Electric Jupiter

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: are gas giants really gas giants?

Unread postby 4realScience » Mon Feb 25, 2013 5:41 pm

@ Lloyd (continued),

Yeah, I have some (perhaps outdated) background in this. A simple radar pulse would not work against the Sun, Jupiter, Saturn, or any other of the planets that radiate more energy than they receive from the sun. It would be buried in the noise. But there is another way to use radar. Pulses may be given distinct frequency and/or amplitude characters such that their echoes can be amplified out of the noise background. This is used in nature by Bats and Porpoise, among many others, and in modern warfare by aircraft and the missiles used to attack them. My bet is that none of current NASA probes use this ECM (electronic counter-measures) tech.

But that's because they were not expecting this S/N challenge. True, there is a limit to the S/N gain available by modulating a radar chirp and I don't know for sure if it would really work. But i do know for sure that it works on Earth even when targeted objects emit high amplitude jamming transmissions (ECM: aircraft verses missiles).
4realScience
 
Posts: 97
Joined: Thu Oct 01, 2009 3:20 pm

Re: are gas giants really gas giants?

Unread postby PersianPaladin » Sun Mar 03, 2013 12:20 pm

Let's not get too presumptuous here.

When plasmoids are created in the lab, the z-pinch mechanism may well scavenge whatever matter exists in the vicinity and sort it into heavy-light elemental distance from the center via Marklund Convection. However, if there are no heavy elements in the vicinity, then there will be no such elements in the cores of these plasmoids. Hence why they form and dissapear and leave no residue. Yes, we can get fusion occurring on the outer-areas of plasmoids or powerful electrical arc-discharge filaments in certain cases - but again, we would have to consider a mechanism in which these particles can "rain" down into the core of the sun. How would that happen if they are produced via powerful arc discharges on the photosphere? Wouldn't they just be accelerated outwards as occurs with ions in solar flares?

Perhaps planets and moons are rocky because they don't have very highly electrically-stressed atmospheres that "confine" elements such as the solar plasma does. Who knows.
User avatar
PersianPaladin
 
Posts: 668
Joined: Sat Jan 15, 2011 8:38 am
Location: Turkey

Re: are gas giants really gas giants?

Unread postby viscount aero » Sun Mar 03, 2013 6:04 pm

I don't believe the gas planets are solid nor do I believe they have rocky cores. I think they are giant spherical toruses/vortices that recirculate their own material perpetually from pole to pole. The core is the column of material within the torus' donut hole.

Jupiter and Saturn, et al, are probably similar in structure and dynamics as this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spherical_tokamak

"A spherical tokamak is a type of fusion power device based on the tokamak principle. It is notable for its very narrow profile, or "aspect ratio". A traditional tokamak has a toroidal confinement area that gives it an overall shape similar to a donut, complete with a large hole in the middle. The spherical tokamak reduces the size of the hole almost to zero, resulting in a plasma shape that is almost spherical, often compared with a cored apple. The spherical tokamak is sometimes referred to as a spherical torus and often shortened to ST."
Attachments
spherical tokamak _plasma.jpg
spherical tokamak _plasma.jpg (14.88 KiB) Viewed 7479 times
User avatar
viscount aero
 
Posts: 2379
Joined: Mon May 12, 2008 11:23 pm
Location: Los Angeles, California

Re: are gas giants really gas giants?

Unread postby 303vegas » Wed Mar 06, 2013 3:39 am

There's speculation round these parts that Saturn and Jupiter are stars that never really made it, failed to ignite, if you will, but I'm sure I've heard it said that they could perhaps be former stars which have lost their source of energy over time and are in a state of 'semi retirement.' If we allow for the idea that rocky planets may be stellar fragments (there'd be enough activity within an active star to synthesize all the elements found on our outcrop) then there's no reason why the gas giants wouldn't have solid cores. If the Sun lost sufficient energy then could it not be the case that the gas giants would also loose a significant source of their power and in turn loose control of their atmospheres which may dissipate leaving a rocky ball clinging onto a thin layer of atmosphere?

Without the feeding stellar currents the sun would become a gas giant and gas giants would become small rocky, thin atmos'd planets. Perhaps after a period of wandering our reduced sun would become a planet in another solar system. Who knows.

I like the stellar remnant idea, it makes sense to me.
love from lancashire!
User avatar
303vegas
 
Posts: 134
Joined: Sun Jan 08, 2012 2:55 am
Location: Rochdale, england

Troy Mclachlan's thesis wrt Ganymede's outer mantel

Unread postby tholden » Fri Aug 02, 2013 2:27 pm

The term "Natural Philosophy" ought to include planetary science. Even Wiki's definition of natural philosophy includes more than just theoretical physics but you wouldn't know that from that past NPA confab, which may partially explain the sub-forty-person attendance...

Cosmos in Collision provides an advance in planetary science as to explaining intrinsic magnetospheres and, in the case of Ganymede, there are three things you need to explain which standard theories do not work for, i.e. the conductivity needed for a magnetosphere, the ultra-low moment of inertia, and the huge rock areas which are embedded in the surface ice. This is the thing which Troy Basically nailed:

Rocks acting like electrical conductors (P-holes)

Normally, electrical current (electrons flowing) finds it hard to move through rocks. This is because rocks are like glass, plastic and rubber; they make better electrical insulators than conductors. However, scientists have detected electrical currents along the surface of rocks in lab experiments, which has caused problems for them. The reason for this electrical current is that tiny bubbles or holes have been created in the rocks when they were formed from lava, like Swiss cheese. Inside these holes are millions of trapped oxygen atoms that are one electron short; this means they are ionized and bonded by what is called a peroxy bond. When one of these bonds is broken, the rock now has two positively charged holes, or P-holes, which can now carry an electrical charge. Holes like this change the rock from being an electrical insulator into a very weak semiconductor that can carry an electrical charge . In the case of pumice (the deep outer mantel of Ganymede), the effect of P-hole conductivity would be greatly magnified by the radiator-like surface area to volume ratio.

Intrinsic magnetospheres vs induced magnetospheres

An intrinsic magnetosphere is believed to be the product of an internal mechanism inside a planetary body that creates enough electricity to produce its own independent magnetic field. Currently accepted theory says the cores of planets with intrinsic magnetospheres produce convection heat that in turn creates a ‘dynamo’ effect to produce the needed electrical current to maintain the planet’s magnetic field (i.e. its magnetosphere). Intrinsic magnetospheres are the primary point of contact such planets have with the solar wind.

An induced magnetosphere is simply the magnetic distortion around a smaller planetary body as it travels through an existing positively charged magnetosphere (magnetic field) of a larger celestial object. For example, the sun with its solar wind or Jupiter with its magnetosphere. In this case the sun’s charged solar wind or Jupiter’s magnetosphere contacts directly with the physical planet and any atmosphere it might have by wrapping around it.

The sun and the gas giant planets all have intrinsic magnetospheres. Of the terrestrial planets, only Earth and Mercury have intrinsic magnetospheres. Venus has a strong induced magnetosphere, while Mars has a very weak induced magnetosphere.

Ganymede’s intrinsic magnetosphere inside Jupiter’s much larger magnetosphere is an anomaly to the idea that planetary bodies must have an internal dynamo to produce an intrinsic magnetosphere; it simply is too small to produce the kind of convection heat needed to kick-start a dynamo effect. And, in any case, attempts to replicate the dynamo effect in the lab have proved elusive when trying to understand Earth’s own magnetosphere.

A Better Theory

A better solution is that Earth and Ganymede’s intrinsic magnetospheres are the products of large electrical currents having once flowed into their crusts which, in turn, produced the necessary magnetic field (i.e. in the same way a simple iron magnet is produced when we run an electric current through a nail). There is no internal mechanism at work, just the magnetic field ‘burnt in’ by ancient and stronger Birkeland currents that once operated in glow mode, or even arc mode. This is why the Earth’s magnetosphere is getting weaker; the existing Birkeland currents flowing through Earth are too weak to effectively ‘top-up’ the Earth’s magnetic field.

In the same way, Ganymede’s intrinsic magnetosphere would have been ‘fused in’ during the formation of its pumice mantel with trillions of P-holes playing their part in retaining the left-over magnetic field that we see today.

Venus, on the other hand, is too young to have been subjected to the sustained glow-mode Birkeland current needed to have given it an intrinsic magnetosphere, its rocky surface too hot to lock-in the polarities.

Mars would have lost its intrinsic magnetosphere due to the shock of a cosmic electrical discharge which would have banged any existing polarities out of sync, as can happen to a magnet when you hit it with a hammer.



The orthodox assumption is that the low moment of inertia is generated by a 600-km deep outer mantel of (conductive) salt water (with a fresh-water ice layer over top of it), and that this supposedly 600km-deep salt-water outer mantel and the non-existent convection produce a dynamo which generates a magnetosphere; that doesn't really work. The assumption of an outer mantel of pumice not only works for conductivity and the low moment of inertia, but it explains the embedded rocks as well (pumice actually floats). Some of the rock areas embedded in the surface ice are the size of Switzerland and ordinary rock, as you know, does not float.

Again, with Jupiter in the sort of closer orbit which is the norm for gas giant planets, Ganymede would have been a fresh-water ocean world with anchored islands and floating bergs of pumice with luxuriant vegetation, bright, wet, and safe from both cosmic radiation and sea monsters.
tholden
 
Posts: 899
Joined: Wed Jul 02, 2008 6:02 pm

Re: Troy Mclachlan's thesis wrt Ganymede's outer mantel

Unread postby moses » Fri Aug 02, 2013 5:46 pm

Yes, I have written that Earth's magnetic field plus the oceans were produced by Earth once being in a four-pronged Birkeland current. This leads to much speculation as to the planetary configuration that could have produced this.

But the real issue is that the Earth's magnetic field is getting weaker and not flipping if the above is true. So in only a couple of thousand years the magnetic field will be so weak that life on Earth would likely become very problematic. I doubt that this would hake a very exciting movie, though.
Cheers,
Mo
moses
 
Posts: 1024
Joined: Wed Mar 19, 2008 3:18 pm
Location: Adelaide

Shrinking of Jupiter’s Great Red Spot

Unread postby StefanR » Fri May 16, 2014 10:27 am

Historic observations as far back as the late 1800s [2] gauged this turbulent spot to span about 41 000 kilometres at its widest point — wide enough to fit three Earths comfortably side by side. In 1979 and 1980 the NASA Voyager fly-bys measured the spot at a shrunken 23 335 kilometres across. Now, Hubble has spied this feature to be smaller than ever before.

"Recent Hubble Space Telescope observations confirm that the spot is now just under 16 500 kilometres across, the smallest diameter we've ever measured," said Amy Simon of NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center in Maryland, USA.

Image

Amateur observations starting in 2012 revealed a noticeable increase in the spot's shrinkage rate. The spot's "waistline" is getting smaller by just under 1000 kilometres per year. The cause of this shrinkage is not yet known.

"In our new observations it is apparent that very small eddies are feeding into the storm," said Simon. "We hypothesised that these may be responsible for the accelerated change by altering the internal dynamics of the Great Red Spot."

Simon's team plan to study the motions of these eddies, and also the internal dynamics of the spot, to determine how the stormy vortex is fed with or sapped of momentum.

http://www.spacetelescope.org/news/heic1410/
The illusion from which we are seeking to extricate ourselves is not that constituted by the realm of space and time, but that which comes from failing to know that realm from the standpoint of a higher vision. -L.H.
User avatar
StefanR
 
Posts: 1371
Joined: Sun Mar 16, 2008 8:31 pm
Location: Amsterdam

Tectonic plates and former super continent on Ganymede?

Unread postby tholden » Tue Jun 24, 2014 9:44 pm

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5Fsg1XJTbKA


Again according to standard theories, the surface of Ganymede is supposed to amount to an icy crust over a 600 KM deep outer mantel of salt water. That is supposed to explain both the ultra-low moment of inertia and the intrinsic magnetosphere, but the idea clearly cannot be made to jibe with the notion of tectonic plates and/or some sort of a thing like a Ganymede version of Pangaea. This would appear to be confirming evidence for Troy McLachlan's and my claim that the outer mantel consists of pumice and not salt water.
tholden
 
Posts: 899
Joined: Wed Jul 02, 2008 6:02 pm

Re: Tectonic plates and former super continent on Ganymede?

Unread postby D_Archer » Tue Jul 01, 2014 11:48 am

Their calculation for the mass and density are wrong due to bad theory, this would result in them not knowing the actual composition of any planet if they (only) based it on these bad theories. The oceans under the crust thing is an outcome of bad theory.

So yes, you could propose a very different composition and will we probably be closer to the truth since you base your idea on actual findings and not bad theory.

Regards,
Daniel
- Shoot Forth Thunder -
User avatar
D_Archer
 
Posts: 1071
Joined: Sat Apr 18, 2009 4:01 am
Location: The Netherlands

Aurorae on Ganymede, and Water

Unread postby StefanR » Sat Mar 14, 2015 9:34 am

Image
NASA's Hubble Space Telescope has the best evidence yet for an underground saltwater ocean on Ganymede, Jupiter's largest moon. The subterranean ocean is thought to have more water than all the water on Earth's surface.

Identifying liquid water is crucial in the search for habitable worlds beyond Earth and for the search for life as we know it.

"This discovery marks a significant milestone, highlighting what only Hubble can accomplish," said John Grunsfeld, assistant administrator of NASA's Science Mission Directorate at NASA Headquarters, Washington, D.C. "In its 25 years in orbit, Hubble has made many scientific discoveries in our own solar system. A deep ocean under the icy crust of Ganymede opens up further exciting possibilities for life beyond Earth."

Ganymede is the largest moon in our solar system and the only moon with its own magnetic field. The magnetic field causes aurorae, which are ribbons of glowing, hot electrified gas, in regions circling the north and south poles of the moon. Because Ganymede is close to Jupiter, it is also embedded in Jupiter's magnetic field. When Jupiter's magnetic field changes, the aurorae on Ganymede also change, "rocking" back and forth.

By watching the rocking motion of the two aurorae, scientists were able to determine that a large amount of saltwater exists beneath Ganymede's crust, affecting its magnetic field.


A team of scientists led by Joachim Saur of the University of Cologne in Germany came up with the idea of using Hubble to learn more about the inside of the moon.

"I was always brainstorming how we could use a telescope in other ways," said Saur. "Is there a way you could use a telescope to look inside a planetary body? Then I thought, the aurorae! Because aurorae are controlled by the magnetic field, if you observe the aurorae in an appropriate way, you learn something about the magnetic field. If you know the magnetic field, then you know something about the moon's interior."

If a saltwater ocean were present, Jupiter's magnetic field would create a secondary magnetic field in the ocean that would counter Jupiter's field. This "magnetic friction" would suppress the rocking of the aurorae. This ocean fights Jupiter's magnetic field so strongly that it reduces the rocking of the aurorae to 2 degrees, instead of 6 degrees if the ocean were not present.

Scientists estimate the ocean is 60 miles (100 kilometers) thick — 10 times deeper than Earth's oceans — and is buried under a 95-mile (150-kilometer) crust of mostly ice.

Scientists first suspected an ocean in Ganymede in the 1970s, based on models of the large moon. NASA's Galileo mission measured Ganymede's magnetic field in 2002, providing the first evidence supporting those suspicions. The Galileo spacecraft took brief "snapshot" measurements of the magnetic field in 20-minute intervals, but its observations were too brief to distinctly catch the cyclical rocking of the ocean's secondary magnetic field.

The new observations were done in ultraviolet light and could only be accomplished with a space telescope high above Earth's atmosphere, which blocks most ultraviolet light.
http://hubblesite.org/newscenter/archive/releases/2015/09/full/

HST/STIS Ultraviolet Imaging of Polar Aurora on Ganymede
http://iopscience.iop.org/0004-637X/535/2/1085/fulltext/

Aurora on Ganymede
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/jgra.50122/abstract
http://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/handle/2027.42/98774/jgra50122.pdf?sequence=1

Ganymede's UV aurora, and interpretation of ion energy spectrograms
http://earthweb.ess.washington.edu/space/SpaceModel/ganymede.html
The illusion from which we are seeking to extricate ourselves is not that constituted by the realm of space and time, but that which comes from failing to know that realm from the standpoint of a higher vision. -L.H.
User avatar
StefanR
 
Posts: 1371
Joined: Sun Mar 16, 2008 8:31 pm
Location: Amsterdam

FUBAR NASA pronouncement on Ganymede

Unread postby tholden » Tue May 12, 2015 1:23 am

NASA Confirms: Jupiter's Moon Ganymede Contain Massive Subsurface Oceans

Image

http://insightticker.com/2015/03/16/347 ... ce-oceans/

This amounts to a major claim on the part of NASA and a Google search on "Ganymede auroras 60-miles deep" reveals this story to be carried in pretty much all major news outlets.

The claim is that starting from the ground and working your way in on Ganymede, you'll see 95 miles of ice and then 60 miles of salty water. The claim is driven by the need to explain both the ultra-low moment of inertia on Ganymede and the intrinsic magnetosphere.

The claim and the entire body of research behind it are FUBAR and all it would take for this to pass from the realm of pure science into the realm of real life and major financial losses and disappointment would be for somebody to GO there because he needed vast quantities of salty water for some perverse reason, and NASA had told him that such was to be found there. That is obviously laughable but there is no guarantee that the next situation in which 300-year-old science paradigms have wrecked present day understanding of basic science, would also be laughable.

In real life, the ultra-low moment of inertia results from a deep outer mantel of pumice and not salt water, and the conductivity needed for a magnetosphere arises from a combination of pumice and P-holes and Jupiter's Birkeland currents. There is no ultra-deep ocean on Ganymede.

Troy McLachlin's take on the new NASA claim:


Firstly, to be clear, the article is saying that the supposed salty liquid ocean on Ganymede starts at 60 miles down, which is to say it then extends much further to the seabed which is estimated to be about 800 km below the surface in order to account for Ganymede's low moment of inertia.

Also, the findings are entirely based on the supposition of an internal dynamo mechanism that produces electrical currents via convection which are then transmitted through a supposed salty ocean in order to maintain the magnetic field . . . This is entirely why a 'salty' ocean is assumed.

To quote from the abstract of the paper cited by the article:
"The observations require a minimum electrical conductivity of 0.09 S/m for an ocean assumed to be located between 150 km and 250 km depth or alternatively a maximum depth of the top of the ocean at 330 km. Our analysis implies that Ganymede's dynamo possesses an outstandingly low quadrupole-to-dipole moment ratio." (Emphasis mine)

The entire supposition behind this analysis is that Ganymede (with its low moment of inertia) somehow actually generates its own magnetic field via an internal dynamo ( a supposed geologically-driven mechanism that remains unexplained and highly improbable given Ganymede's size). According to this thesis Ganymede's supposed 'salty' ocean conducts the electrical currents from an internal dynamo at the moon's core in order to produce the magnetic field. The details and actual working mechanism of this internal 'dynamo' is as elusive to mainstream science as Earth's supposed dynamo is.

From the perspective of CinC, the upshot to their findings amount to this:

1. If their computer model had pre-supposed a 800km thick pumice outer mantel under the ice as we postulate in CinC, then they would have acheived the same result and confirmed that Ganymede has (wait for it!) an intrinsic magnetic field . . . and if their computer model had pre-supposed that Ganymede had a 800 km deep copper laced liquid methane ocean, then they would have confirmed the same thing - that Ganymede has a fluctuating magnetic field. In the end they still don't understand what produces this magnetic field:- it is governed by the birkeland current connecting it with Jupiter.

2. True, something under Ganymede's ice is helping facilitate its magnetic field - and this is in fact all they have proven. However, it is more likely that Ganymede's magnetic field was 'electrically fused' into whatever that something is - infused by Jupiter's birkeland current rather than by some internal dynamo action (Ganymede is geologically too small to produce such a dynamo according to mainstream models).

Mainstream science needs this something to be a salty ocean to fit its theoretical thermodynamics-based model . . . but whatever it is that is under the ice could be anything that conducts (or once did conduct) electrical currents. The existence of a salty ocean is a presupposition on mainstream science's part because they cannot conceive of anything else at this time with the low density of water to account for Ganymede's low moment of inertia - a pumice layer would prove just as satisfactory.

3. The 'sway' of the electrical field detected in the auroras is consistent with birkeland current dynamics which is a much better explanation for why there is a 'sway' in the first place. As long as mainstream science separates the cause from the external electrical effects and insists on internal mechanisms for the producing of a body's magnetic field it will continue to jump to pre-supposed conclusions about 'salty oceans'.

4. The entire findings in the article assume Ganymede is conducting electrical currents from its core through a salty ocean via convection. This is the biggest headache for mainstream science because Ganymede is too small according to thermodynamic models to produce such a thing.

In the end it boils down to understanding how Ganymede's magnetic field was originally produced: it was created externally via contact with Jupiter's birkeland currents and is maintained by a substance capable of sustaining the magnetic field - something that would have to be solid, but only as dense as water to account for Ganymede's low moment of inertia, i.e. pumice.

I believe Ganymede' s magnetic field is sustained by a magnetically 'infused' outer mantel (pumice), as Birkeland's terella experiments imply. A salty ocean can not hold a magnetic field any more than molten iron can hold magnetism, and without a source of electrical currents it cannot conduct electrical properties to produce the desire magnetic field found on Ganymede. Magnetically infused pumice via p-holes would do this well with the electrical source being Jupiter's birkeland current, and not some improbable internal geologically-driven dynamo at its core.



There is also a question as to how you'd explain continents (the dark areas) sitting on top of ice which is on top of a 60-mile deep ocean.....


Troy again:

On your second question, let me state that I do not believe there is a 60 mile deep ocean anywhere on Ganymede. Hugely deep oceans are a construct of mainstream science's inability to understand Ganymede's low moment of inertia problem. They cannot conceive of any other substance other than water for the density required by Ganymede's outer mantel to explain its low moment of inertia.

Also, mainstream science does not say that there is a 60 mile deep ocean on Ganymede, but that there is up to 60 mile thick ice on top of an ocean that may be 800km deep. To my way of thinking this is preposterous - Ganymede's ice cover will be no more than 3-10 miles thick . . . and then you hit pumice.

The dark areas on Ganymede are thought to be old ice, according to accepted thinking. However, they are rich in organic and clay substances and include tholins as part of their makeup. It's my belief the dark areas are pieces of broken pumice (some of them giants berg-like pieces) that coagulated together on the tides and currents of Ganymede's warm fresh water global ocean and were subsequently frozen in place during the cataclysm that saw Jupiter shifted outside of the frost line on the arrival of Saturn.

While most pumice will have floated freely during Ganymede's warm period, the larger 'pumice bergs' would have snagged and acted like anchors to smaller bergs and pieces of pumice that would have congregated around them. Eventually these formed floating land masses with multiple points of contact with the pumice bedrock. This type of phenomenon is common in bodies of water filled with free floating debris.

Remember, two identifiable areas (one the size of Spain) show odd collections of silicate (non-pumice) boulders caught in the ice like rubble heaps - something clearly impossible if the Ganymede's ice is 60 miles thick and sits on an 800km deep ocean. Rocks and boulders would have sunk the full 800km if the ice had ever been liquid and would never have collected together in the first place if Ganymede had always been frozen. It's most probable these boulder collections sit on bedrock a mere 1-2 miles beneath, something which clearly implies that the 'seabed' of Ganymede is much closer to its surface than suggested by mainstream science in its effort to explain Ganymede's low moment of inertia with 800km deep oceans.

Also, mainstream science does not say that there is a 60 mile deep ocean on Ganymede, but that there is up to 60 mile thick ice on top of an ocean that may be 800km deep. To my way of thinking this is preposterous - Ganymede's ice cover will be no more than 3-10 miles thick . . . and then you hit pumice.

The dark areas on Ganymede are thought to be old ice, according to accepted thinking. However, they are rich in organic and clay substances and include tholins as part of their makeup. It's my belief the dark areas are pieces of broken pumice (some of them giants berg-like pieces) that coagulated together on the tides and currents of Ganymede's warm fresh water global ocean and were subsequently frozen in place during the cataclysm that saw Jupiter shifted outside of the frost line on the arrival of Saturn.

While most pumice will have floated freely during Ganymede's warm period, the larger 'pumice bergs' would have snagged and acted like anchors to smaller bergs and pieces of pumice that would have congregated around them. Eventually these formed floating land masses with multiple points of contact with the pumice bedrock. This type of phenomenon is common in bodies of water filled with free floating debris.

Remember, two identifiable areas (one the size of Spain) show odd collections of silicate (non-pumice) boulders caught in the ice like rubble heaps - something clearly impossible if the Ganymede's ice is 60 miles thick and sits on an 800km deep ocean. Rocks and boulders would have sunk the full 800km if the ice had ever been liquid and would never have collected together in the first place if Ganymede had always been frozen. It's most probable these boulder collections sit on bedrock a mere 1-2 miles beneath, something which clearly implies that the 'seabed' of Ganymede is much closer to its surface than suggested by mainstream science in its effort to explain Ganymede's low moment of inertia with 800km deep oceans.
tholden
 
Posts: 899
Joined: Wed Jul 02, 2008 6:02 pm

Re: FUBAR NASA pronouncement on Ganymede

Unread postby D_Archer » Tue May 12, 2015 10:54 am

You are spot on. I read the full research paper and it is gibberish.

Regards,
Daniel
- Shoot Forth Thunder -
User avatar
D_Archer
 
Posts: 1071
Joined: Sat Apr 18, 2009 4:01 am
Location: The Netherlands

Re: FUBAR NASA pronouncement on Ganymede

Unread postby D_Archer » Wed May 13, 2015 5:26 am

- Shoot Forth Thunder -
User avatar
D_Archer
 
Posts: 1071
Joined: Sat Apr 18, 2009 4:01 am
Location: The Netherlands

Lab results suggest gas giant cores are positively charged.

Unread postby Michael Mozina » Fri Jun 19, 2015 2:17 pm

http://www.spacedaily.com/reports/Lab_m ... s_999.html
http://www.eurekalert.org/multimedia/pub/93546.php
If you look at the diagram on this new image of Nobel gas behavior in the lab, you'll notice that as we get closer to the core, the core becomes most positively ionized, whereas the outer most layers are the least charged layers. In other words, physical objects in space contain numerous double layers, with different, and unique electrical properties. Lab work will be the eventual undoing of the mainstream's ignorance to the role of electricity in space. They'll eventually figure it out, even if it involves a lot of kicking and screaming along the way.
Michael Mozina
 
Posts: 1132
Joined: Thu Feb 23, 2012 10:35 am
Location: Mt. Shasta, CA

Re: Lab results suggest gas giant cores are positively charg

Unread postby D_Archer » Tue Jun 23, 2015 12:58 am

How do they know what is actually in the core?

I think this are just models (theorized).

Regards,
Daniel
- Shoot Forth Thunder -
User avatar
D_Archer
 
Posts: 1071
Joined: Sat Apr 18, 2009 4:01 am
Location: The Netherlands

PreviousNext

Return to Electric Universe - Planetary Science

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest