 2:00 pm
“No, or I wouldn’t have posted it. Just saying theories like this need observational evidence in the end.”
The “observational evidence” is ‘gone’ oldbrew. What we need now is an ‘autopsy’, but our science isn’t up to such a task for the ‘reverse engineering’ of current “observation” IMHO. Thus, this thread seems more to do with the improvement of ‘science’ per se so as to improve any possibility of ‘reverse engineering’.
Do I stand corrected by my peers? 🙂
Best regards, Ray.
JB says: October 12, 2016 at 2:26 pm
“@ suricat The æther is a subject I have not read about for several decades, so I have no real current knowledge of the latest speculation on what it is. (The same goes even more so for atomic models and fundamental forces.) I vaguely recall that Bill Geide treated the idea with regard to the propagation of photons, but that was some years ago and I don’t remember the details.”
I have no idea about the “Bill Geide” ‘treatment’ for “the propagation of photons”, but the principle may well be useful. Could you provide a ‘link’ for readers and myself?
The ‘radiant energy’ caused by a ‘photon’ requires a ‘transmission medium’ for the energy to be transferred (as no ‘matter’ is involved). Since the advent of ‘quantum physics’ this principal seems to have been ‘ignored’.
I’ll await your response before I continue
Best regards, Ray.
‘Most stars in our Milky Way galaxy are members of binary systems’ – it says here…
http://phys.org/news/2016-10-hubble-giant-cannonballs-star.html
@ suricat Ray, with regard to the æther and Bill Gaede (not Geide, my SP error) go here:
http://youstupidrelativist.com/index3.html
The site has been updated since I last visited, so I don’t know exactly where to find the original episodes of Einstein’s Idiots. Numbers 7 through 12 treat the concepts involved with æther, although he doesn’t specifically treat that subject, for evidentiary reasons.
In regard to oldbrew’s observation comment, the topic began with and was supposed to have centered around CIT’s modeling of a 9th planet. The next logical step toward that investigation is observation, which is also applicable to my insertion of the binary star relation as a possible alternate explanation for the proposed 9th planet. It isn’t that what has been discussed so far is meaningless. It is that it is not directly relevant, something which I pointed out early on. My attempts to push the discussion back to topic with a hockey stick, or shepherd’s crook has seemed to be insufficient, requiring the use of a #3 iron on the driving range, metaphorically speaking. Not my preferred strategy.
My salient points about the press release has been that
1) the cosmological basis for their virtual model is predicated on erroneous concepts
2) the procedural methods for establishing their virtual model is discontinuous and improperly implemented
and rather than poke at the errors and walk away, suggested an alternative which might have merit. I’ve also pointed out that I am not a theorist, but a technologist. I don’t have the competency to discuss the merits of the fundamental nature of matter and energy. I did however cite those who have better command of such ideas—the scientific method, the scalability of the phenomenon of charge in motion, the behavior of ionized plasma, the investigation into binary star systems.
I prefer not to be cast in the role of Chance the Gardiner in Peter Seller’s movie, Being There….
BW, J
From WUWT: Solar cycle mystery solved?
For the last three cycles, the southern hemisphere has had more sunspot area than the northern hemisphere. Its peak has also been later than that of the northern hemisphere. What could be causing that? It is likely to be the inclination of the orbits of the gas giant planets to the Sun’s equator. Those inclinations are:
Jupiter 6.09 degrees
Saturn 5.51
Uranus 6.48
Neptune 6.43
There is a typo in the article. The inclination is not percent, but degrees.
[reply] thanks JB – amended
JB says: October 13, 2016 at 2:33 pm
“…”
I’m not sure that I want to peruse that site JB, it just seems ‘odd’ in its current format.
“In regard to oldbrew’s observation comment, the topic began with and was supposed to have centered around CIT’s modeling of a 9th planet.”
As I said, any ‘observation’ ‘after the event’ can only be a ‘historical analogy’ for a ‘forensic analysis’. The events are ‘lost to time’ and can only be ‘retraced’ with a ‘competent understanding’ for all the ‘energy systems’ in evidence at that time, but the current day ‘understanding’ to accomplish this is ‘incomplete’.
“The next logical step toward that investigation is observation, which is also applicable to my insertion of the binary star relation as a possible alternate explanation for the proposed 9th planet.”
This is a ‘theoretical proposition’ of historical import JB. IMHO the hypothesis is unprovable, but ‘note worthy’. However, that’s not to say that the ‘binary’ may be a ‘black hole’ situated in the ‘great box’! I’ll skip your dialogue to here:
“My salient points about the press release has been that”
“1) the cosmological basis for their virtual model is predicated on erroneous concepts”
I concur.
“2) the procedural methods for establishing their virtual model is discontinuous and improperly implemented”
I concur.
“and rather than poke at the errors and walk away, suggested an alternative which might have merit. I’ve also pointed out that I am not a theorist, but a technologist. I don’t have the competency to discuss the merits of the fundamental nature of matter and energy. I did however cite those who have better command of such ideas—the scientific method, the scalability of the phenomenon of charge in motion, the behaviour of ionized plasma, the investigation into binary star systems.”
Aargh! This hurts! Just because we’re ‘engineers’ doesn’t mean that ‘we don’t understand science’!
Without the ‘input’ from ‘engineers’, the ‘science’ genre doesn’t have a ‘clue’ as to ‘where to go next’!
The difference between ‘science’ and ‘engineering’ is ‘direction’ and ‘procurement’. The ‘scientists’ provide the ‘direction’ and the ‘engineers’ provide the ‘procurement’!
When science fails engineers continue to provide a ‘workable direction’ for the populace (apologies for the introduction of ‘socialism’ here).
“I prefer not to be cast in the role of Chance the Gardiner in Peter Seller’s movie, Being There….
BW, J”
Huh? How would this be possible?
Best regards, Ray.
@ suricat I was beginning to wonder if I had put you off. I often forget some people do not appreciate as much honesty and candidness as I sometimes do.
If you’re familiar with the movie, then you know how easy it is for some persons to attribute more savvy to someone than they actually have. I consider it more conservative to not profess knowledge on something I’m not up to speed on or haven’t yet thought out. Speculating is such a seductive activity. Being taciturn beats being thought of as a con-artist later for pomposity, and has kept me out of trouble many times.
Well, scientists SHOULD provide direction, but as acknowledged in the CIT case, they’re off on a hyperbolic loop with this one. Sorry. Just one more poke…. The direction of many of the more visible ones of the last century played the role of Chance, and the engineers involved with a number of satellite projects to test their ideas should have brought them to a halt. But you know, politics Trump engineering.
Really, I do not know what you are referring to when you say the event to be observed has past. What event? I’d like to see a long-term, concerted effort to examine star movement in the hope of finding a suitable companion star(s).IMO that identification would go a long way to answering a lot of solar system behavior, as well as put the climate analysis into a revealing context. Same for solar orbits, obliquities, inclinations, tilts. I didn’t believe the Newtonian action-reaction explanation about the planets even when I was in 2nd grade. It struck me then as naive and ad-hoc.
Bill has a sarcastic wit that bears the marks of industry blacklisting. A bit of a chip on his shoulder from some bitter experiences. I did find another episode where he treats æther, vortex, and plasma. He says that æther is a reified word, as is vortex. They’re concepts, not physical things. That I agree with. But when he claims plasma is a concept, he has not done his research. (He also makes statements about the E.U.’s tenets that are false and misleading.) Even though plasma is a borrowed word from biology (like too many others), the modified use is still representative of matter in a highly agitated state, which does not classify as solid, liquid, or gas. It is a physical thing we observe, manipulate as engineers, and endeavor as radio operators to avoid producing. Bill’s hypothetical concepts of the atom do not allow for æther, nor for ionization in the sense the rest of us are accustomed to thinking of. His proposition we are about to become an extinct species is full or logical errors. Still, he has made some very good points about erroneous physics.
J
JB: ‘Really, I do not know what you are referring to when you say the event to be observed has past. What event? ‘
I took that to mean the tilting of the solar system.
@ OB Ahso. Duh. Then one would think that if the solar system is not being held in its present state by unidentified forces, it would be continuing to tilt, and therefore observed. The previous planetary orbital arrangement, being disturbed, would show continuing evidence of disturbance. If the solar system IS held in its present state by some force(s) (identified or not), then the disturbance, if it had happened, would have been transitory with the tilting and planetary orbits returning to their previous state. The identification of such force(s) is fundamental to the hypothesis, and since Newton’s force equation has been shown to be non-predictive as far as our locality in space is concerned, conceptually, the attempt is flawed from the gekko. Not having read the original paper I cannot say with certainty whether they accounted for the angular momentum of the sun’s movement. But that is certainly essential for a complete dynamic computer model.
It is my understanding that backward computer modeling of celestial orbits is an IFy business, simply because it is an uniformitarian assumption–there is no way to account for previous moderating events. Such modeling efforts are untestable, and therefore unfalsifiable, which negates the hypothesis. The CIT project administrators should have reviewed this before expending resources on it, and IMO, dismissed for incompetence. That is, assuming I haven’t missed some over-riding factor in my own thinking, which is certainly probable.
Incidentally, this is the very problem the E.U. postulators have with their Saturnian model of earth’s so-called 2nd sun myth. They not only ignore Popper’s arguments of demarcation between myth as evidence, and observation as evidence, (myth, however its strength in numbers, is hearsay, and therefore inadmissible), and computer modeling was briefly attempted early on, only to discover certain conditions had to be obtained for their co-linear configuration which are in violation of known orbital mechanics empirically ascertained in the last several decades. When I confronted Wal/Dwardu on this matter I was summarily execrated as persona non grata. Don Scott at EU 2014 asserted that the herbig-haro configuration with its z-pinch quality was sufficient evidence for such co-linear alignment of planets. What he forgot was his time-elapsed video failed to demonstrate differential movement between the z-pinchs–such movement being essential to the break up of their co-linear model. He also failed to explain how a herbig-haro configuration could pass from where ever it was into the solar system and not be immediately and violently disrupted (killing all life on earth). I would be immensely embarrassed as a retired professor of engineering to make such a public gaffe.
Sorry Ray, but in this instance we have evidence of two engineers who make poor theorists as well as mediocre engineers.
J
JB says: October 15, 2016 at 6:05 am
Apologies for the late reply. I’ve ‘other’ issues at play.
“@ suricat I was beginning to wonder if I had put you off.”
That would be difficult on your part. My time here may well be short during times of high personal activity ‘elsewhere’, but I try to ‘make an appearance’ when/where possible.
“If you’re familiar with the movie,”
I’m not.
“then you know how easy it is for some persons to attribute more savvy to someone than they actually have. I consider it more conservative to not profess knowledge on something I’m not up to speed on or haven’t yet thought out. Speculating is such a seductive activity. Being taciturn beats being thought of as a con-artist later for pomposity, and has kept me out of trouble many times.”
Bully for you. I’ve ‘no idea’ of your ‘implication/inference’ here, but ‘hubris’ isn’t on my agenda! I’ve nothing to prove, and only have my past experience and knowledge to add since my retirement.
“Well, scientists SHOULD provide direction, but as acknowledged in the CIT case, they’re off on a hyperbolic loop with this one. Sorry. Just one more poke…. The direction of many of the more visible ones of the last century played the role of Chance, and the engineers involved with a number of satellite projects to test their ideas should have brought them to a halt. But you know, politics Trump engineering.”
“Trump” is a ‘no no’ for our dialogue in this political climate, ‘trumps’ would be a more appropriate expression. 😉
“Really, I do not know what you are referring to when you say the event to be observed has past.”
Quite simply, ‘the event’ is ‘historic’. Thus, ‘we can’t “observe” it’, only any ‘forensic trace record’ of it. The ‘event’ occurred before any opportunity of ‘observation’ that could actually ‘observe’ the ‘event’. IOW, computer models are used to ‘approximate’ the ‘natural flow’ of energetic events, but can’t ‘replicate’ the ‘actuality’. Heck, even an ‘observation’ with ‘low/insufficient resolution’ may not be able to ‘accurately record/observe’ an ‘event’!
“What event? I’d like to see a long-term, concerted effort to examine star movement in the hope of finding a suitable companion star(s).”
Exactly! I concur.
“IMO that identification would go a long way to answering a lot of solar system behavior, as well as put the climate analysis into a revealing context. Same for solar orbits, obliquities, inclinations, tilts. I didn’t believe the Newtonian action-reaction explanation about the planets even when I was in 2nd grade. It struck me then as naive and ad-hoc.”
Quite so.
“Bill has a sarcastic wit that bears the marks of industry blacklisting. A bit of a chip on his shoulder from some bitter experiences. I did find another episode where he treats æther, vortex, and plasma. He says that æther is a reified word, as is vortex. They’re concepts, not physical things. That I agree with.”
“reified word”! Rectified, redefined??? Don’t understand!
However, I disagree with the overall concept. “Aether” and wave-fronts adhere to classical physics (physical things), “vortex” describes the configuration of massive objects by their ‘mass’ and ‘trajectory’ (you can’t get more ‘physical’ than ‘mass’ per se) and “plasma” is descriptive of the ‘electro-massive’ state of ‘matter’ (if you disassociate ‘matter’, electrical imbalances occur).
“But when he claims plasma is a concept, he has not done his research. (He also makes statements about the E.U.’s tenets that are false and misleading.) Even though plasma is a borrowed word from biology (like too many others), the modified use is still representative of matter in a highly agitated state, which does not classify as solid, liquid, or gas. It is a physical thing we observe, manipulate as engineers, and endeavor as radio operators to avoid producing.”
At last some sanity.
“Bill’s hypothetical concepts of the atom do not allow for æther, nor for ionization in the sense the rest of us are accustomed to thinking of. His proposition we are about to become an extinct species is full or logical errors. Still, he has made some very good points about erroneous physics.”
Perhaps he’s mentioned some “erroneous” ‘logical errors’, but the ‘errors’ are in the ‘worst places’ for my part and understanding.
Why do you ‘read’ this guy?
Best regards, Ray.
JB says: October 15, 2016 at 3:14 pm
“Sorry Ray, but in this instance we have evidence of two engineers who make poor theorists as well as mediocre engineers.”
Speak for yourself JB, but I tend to concur on the point of theory. We’re faced with data that’s been supplied by the ‘science community’ on an ‘ad hock’ basis. Is this ‘supply’ of info suppressed at all? Yes it is! Its suppressed by the ‘peer review’ practise of reviewing data before its release to the public domain. Engineers have no control over this without an expensive ‘patent application’ (thus, a disproportionate ‘playing field’).
I’ll reserve further comment. 😦
Best regards, Ray.
oldbrew says: October 15, 2016 at 9:54 am
“…”
Thank you oldbrew. Inertia rules!
However, its action is under a ‘historic’ scrutiny in this thread.
Best regards, Ray.
JB says: ‘In this Word Press environment I have no idea how to insert JPGs to facilitate comprehension of so many parameters and their relations.’
There are places that allow you to upload JPGs etc. to the internet, then you can insert the URL into your comment. An example is tinypic.com but that’s not a recommendation, there are others.
Here we go again…
A University of Arizona team…found that the four Kuiper Belt Objects with the longest known orbital periods revolve around the Sun in patterns most readily explained by the presence of a hypothetical “Planet Nine” approximately ten times the mass of Earth.
According to the researchers’ calculations, such a hypothetical planet would complete one orbit around the Sun roughly every 17,000 years
Read more at: http://phys.org/news/2016-10-evidence-ninth-planet-roaming-solar.html
There’s also talk of resonances – see latest post: