Polar Configuration Observed?

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

Polar Configuration Observed?

Unread postby flyingcloud » Wed Jun 07, 2017 3:49 am

A planet hotter than most stars

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2 ... 110926.htm


Exoplanet found hotter than most stars

http://www.skyatnightmagazine.com/news/ ... most-stars

KELT-9b is tidally locked, meaning the same side of the planet always faces the star as it orbits around it.


KELT-9 also orbits perpendicular to the star’s spin axis, which would be the equivalent of a planet orbiting perpendicular to the plane of our Solar System.
flyingcloud
 
Posts: 488
Joined: Fri Nov 07, 2008 2:07 am
Location: Honey Brook

Re: Polar Configuration Observed?

Unread postby D_Archer » Wed Jun 07, 2017 11:34 am

Where is the actual observation?

Regards,
Daniel
- Shoot Forth Thunder -
User avatar
D_Archer
 
Posts: 1088
Joined: Sat Apr 18, 2009 4:01 am
Location: The Netherlands

Re: Polar Configuration Observed?

Unread postby flyingcloud » Thu Jun 08, 2017 2:58 am

Ok, poor choice of words.

This is the first reference that I have seen to anything close to a polar configuration.

KELT-9 also orbits perpendicular to the star’s spin axis.


The Saturn, Mars, Venus, Earth, polar alignment had me questioning if there have been any others systems 'detected' with a similar configuration.

KELT-9 is the closest thus far. Orbiting in 1.5 days, tidally locked, puffed out enveloping atmosphere. Add in a few straggler 'moons' swirling around the coma like tail of KELT-9 for fun.

I could envision the horns of Saturn. With more of a spiraling revolution trailing away perpendicular to the host star, in the closest thing to a polar configuration 'detected', instead of 'observed'.
flyingcloud
 
Posts: 488
Joined: Fri Nov 07, 2008 2:07 am
Location: Honey Brook

Re: Polar Configuration Observed?

Unread postby jacmac » Thu Jun 08, 2017 8:32 pm

Second quote does not make sense to me.
Is not our earth orbit perpendicular to our sun's spin axis ?
A planet in a polar orbit would cross over a pole of its sun every 180 degrees, and thus the spin axis would be in the planet orbit plane and not 90 degrees to it. So ... ???
jacmac
 
Posts: 473
Joined: Wed Dec 02, 2009 12:36 pm

Re: Polar Configuration Observed?

Unread postby celeste » Sat Jun 10, 2017 9:29 pm

flyingcloud is right, this has many of the details of the polar configuration. Hopefully we will get more information soon.
jacmac,
The wording is clearer here for the polar orbit http://www.skyandtelescope.com/astronom ... t-jupiter/ "The planet is also in a highly inclined polar orbit with respect to the star"

There is more similarity still to Dave Talbott's picture:
Not only does the planet orbit over the star's pole, but since the planet is tidally locked, the star would not rise or set on the planet (not enough data yet to tell if it is the planet's pole or not). Notice the closeness of the planet to the star (noting Dave's reference to "a time when planets appeared closer in the sky"). Finally, where they say." KELT-9b very probably trails a long comet-like streamer of gas and dust," if correct, would make the configuration even more like the polar configuration. This discharge tail right along the star's polar axis.

Now, what we really need, is to get rotation data on the planet. If the planet is in fact rotating on the same axis as the star, then Bingo, It is the polar alignment.

Thank you, flyingcloud, for noting the configuration.,
celeste
 
Posts: 753
Joined: Mon Apr 11, 2011 7:41 pm
Location: Scottsdale, Arizona

Re: Polar Configuration Observed?

Unread postby celeste » Sat Jun 10, 2017 9:41 pm

Here is what I'd like to see, if anyone eventually sees any of this:
1. Other planets,and their orbits
2.rotation axis of the planet
3. eccentricity of the planet's orbit
celeste
 
Posts: 753
Joined: Mon Apr 11, 2011 7:41 pm
Location: Scottsdale, Arizona

Re: Polar Configuration Observed?

Unread postby flyingcloud » Mon Jun 12, 2017 4:05 am

Thank-you Celeste, that sky and telescope link is great.

references to systems exhibiting polar alignment have been rare to non-existent thus far.

The dimming of the host star due to planets passing between the star and our telescopes tend to require a perspective which excludes most opportunities for even seeing the host let alone detecting the planet in a polar configuration.

I am still hopeful however that a system in polar alignment will be confirmed at some point.
flyingcloud
 
Posts: 488
Joined: Fri Nov 07, 2008 2:07 am
Location: Honey Brook

Re: Polar Configuration Observed?

Unread postby nick c » Thu Jun 15, 2017 8:39 am

The system described in the original post is a gravitational (Newtonian) system.
In fact, when Talbott first introduced the Saturn Myth in the 1970's others advocated the phase lock as a more palatable (Newtonian) alternative explanation. Let us not forget that the Saturn scenario requires more than one planet aligned in a collinear polar configuration. Therefore the system portrayed in the original post could not be a real life prototype of the theorized Saturnian system. The Polar Configuration simply does not conform to Newtonian mechanics.
The polar configuration is an alignment of the axes of rotation of all the bodies involved. The Saturnian sun is portrayed as sitting stationary at the celestial pole with at least two other bodies involved in the same alignment. The bottom line is that the proposed polar configuration cannot be compromised or molded into any type of Newtonian gravitational orbital situation.

Since the reliance is upon an interpretation of myth as a collective memory of extraordinary cosmic events; accepting a phase lock situation (as a Newtonian friendly compromise) discards the essence of the story told by the myths. If one discards the mythic interpretation then there is no need to find an example in observational Astronomy as it becomes a moot point.
If it is a universal law that all relationships between celestial bodies must be governed by Newtonian mechanics then the theorized polar configuration must be discarded. It is simply not compatible.

Realizing that this proposed arrangement was untenable from a Newtonian mechanics point of view; Talbott's approach was to follow the mythic record to wherever that led and save the problem of celestial mechanics for a future time. A decade later Thornhill entered the scene and proposed that Talbott was describing an electrical/plasma system.
Perhaps the time is now, in that the patently 'impossible' polar configuration may indeed be possible.

There may be a type of celestial feature that has the potential to lead us to a real world example of a polar configuration.
- Herbig- Haro objects:
Don Scott wrote:
jettedstar2.jpg
Notice in the right hand image (Goddard Space Flight Center) that the 'planets' (Herbig-Haro objects) are formed in a collinear array along the jet axis of the parent star. These clumpings are probably formed by DLs at those locations. In the center image (above) the tell-tale twisting shape of a large Birkeland current containing DLs is clearly visible. Dr. Anthony Peratt points out that the number of objects typically formed by the z-pinch effect is usually around nine.
http://electric-cosmos.org/galaxies.htm
Schematic diagram of how HH objects.JPG

Also other examples of collinear formations:
-The linear alignment of the various pieces of Comet SL9 as it approached Jupiter. Some Saturnists have proposed that the Saturnian system was conventional with planets orbiting the primary. And this system was disrupted when it was captured by the Sun. The proto Saturn brown dwarf entered the heliosphere of the Sun and the entire system became aligned in a linear formation as it moved in a highly elliptical orbit through the solar system, a scaled up version of what happened to SL-9 as it entered the Jovian system. Note that this co alignment could have lasted for centuries though it would be quite temporary in terms of celestial time scales.
-The fact that multiple stars are often formed in linear formations described as "beads on a string"
-Brown dwarfs have been observed emitting collimated polar jets. It would follow that a planet or planets co aligned and suspended within the polar jets of a brown dwarf would be consistent with the theorized polar alignment as deduced from myth.

This is an area of future research.
Perhaps as observational techniques evolve these are the areas which may yield an actual cosmic example of the polar configuration.
User avatar
nick c
Moderator
 
Posts: 2243
Joined: Sun Mar 16, 2008 8:12 pm
Location: connecticut

Re: Polar Configuration Observed?

Unread postby flyingcloud » Thu Jun 15, 2017 2:46 pm

thank-you, Nick!

I appreciate the direction and guidance.
flyingcloud
 
Posts: 488
Joined: Fri Nov 07, 2008 2:07 am
Location: Honey Brook

Re: Polar Configuration Observed?

Unread postby Robertus Maximus » Sun Jul 02, 2017 10:09 am

Observations from the Atacama Large Millimeter/submillimeter Array (ALMA) in Chile has observed rotation in "beads" of material in polar jets from Herbig-Haro 212.

https://www.space.com/37294-protostar-gorges-itself-on-space-hamburger.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+spaceheadlines+%28SPACE.com+Headline+Feed%29
Robertus Maximus
 
Posts: 140
Joined: Mon Sep 02, 2013 6:16 am
Location: Liverpool, UK

Re: Polar Configuration Observed?

Unread postby Robertus Maximus » Sun Jul 02, 2017 10:21 am

Not quite the polar configuration but this study has found that "planets in other star systems fit a puzzling pattern".
See: https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg23531324-100-planets-in-other-star-systems-fit-a-puzzling-pattern/

Original paper at: https://arxiv.org/abs/1706.06204
Robertus Maximus
 
Posts: 140
Joined: Mon Sep 02, 2013 6:16 am
Location: Liverpool, UK

Re: Polar Configuration Observed?

Unread postby celeste » Sun Jul 02, 2017 11:01 pm

Robertus Maximus wrote:Not quite the polar configuration but this study has found that "planets in other star systems fit a puzzling pattern".
See: https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg23531324-100-planets-in-other-star-systems-fit-a-puzzling-pattern/

Original paper at: https://arxiv.org/abs/1706.06204


If Don Scott is right about Titius-Bode's law, then it is the filament that controls the planetary orbital spacing.
But a planet's size is determined too,indirectly. Once you see how a planet' spin is driven, then you understand what limits its size. For now, note the general correlation we have between a planet's diameter, and its rotation rate. with the largest planet (Jupiter) spinning the fastest, Saturn a bit slower, etc, down to our slow spinning smaller planets. If you accept the general correlation (even without recognizing the mechanism), you understand that we can not have a planet too large, or material will be throw off at the surface.
celeste
 
Posts: 753
Joined: Mon Apr 11, 2011 7:41 pm
Location: Scottsdale, Arizona

Re: Polar Configuration Observed?

Unread postby celeste » Mon Jul 03, 2017 9:15 am

nick c wrote: The Polar Configuration simply does not conform to Newtonian mechanics.


Nick, It would, however, be a mistake to assume that the polar configuration violated Newtonian mechanics. Even comet SL9, which broke into pieces spread out along their mutual path, could be explained by gravitational means. Actually even predicted, if you were following Tom VanFlandern.
In our solar system too, we may need magnetism to explain Titius-Bode's law, or the relationship between a planents orbital inclination vs orbital eccentricity. Yet planets and comets do obey Kepler's laws, from that inverse square force. In other words, we have magnetism telling us which of all the possible gravitational orbits are actually allowed, but orbits do obey Newtonian mechanics.
We don't want to make the opposite mistake of the mainstream, and ignore the gravitational force,and say we can explain everything by electromagnetic forces alone.
It is fine to suggest we need a force other than gravity to explain the polar configuration. But the polar configuration need not be a violation of Newtonian mechanics, any more than comet SL9 was.
celeste
 
Posts: 753
Joined: Mon Apr 11, 2011 7:41 pm
Location: Scottsdale, Arizona

Re: Polar Configuration Observed?

Unread postby nick c » Mon Jul 03, 2017 4:21 pm

hi celeste,
It is obvious that Newtonian mechanics has failed miserably hence the need for Dark Matter. Newtonian mechanics does not even explain our own solar system as perturbations should accumulate over millions of years to render planetary positions unpredictable.
I am not saying that there is no such force as 'gravity.' However, gravity (whatever that is) does not seem to be key to understanding the cosmos.
User avatar
nick c
Moderator
 
Posts: 2243
Joined: Sun Mar 16, 2008 8:12 pm
Location: connecticut

Re: Polar Configuration Observed?

Unread postby jacmac » Mon Jul 03, 2017 7:20 pm

KELT-9 also orbits perpendicular to the star’s spin axis, which would be the equivalent of a planet orbiting perpendicular to the plane of our Solar System.


I have been away from the Forum for awhile.
Regarding my post of June 8:

I was saying the statement above is not correct; it is self contradictory.
THERE IS A POLAR ORBIT but the words "perpendicular to the star's spin axis" DO NOT DESCRIBE A POLAR ORBIT.
FOR EXAMPLE: Our earth is in a normal equatorial orbit, and it is perpendicular to our sun's spin axis.
Jack
jacmac
 
Posts: 473
Joined: Wed Dec 02, 2009 12:36 pm

Next

Return to Electric Universe - Planetary Science

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests

cron