MORE GAS FROM THE DARK SIDE

[StevenJay]

Oh, flock! Now they're invoking [url2=http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg2 ... anets.html]avian behavior[/url2] into their gravity-centric modeling.

Did asteroids flock together to build planets?

New simulations suggest that dense swarms of boulders collapsed under their own gravity to make the building blocks of our solar system.
The planets are thought to have formed from a disc of dust and gas around the infant sun. The initial process is well known: dust grains clumped together, forming objects in the millimetre-to-metre range. However, it is not known how the growth process continued. The gas in the disc should have put a drag on the new boulders, causing them to spiral into the sun before they could grow further.

Evidence is now mounting that the next step was a sudden leap forward [insert 'abracadabra,' 'alakazam,' etc. here], skipping intermediate sizes to make asteroids hundreds of kilometres across - massive enough to resist gas drag.

Heh - "gas drag." I just know there's a joke-waiting-to-happen in there somewhere.

There are several Youtube clips of a Japanese TV game show where the contestants attempt to remain straight-faced while antagonists try to make them laugh - or even crack a smile. Reading these increasingly idiotic press releases makes me feel like a contestant on that show. Seriously, can anyone read this stuff without cracking a little smirk here and there. . . or at least slipping into John Stewart's infamous blank look of complete incredulity?

[StevenJay]

Planet found that defies the laws of physics
(Heh - luckily, most EU enthusiasts never bothered studying law. . )

I've noted an increasing number of "shoulds" and "should-nots" and various other hubristic, model-challenging phrases showing up in this sort of "science" [url2=http://www.independent.co.uk/news/scien ... 77738.html]press release[/url2].

The problem with this planet is that it's very massive and very close to its star.

If it has recently fissioned, there's no "problem."

The planet is at least one billion years old [...]

Oh, really? By which magic yardstick (there are so many these days) is that assumption arrived at?

It is a hot, Jupiter-like planet where temperatures exceed 2,100C – high enough to create clouds of silica-based gems, according to Professor Cameron. If anyone could visit this planet, and survive, they might see a sky full of diamonds and sapphires, he said [after taking yet another huge bong-hit].

Now, I have [url2=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A7F2X3rSSCU]LSD[/url2] stuck in my head. . .

[nick c]

Hi StevenJay,

The problem with this planet is that it's very massive and very close to its star.

Planets in close proximity to the primary star, called [url2=http://exoplanet.eu/catalog-all.php?&mu ... de=4&more=]Hot Jupiters[/url2], with orbits measured in a handful of days were a surprise when first discovered but now seem to be quite commonplace. The problem with Wasp 18b is that it is an extreme example, orbiting it's primary in less than a day! Clearly these Hot Jupiters are a problem for mainstream theory but are to be expected in the Electric Universe.

Here is a thread with plenty of interesting links in the Electric Universe section of the forum discussing Wasp 18b:
[url2=http://www.thunderbolts.info/forum/phpB ... f=3&t=2295]Is it Birth or Suicide of a Planet[/url2]?

nick c

[Peron]

I don't see what's so funny. We still don't know how planets form, we have the "standard model" on how stars form, but not planets.
Thats what the scientists are here to find out, they run simulations, do the right calculations and we are still far from figuring out the right answer.

[StevenJay]

I don't see what's so funny. We still don't know how planets form, we have the "standard model" on how stars form, but not planets.
Thats what the scientists are here to find out, they run simulations, do the right calculations and we are still far from figuring out the right answer.

Oh, I dunno - the standard stellar model (which also applys to planet formation) strikes a lot of folks as being kind'a funny. . . even ludicrous.

[Peron]

Smaller rocks clumping into bigger ones is the only way planets could form. Planets don't "pop" into existence.
Their are steps to planet formation, from a grain of sand to Jupiter.

[Aardwolf]

Planets don't "pop" into existence.

According to most scientists the universe did, so why not planets.

[Peron]

Planets don't "pop" into existence.

According to most scientists the universe did, so why not planets.

Interesting idea, but you need evidence.

[davesmith_au]

We still don't know how planets form, we have the "standard model" on how stars form, but not planets. ... and we are still far from figuring out the right answer.

Smaller rocks clumping into bigger ones is the only way planets could form. Planets don't "pop" into existence.
Their are steps to planet formation, from a grain of sand to Jupiter.

These two statements seem totally at odds which each other.

So even though "we are still far from figuring out the right answer", you've now nailed it single-handedly?

Congratulations!

Cheers, Dave.

[Peron]

I came to that conclusion through logical reasoning.

[davesmith_au]

Thats what the scientists are here to find out, they run simulations, do the right calculations and we are still far from figuring out the right answer.

Yet you came to your own conclusion through "logial reasoning", something I presume all of your scientist were lacking? You can't have it both ways. If you've already admitted that we don't yet know, we don't yet know. Which leaves the door open to everyone's speculations, not just your own. Perhaps I should have offered you this gem:

Interesting, but you need evidence.

[StevenJay]

It doesn't get much gasier than this! Or maybe it does. . .

Researchers create portable black hole

Physicists have created a [url2=http://www.nature.com/news/2009/091015/ ... s=news_rss]black hole[/url2] for light that can fit in your coat pocket. Their device, which measures just 22 centimetres across, can suck up microwave light and convert it into heat.

Black holes are normally too massive to be carried around. The black hole at the centre of the Milky Way, for example, has a mass around 3.6 million times that of the Sun and warps the very space around it. Light that travels too close to it can become trapped forever.

The new meta-black hole also bends light, but in a very different way. Rather than relying on gravity, the black hole uses a series of metallic 'resonators' arranged in 60 concentric circles. The resonators affect the electric and magnetic fields of a passing light wave, causing it to bend towards the centre of the hole. It spirals closer and closer to the black hole's 'core' until it reaches the 20 innermost layers. Those layers are made of another set of resonators that convert light into heat. The result: what goes in cannot come out. "The light into the core is totally absorbed," Cui says.

Yeah, but what about the heat? Is it trapped in neverland too, or does it manage to. . . escape back into the rational world in order to be, you know, detected? This non-hypnotized layman's mind wants to know!

I've no doubt that researching "metamaterials" will yield some very interesting things. But the way this is presented, it mainly comes off as yet another quiet, paradigm-reinforcing reminder that pink unicorns - err - cosmic black holes are, in fact, unquestioningly real.

[jjohnson]

Ya know, it would have been a lot cheaper for these "experimenters" to line a toilet paper tube with some black velvet or telescope anti-reflection paper! The light goes in but it don't come out! Mission Control, we has us a really portable Black Hole here! Now if we could just convert all this disappeared light into something useful!

[Peron]

Thats what the scientists are here to find out, they run simulations, do the right calculations and we are still far from figuring out the right answer.

Yet you came to your own conclusion through "logial reasoning", something I presume all of your scientist were lacking? You can't have it both ways. If you've already admitted that we don't yet know, we don't yet know. Which leaves the door open to everyone's speculations, not just your own. Perhaps I should have offered you this gem:

Interesting, but you need evidence.

We don't know yet. That does not mean we dont have theories. But these theories need to be backed up with evidence and the clumping theory has more evidence for it than any other theory.

This evidence includes actually, seeing remnants of this clumping in moons around Neptune.

If this theory had evidence "According to most scientists the universe did, so why not planets." Then I would believe it.

[StevenJay]

Black Holes That Fling and Get Flung

These idiotic press releases all lack the one critical element that every fairytale shares in common. They're supposed to start out with: "Once upon a time."