Ceres!

Historic planetary instability and catastrophe. Evidence for electrical scarring on planets and moons. Electrical events in today's solar system. Electric Earth.

Moderators: MGmirkin, bboyer

Re: Ceres!

Unread postby viscount aero » Sat Jan 31, 2015 3:22 pm

willendure wrote:
viscount aero wrote:
willendure wrote:
viscount aero wrote:Earth itself is not Earth, in other words. Earth is result of "impact events" that "created the oceans and all life." The life and water that is on Earth did not come from Earth. It all came from Dione, Europa, Enceladus.... anything but the actual Earth body. This is how the establishment thinks. They will insist that life and H20 came from anywhere but here. Despite the massive and unprecedented biodiversity of Earth, they will look to lifeless worlds for life--but not the Earth--as basis for life. This is how modern cosmology thinks.


I think its not just how cosmology thinks but a way of thinking that permeates western society. Have you read Alan Watts? When we build houses on a hill, we don't adhere to the restrictions of the hill, we chop and flatten it so that we can build as though on a flat lifeless surface. Everything we touch we want to impose some perfect lifeless ideology to simplify nature. Its as though we have a bad case of 'not invented here' syndrome and nature must be subjegated. I recommend Alan Watts if you are not already familiar with his work.


Thanks, willendure. Yes I agree with you. And yes I've read AW over 25 years ago, not new to me ;) And there is more out there like him. What we have today are sophisticated probes and sciences designed with tunnel vision, bias, and a presumed set of truths that do not necessarily embody actual truth or reality. So, too, the data becomes construed to conform to predisposed ideas that are not the truth. The data, too, is also fragmentary because of the biases engineered into the data gathering apparatus. So only a tiny fraction of a picture is seen when the entire picture looms in plain sight. Yet this looming picture, the bigger truth, is overlooked and ignored.


Well, science is hard I guess. You have to work hard on some small piece of the puzzle and gather evidence that you are right, and fit it with mathematical equations to make quantitative predictions - its not surprising then if we miss the bigger picture.

Ego too plays its role. Its kind of hard to admit you might be wrong after you've spent the research grant and worked so hard to write those papers.


That's part of the problem: the mathematical equations. There is an overly reliant bias to mathematics when it often has nothing to do with an actual structure, event, or phenomenon as actually occurring in the Cosmos.
User avatar
viscount aero
 
Posts: 2381
Joined: Mon May 12, 2008 11:23 pm
Location: Los Angeles, California

Re: Ceres!

Unread postby Zyxzevn » Sat Jan 31, 2015 5:17 pm

Well, science is hard I guess.

Physics is actually very easy and straightforward.
If a scientific theory gets too hard, or when it does not match the observations, it is simply wrong.
More ** from zyxzevn at: Paradigm change and C@
User avatar
Zyxzevn
 
Posts: 891
Joined: Wed Dec 11, 2013 4:48 pm

Re: Ceres!

Unread postby willendure » Mon Feb 02, 2015 3:31 am

viscount aero wrote:
willendure wrote:
viscount aero wrote:
willendure wrote:
viscount aero wrote:Earth itself is not Earth, in other words. Earth is result of "impact events" that "created the oceans and all life." The life and water that is on Earth did not come from Earth. It all came from Dione, Europa, Enceladus.... anything but the actual Earth body. This is how the establishment thinks. They will insist that life and H20 came from anywhere but here. Despite the massive and unprecedented biodiversity of Earth, they will look to lifeless worlds for life--but not the Earth--as basis for life. This is how modern cosmology thinks.


I think its not just how cosmology thinks but a way of thinking that permeates western society. Have you read Alan Watts? When we build houses on a hill, we don't adhere to the restrictions of the hill, we chop and flatten it so that we can build as though on a flat lifeless surface. Everything we touch we want to impose some perfect lifeless ideology to simplify nature. Its as though we have a bad case of 'not invented here' syndrome and nature must be subjegated. I recommend Alan Watts if you are not already familiar with his work.


Thanks, willendure. Yes I agree with you. And yes I've read AW over 25 years ago, not new to me ;) And there is more out there like him. What we have today are sophisticated probes and sciences designed with tunnel vision, bias, and a presumed set of truths that do not necessarily embody actual truth or reality. So, too, the data becomes construed to conform to predisposed ideas that are not the truth. The data, too, is also fragmentary because of the biases engineered into the data gathering apparatus. So only a tiny fraction of a picture is seen when the entire picture looms in plain sight. Yet this looming picture, the bigger truth, is overlooked and ignored.


Well, science is hard I guess. You have to work hard on some small piece of the puzzle and gather evidence that you are right, and fit it with mathematical equations to make quantitative predictions - its not surprising then if we miss the bigger picture.

Ego too plays its role. Its kind of hard to admit you might be wrong after you've spent the research grant and worked so hard to write those papers.


That's part of the problem: the mathematical equations. There is an overly reliant bias to mathematics when it often has nothing to do with an actual structure, event, or phenomenon as actually occurring in the Cosmos.


There is also a bias of assuming results without evidence, and this is something you have alluded to many times. For example, the abstract of some paper about say structures on the surface of 67P may read:

"The authors examine and categorize features on the surface of the _icy_ body 67P..."

It seems to me that established science has made a great many correct discoveries, EU may have too, but both have their share of bad but accepted hypothesis. Established science is arguably worse in this regard, it has become so successful as to be almost arrogant. I think this is what draws me to EU, its simply that there is a voice saying "hold on a minute, why assume that this is an icy body from the oort cloud? stick to the facts, report what you observe, and try hard to keep the assumed body of knowledge that you picked up along the way out of the picture".

Then we have open minds and can make progress. Its obvious that there are huge cracks in the mainstream view that are being badly papered over.

As to this idea that life on Earth came from elsewhere. Its an interesting hypothesis, the cosmic seed carried through space on a lump of rock. It evades the question of how did life start, and perhaps that is the attraction, but of course, it had to start somewhere originally? Life started in the chemical soup around volcanic sea vents, or from outer space, I'm open minded about which answer is correct.
willendure
 
Posts: 605
Joined: Fri Nov 28, 2014 8:29 am

Re: Ceres!

Unread postby viscount aero » Mon Feb 02, 2015 1:28 pm

willendure wrote:
viscount aero wrote:
willendure wrote:
viscount aero wrote:
willendure wrote:
viscount aero wrote:Earth itself is not Earth, in other words. Earth is result of "impact events" that "created the oceans and all life." The life and water that is on Earth did not come from Earth. It all came from Dione, Europa, Enceladus.... anything but the actual Earth body. This is how the establishment thinks. They will insist that life and H20 came from anywhere but here. Despite the massive and unprecedented biodiversity of Earth, they will look to lifeless worlds for life--but not the Earth--as basis for life. This is how modern cosmology thinks.


I think its not just how cosmology thinks but a way of thinking that permeates western society. Have you read Alan Watts? When we build houses on a hill, we don't adhere to the restrictions of the hill, we chop and flatten it so that we can build as though on a flat lifeless surface. Everything we touch we want to impose some perfect lifeless ideology to simplify nature. Its as though we have a bad case of 'not invented here' syndrome and nature must be subjegated. I recommend Alan Watts if you are not already familiar with his work.


Thanks, willendure. Yes I agree with you. And yes I've read AW over 25 years ago, not new to me ;) And there is more out there like him. What we have today are sophisticated probes and sciences designed with tunnel vision, bias, and a presumed set of truths that do not necessarily embody actual truth or reality. So, too, the data becomes construed to conform to predisposed ideas that are not the truth. The data, too, is also fragmentary because of the biases engineered into the data gathering apparatus. So only a tiny fraction of a picture is seen when the entire picture looms in plain sight. Yet this looming picture, the bigger truth, is overlooked and ignored.


Well, science is hard I guess. You have to work hard on some small piece of the puzzle and gather evidence that you are right, and fit it with mathematical equations to make quantitative predictions - its not surprising then if we miss the bigger picture.

Ego too plays its role. Its kind of hard to admit you might be wrong after you've spent the research grant and worked so hard to write those papers.


That's part of the problem: the mathematical equations. There is an overly reliant bias to mathematics when it often has nothing to do with an actual structure, event, or phenomenon as actually occurring in the Cosmos.


There is also a bias of assuming results without evidence, and this is something you have alluded to many times. For example, the abstract of some paper about say structures on the surface of 67P may read:

"The authors examine and categorize features on the surface of the _icy_ body 67P..."

It seems to me that established science has made a great many correct discoveries, EU may have too, but both have their share of bad but accepted hypothesis. Established science is arguably worse in this regard, it has become so successful as to be almost arrogant. I think this is what draws me to EU, its simply that there is a voice saying "hold on a minute, why assume that this is an icy body from the oort cloud? stick to the facts, report what you observe, and try hard to keep the assumed body of knowledge that you picked up along the way out of the picture".

Then we have open minds and can make progress. Its obvious that there are huge cracks in the mainstream view that are being badly papered over.

As to this idea that life on Earth came from elsewhere. Its an interesting hypothesis, the cosmic seed carried through space on a lump of rock. It evades the question of how did life start, and perhaps that is the attraction, but of course, it had to start somewhere originally? Life started in the chemical soup around volcanic sea vents, or from outer space, I'm open minded about which answer is correct.


I'm all for science. It has brought great human advancement.

I'm against settled science and scientism that assumes things are pretty much "figured out" by now. This is rampant in cosmology. Modern cosmology thinks it has "narrowed down the facts" quite far when, in reality, it is barking up delusional trees.

Insofar as life's origins: nobody knows that. It may have arisen both here and elsewhere. Yet cosmology is myopic. It requires that virtually everything on Earth be "transported here" from arid, dead worlds, of rocks or comets. And when they observe a world that is clearly arid and dead they insist it is harboring "possible life and water." If you want to find the origins for the overwhelming biodiversity on Earth, unprecedented for a planet, then look at the Earth first. Earth's origins of it's biodiversity won't be found on Comet 67P or even on Mars, Europa, or Enceladus.
User avatar
viscount aero
 
Posts: 2381
Joined: Mon May 12, 2008 11:23 pm
Location: Los Angeles, California

Re: Ceres!

Unread postby willendure » Mon Feb 02, 2015 2:24 pm

viscount aero wrote:I'm against settled science and scientism that assumes things are pretty much "figured out" by now. This is rampant in cosmology. Modern cosmology thinks it has "narrowed down the facts" quite far when, in reality, it is barking up delusional trees.


That is a good way of putting it. Baudrillard writes about the fallacy of history, that we interpret it as an inevitable story leading towards the current state of western civilization as some sort of pinnacle, only for us to be continually deluded by the endless repetition of history and the reality of the never arriving ultimate unfolding of this story. Yep, black holes, the big bang, the nuclear powered sun, that's all part of that 20th century story of progress and faith in science. In reality, we don't know hardly anything at all about the universe, how could we? we're only seeing it from one corner and its so vast.

I would agree though, I think that life starting on earth itself is the more likely hypothesis.
willendure
 
Posts: 605
Joined: Fri Nov 28, 2014 8:29 am

Re: Ceres!

Unread postby Dotini » Tue Feb 03, 2015 3:15 pm

Video of funny bright spot, and some other stuff.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T-p6EvWxvFc

This source definitely suggests the white spot is "flickering"!
They think it may be a pool of water at the bottom of a crater.
http://www.techtimes.com/articles/28591 ... mmoxed.htm
Dotini
 
Posts: 315
Joined: Wed Mar 10, 2010 7:44 am
Location: Seattle

Re: Ceres!

Unread postby viscount aero » Tue Feb 03, 2015 3:40 pm

Dotini wrote:Video of funny bright spot, and some other stuff.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T-p6EvWxvFc

This source definitely suggests the white spot is "flickering"!
They think it may be a pool of water at the bottom of a crater.
http://www.techtimes.com/articles/28591 ... mmoxed.htm

^^^ and the point of the video is what?
User avatar
viscount aero
 
Posts: 2381
Joined: Mon May 12, 2008 11:23 pm
Location: Los Angeles, California

Re: Ceres!

Unread postby Dotini » Tue Feb 03, 2015 3:46 pm

viscount aero wrote:
Dotini wrote:

^^^ and the point of the video is what?

Perhaps you didn't know there is a NASA spacecraft approaching Ceres? Anyway, it's still got quite a way to go to get decent resolution. ;)

http://www.space.com/28336-mysterious-w ... ceres.html
Dotini
 
Posts: 315
Joined: Wed Mar 10, 2010 7:44 am
Location: Seattle

Re: Ceres!

Unread postby viscount aero » Tue Feb 03, 2015 4:51 pm

Dotini wrote:
viscount aero wrote:
Dotini wrote:

^^^ and the point of the video is what?

Perhaps you didn't know there is a NASA spacecraft approaching Ceres? Anyway, it's still got quite a way to go to get decent resolution. ;)

http://www.space.com/28336-mysterious-w ... ceres.html


LOL of course I know there is a spacecraft approaching Ceres :lol:

I didn't understand the point of an endless loop, several minutes long, of the low-rez footage of Ceres.
User avatar
viscount aero
 
Posts: 2381
Joined: Mon May 12, 2008 11:23 pm
Location: Los Angeles, California

Re: Ceres!

Unread postby Xuxalina Rihhia » Fri Feb 06, 2015 10:42 pm

Well, here is a higher resolution pic of Ceres; it's processed and looks great. You can see craters for what they are since the raw image is slightly above 70 pixels wide.
Attachments
Ceres-opnav3_ss1.jpg
Xuxalina Rihhia
 
Posts: 94
Joined: Sat May 24, 2008 6:53 pm

Re: Ceres!

Unread postby viscount aero » Fri Feb 06, 2015 10:51 pm

Xuxalina Rihhia wrote:Well, here is a higher resolution pic of Ceres; it's processed and looks great. You can see craters for what they are since the raw image is slightly above 70 pixels wide.


Very cool. I can't wait to see full on color and closeups.
User avatar
viscount aero
 
Posts: 2381
Joined: Mon May 12, 2008 11:23 pm
Location: Los Angeles, California

Re: Ceres!

Unread postby GaryN » Fri Feb 06, 2015 11:09 pm

I'll go out on a limb (I like doing that) and say the white spots are active craters, they are being formed or enlarged by electrical/plasma means, just as Aritarchus on the Moon sometimes was seen to glow in near-UV, from Lunar orbit. Other instances of increase in crater size have been observed on the Moon too, that's probably what the TLPs are about.
The flickering, if it is confirmed, would then seem to suggest some kind of electrical phenomena .
In order to change an existing paradigm you do not struggle to try and change the problematic model. You create a new model and make the old one obsolete. -Buckminster Fuller
User avatar
GaryN
 
Posts: 2624
Joined: Tue Apr 01, 2008 8:18 pm
Location: Sooke, BC, Canada

Re: Ceres!

Unread postby viscount aero » Sat Feb 07, 2015 12:17 am

GaryN wrote:I'll go out on a limb (I like doing that) and say the white spots are active craters, they are being formed or enlarged by electrical/plasma means, just as Aritarchus on the Moon sometimes was seen to glow in near-UV, from Lunar orbit. Other instances of increase in crater size have been observed on the Moon too, that's probably what the TLPs are about.
The flickering, if it is confirmed, would then seem to suggest some kind of electrical phenomena .


I tend to agree with you.

They will probably portray the white spot as ice related, however, being a "Cryovolcano" or something like that. If it is a site of ejecta they will make it into a geyser or ice patch. It will have nothing to do with plasma in glow mode.

For them everything will be from either an impact event or from an ice origin.
User avatar
viscount aero
 
Posts: 2381
Joined: Mon May 12, 2008 11:23 pm
Location: Los Angeles, California

Re: Ceres!

Unread postby jjohnson » Sat Feb 07, 2015 10:22 pm

I meant to point out earlier that Ceres is classified as a dwarf or minor planet, not "the largest asteroid", despite what those pesky press releases say.

On mathematics, it's arguably the best tool in the toolbox, but scientists can be mis-led into thinking of it as the data and the model and the conclusions and the statistics all in one. But it's not physical, no matter how well - or how poorly - it is able to describe how things appear to work. As with any tool, it's how well you use it in the context of what you are building. You can't go sailing in your toolbox, but you can on the boat that your tools help you build. Don't short mathematics just because you don't like the subject, or you are not very well educated in the advanced maths used by scientists in all kinds of science. It's the lingua franca of science, like it or not.

If you are going to fault scientists for their math and its application, know what you are talking about, first. You won't start by losing your queen on the third move, that way, if nothing else. it also helps you read those interesting papers on arXiv. Math is almost half the fun of science. If you want to know how the experiment is going to turn out next time, you have to run it many times and take data and make observations and draw conclusions, and study the statistics and patterns and set it all to math. That way, the engineers will be able to build an ion drive that works, or figure out how to land Philae a little more gently next time out of the box, etc. I have to laugh, being educated as an architect, advising you guys to get good with math. Good science tells a story about how things work. The best science sets it to math and people can use those stories, with the math, to do all sorts of amazing things with it.

End of that sermon. The EU needs more math, IMO. The stories and linkages and synthesis are pretty good. Predictions are still not reliable enough from the other side's perspective, even if they are qualitatively going surprisingly well. That ought to tell them something (like, even with superb math and computational software, some of their great ideas don't turn out as predicted), but think if there were newer, quantitative models (that means with maths and able to quantify as well as qualify predictions of things not yet observed) by EU researchers, that improve on their models. Think on that.

Jim
jjohnson
 
Posts: 1147
Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2009 11:24 am
Location: Thurston County WA

Re: Ceres!

Unread postby viscount aero » Sat Feb 07, 2015 11:10 pm

To my knowledge, nobody is necessarily anti-math in the EU community. Plasma physics involves higher orders of mathematics. I think most members of the forum are not scientists and are largely here for recreational and educational purposes. But plasma physicists must employ mathematics with regularity.

I think more appropriately, this forum is anti-fantasy occurrences that are math-based, ergo, black holes, inflation, big bang expansion metric. Cosmology is today co-opted by mathematics to the detriment of describing actual things.

But math is discussed here.

For example there is no such thing as a 2-Dimensional spherical surface. It can only be a paper equation abstraction. And I got into a protracted debate last year (or two) with a physicist [a skeptic member who is no longer posting here] about that. In the middle of the discussion, he insisted there was a "2-Dimensional spherical surface" while discussing the bigger topic [that I don't remember now]. I corrected him. I said "A spherical surface is in 3D; it can never be in 2D".

He disagreed, I countered, and on the debate went. Although a mathematician, he was wrong. No such fantasy existence of a 2D spherical surface actually exists. I told him to go out and find a 2D spherical surface and mail it to me. There was no answer. The discussion then went into another area and I dropped the issue. Oh... I think the bigger topic was about how "spacetime" is "flat" and how that definition is misleading and stupid. Space isn't flat either. It's 3D. But when astronomers say "flat space" they don't mean it literally. But I told him such a vague jargon doesn't help anyone to understand an already confusing thing. He didn't agree because of his conceptual math-based thinking. So I sought to rectify 2 major confusing things and he insisted they remain confusing and non-descriptive of an actual substance or happening in the Cosmos. So math is actually talked about here, but not often quoted in equations and such.

Moreover, black hole mathematics or "branes" have no useful application in the industrialized world. Whereas applied physics, statistical analyses, is a good thing for humanity, singularities, flat space, 2D spheres, worm holes, and dark energy are not.
User avatar
viscount aero
 
Posts: 2381
Joined: Mon May 12, 2008 11:23 pm
Location: Los Angeles, California

PreviousNext

Return to Electric Universe - Planetary Science

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests