beginner question - from EU Perspective

Historic planetary instability and catastrophe. Evidence for electrical scarring on planets and moons. Electrical events in today's solar system. Electric Earth.
Aardwolf
Posts: 1456
Joined: Tue Jul 28, 2009 2:56 pm

Re: beginner question - from EU Perspective

Unread post by Aardwolf » Mon Jan 23, 2023 5:14 pm

Open Mind wrote: Fri Jan 20, 2023 10:58 pm Paladin, thanks. I'm googling to catch up. I never distinguished between small g and big G. Slowly getting this.
Palladins answers are not from an EU perspective. The EU has an electromagnetic cause of gravity which means we don't need to buy into the obvious nonsense that most of the moons, comets & asteroids of the solar system are made out of water, when they are clearly solid rock. We're supposed to believe that moons like Rhea and Iapetus etc. are giant snowballs because of low density "measurements". Absolute garbage.

Aardwolf
Posts: 1456
Joined: Tue Jul 28, 2009 2:56 pm

Re: beginner question - from EU Perspective

Unread post by Aardwolf » Mon Jan 23, 2023 5:31 pm

And then we have the sub 0.5 g/cm density group of moons like Atlas, Helene, Pan etc. As far as I can tell they won't even suggest what these are made of, because the only densities they match are of wood. And that's still not enough to falsify the garbage that parades as theory in their holy belief system.

Open Mind
Posts: 177
Joined: Tue Jul 25, 2017 2:47 pm

Re: beginner question - from EU Perspective

Unread post by Open Mind » Mon Jan 23, 2023 5:50 pm

Aardwolf wrote: "And then we have the sub 0.5 g/cm density group of moons like Atlas, Helene, Pan etc"

haha, density of 'wood'. I'm curious how mainstream deals with that. Cringy invokations and magic?

Cargo
Posts: 700
Joined: Fri Sep 17, 2010 2:02 am

Re: beginner question - from EU Perspective

Unread post by Cargo » Fri Jan 27, 2023 5:25 am

paladin17 wrote: Fri Jan 20, 2023 7:33 pm Technically, what we measure (and use in all the astrodynamical calculations) is the product GM, where G is the "gravitational constant", and M is the mass.

Practice shows that G is almost impossible to measure (even with modern instruments the error is of the order of 0.5% - i.e. it is absolutely horrible), and there are indications that it even periodically changes with time. (See here for more details). While the product GM mysteriously remains constant (otherwise the planetary orbits and everything on Earth that relies on gravity would oscillate accordingly).

Only if we know the "gravitational constant". And we don't.
For practical uses the mass is not needed though, as in every calculation the mass of the planet is multiplied by "gravitational constant", and their product is known with very good precision for the absolute majority of large bodies.


Yes, you can calculate the mass of the Sun. You only need to know the "gravitational constant" and, for example, the orbital period of just one planet (e.g. Earth), along with its distance from the Sun. Any of my 9th graders can solve this problem. ;)
I must admit though, this brings many good points. Mostly, that beyond parallax we have no clue what any Mass is, or anything Gravity related by a wide margin. G is quite the mistress.
interstellar filaments conducted electricity having currents as high as 10 thousand billion amperes
"You know not what. .. Perhaps you no longer trust your feelings,." Michael Clarage
"Charge separation prevents the collapse of stars." Wal Thornhill

Maol
Posts: 467
Joined: Fri Mar 11, 2011 8:40 pm

Re: beginner question - from EU Perspective

Unread post by Maol » Fri Jan 27, 2023 7:53 am

Aardwolf wrote: Mon Jan 23, 2023 5:31 pm And then we have the sub 0.5 g/cm density group of moons like Atlas, Helene, Pan etc. As far as I can tell they won't even suggest what these are made of, because the only densities they match are of wood. And that's still not enough to falsify the garbage that parades as theory in their holy belief system.
How about a process akin to the formation of pumice? If a large mass of gas rich molten planetary core was explosively ejected to space by some means, volcanic, massive collision, electric discharge between planetary bodies, pick some huge energetic event, the rapid pressure drop and cooling could form very porous rock of low density.

Aardwolf
Posts: 1456
Joined: Tue Jul 28, 2009 2:56 pm

Re: beginner question - from EU Perspective

Unread post by Aardwolf » Fri Jan 27, 2023 12:51 pm

Maol wrote: Fri Jan 27, 2023 7:53 am
Aardwolf wrote: Mon Jan 23, 2023 5:31 pm And then we have the sub 0.5 g/cm density group of moons like Atlas, Helene, Pan etc. As far as I can tell they won't even suggest what these are made of, because the only densities they match are of wood. And that's still not enough to falsify the garbage that parades as theory in their holy belief system.
How about a process akin to the formation of pumice? If a large mass of gas rich molten planetary core was explosively ejected to space by some means, volcanic, massive collision, electric discharge between planetary bodies, pick some huge energetic event, the rapid pressure drop and cooling could form very porous rock of low density.
That's not entirely out of the question for some smaller rocks and I'm sure there is some porosity but Hyperion is 300km in diameter! The process also needs rapid cooling in liquid water. The vacuum of space can't do that so it doesn't seem plausible to me. It's even more difficult to explain the stupid low density of fully formed moons like Tethys at 1,000km+ diameter.

Maol
Posts: 467
Joined: Fri Mar 11, 2011 8:40 pm

Re: beginner question - from EU Perspective

Unread post by Maol » Fri Jan 27, 2023 8:35 pm

Aardwolf wrote: Fri Jan 27, 2023 12:51 pm
Maol wrote: Fri Jan 27, 2023 7:53 am
Aardwolf wrote: Mon Jan 23, 2023 5:31 pm And then we have the sub 0.5 g/cm density group of moons like Atlas, Helene, Pan etc. As far as I can tell they won't even suggest what these are made of, because the only densities they match are of wood. And that's still not enough to falsify the garbage that parades as theory in their holy belief system.
How about a process akin to the formation of pumice? If a large mass of gas rich molten planetary core was explosively ejected to space by some means, volcanic, massive collision, electric discharge between planetary bodies, pick some huge energetic event, the rapid pressure drop and cooling could form very porous rock of low density.
That's not entirely out of the question for some smaller rocks and I'm sure there is some porosity but Hyperion is 300km in diameter! The process also needs rapid cooling in liquid water. The vacuum of space can't do that so it doesn't seem plausible to me. It's even more difficult to explain the stupid low density of fully formed moons like Tethys at 1,000km+ diameter.
Presumably ejecta from a molten core could be high in iron content, in which case the pumice formed could initially agglomerate by magnetic means until large enough masses are formed that gravity becomes a significant influence on mass accretion.

Aardwolf
Posts: 1456
Joined: Tue Jul 28, 2009 2:56 pm

Re: beginner question - from EU Perspective

Unread post by Aardwolf » Sat Jan 28, 2023 2:18 am

Maol wrote: Fri Jan 27, 2023 8:35 pm
Aardwolf wrote: Fri Jan 27, 2023 12:51 pm
Maol wrote: Fri Jan 27, 2023 7:53 am
Aardwolf wrote: Mon Jan 23, 2023 5:31 pm And then we have the sub 0.5 g/cm density group of moons like Atlas, Helene, Pan etc. As far as I can tell they won't even suggest what these are made of, because the only densities they match are of wood. And that's still not enough to falsify the garbage that parades as theory in their holy belief system.
How about a process akin to the formation of pumice? If a large mass of gas rich molten planetary core was explosively ejected to space by some means, volcanic, massive collision, electric discharge between planetary bodies, pick some huge energetic event, the rapid pressure drop and cooling could form very porous rock of low density.
That's not entirely out of the question for some smaller rocks and I'm sure there is some porosity but Hyperion is 300km in diameter! The process also needs rapid cooling in liquid water. The vacuum of space can't do that so it doesn't seem plausible to me. It's even more difficult to explain the stupid low density of fully formed moons like Tethys at 1,000km+ diameter.
Presumably ejecta from a molten core could be high in iron content, in which case the pumice formed could initially agglomerate by magnetic means until large enough masses are formed that gravity becomes a significant influence on mass accretion.
If you want low density pumice it needs to be rock in principally silicon/oxygen composition not iron. If empty space can produce iron pumice, it would still be much denser than 0.5 g/cm. Even at 80% porosity iron is still 2 g/cm and you still need rapid cooling. Where are you getting this iron rapidly cooled to keep all these large bubbles in place?

Note these very low density moons don't have any mainstream explanation of their composition or formation because they fall below the lowest density explanation they have; ice. Why do you think they say everything is made of ice, when upon observation these objects are clearly rock? It's because the whole theory (i.e. that mass directly drives gravity) is complete bunk.

Maol
Posts: 467
Joined: Fri Mar 11, 2011 8:40 pm

Re: beginner question - from EU Perspective

Unread post by Maol » Sat Jan 28, 2023 3:24 pm

Aardwolf wrote: Sat Jan 28, 2023 2:18 am
Maol wrote: Fri Jan 27, 2023 8:35 pm
Aardwolf wrote: Fri Jan 27, 2023 12:51 pm
Maol wrote: Fri Jan 27, 2023 7:53 am
Aardwolf wrote: Mon Jan 23, 2023 5:31 pm And then we have the sub 0.5 g/cm density group of moons like Atlas, Helene, Pan etc. As far as I can tell they won't even suggest what these are made of, because the only densities they match are of wood. And that's still not enough to falsify the garbage that parades as theory in their holy belief system.
How about a process akin to the formation of pumice? If a large mass of gas rich molten planetary core was explosively ejected to space by some means, volcanic, massive collision, electric discharge between planetary bodies, pick some huge energetic event, the rapid pressure drop and cooling could form very porous rock of low density.
That's not entirely out of the question for some smaller rocks and I'm sure there is some porosity but Hyperion is 300km in diameter! The process also needs rapid cooling in liquid water. The vacuum of space can't do that so it doesn't seem plausible to me. It's even more difficult to explain the stupid low density of fully formed moons like Tethys at 1,000km+ diameter.
Presumably ejecta from a molten core could be high in iron content, in which case the pumice formed could initially agglomerate by magnetic means until large enough masses are formed that gravity becomes a significant influence on mass accretion.
If you want low density pumice it needs to be rock in principally silicon/oxygen composition not iron. If empty space can produce iron pumice, it would still be much denser than 0.5 g/cm. Even at 80% porosity iron is still 2 g/cm and you still need rapid cooling. Where are you getting this iron rapidly cooled to keep all these large bubbles in place?

Note these very low density moons don't have any mainstream explanation of their composition or formation because they fall below the lowest density explanation they have; ice. Why do you think they say everything is made of ice, when upon observation these objects are clearly rock? It's because the whole theory (i.e. that mass directly drives gravity) is complete bunk.
I don't understand why you are constraining your imagination. Obviously, iron rich magma, AKA 'molten rock', is a conglomeration of several elements and pumice formed in space is not constrained by the processes of formation we are familiar with here on earth, underwater or in the atmosphere, and the void content of a particular mass of molten source material is only limited by the physical properties of temperature, viscosity, surface tension, etc, the gasses in the material acting akin to blowing glass bottles in a weightless environment, and any iron content would merely bring the magnetic property to the final cooled and solidified product.

Here is information about glass intentionally made with iron content for the purpose of utilizing the magnetic properties.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/a ... 0801006304

Aardwolf
Posts: 1456
Joined: Tue Jul 28, 2009 2:56 pm

Re: beginner question - from EU Perspective

Unread post by Aardwolf » Mon Jan 30, 2023 4:46 pm

Maol wrote: Sat Jan 28, 2023 3:24 pm
Aardwolf wrote: Sat Jan 28, 2023 2:18 am
Maol wrote: Fri Jan 27, 2023 8:35 pm
Aardwolf wrote: Fri Jan 27, 2023 12:51 pm
Maol wrote: Fri Jan 27, 2023 7:53 am
Aardwolf wrote: Mon Jan 23, 2023 5:31 pm And then we have the sub 0.5 g/cm density group of moons like Atlas, Helene, Pan etc. As far as I can tell they won't even suggest what these are made of, because the only densities they match are of wood. And that's still not enough to falsify the garbage that parades as theory in their holy belief system.
How about a process akin to the formation of pumice? If a large mass of gas rich molten planetary core was explosively ejected to space by some means, volcanic, massive collision, electric discharge between planetary bodies, pick some huge energetic event, the rapid pressure drop and cooling could form very porous rock of low density.
That's not entirely out of the question for some smaller rocks and I'm sure there is some porosity but Hyperion is 300km in diameter! The process also needs rapid cooling in liquid water. The vacuum of space can't do that so it doesn't seem plausible to me. It's even more difficult to explain the stupid low density of fully formed moons like Tethys at 1,000km+ diameter.
Presumably ejecta from a molten core could be high in iron content, in which case the pumice formed could initially agglomerate by magnetic means until large enough masses are formed that gravity becomes a significant influence on mass accretion.
If you want low density pumice it needs to be rock in principally silicon/oxygen composition not iron. If empty space can produce iron pumice, it would still be much denser than 0.5 g/cm. Even at 80% porosity iron is still 2 g/cm and you still need rapid cooling. Where are you getting this iron rapidly cooled to keep all these large bubbles in place?

Note these very low density moons don't have any mainstream explanation of their composition or formation because they fall below the lowest density explanation they have; ice. Why do you think they say everything is made of ice, when upon observation these objects are clearly rock? It's because the whole theory (i.e. that mass directly drives gravity) is complete bunk.
I don't understand why you are constraining your imagination.
There are many things imagined in science with no evidence (black holes, big bang, dark matter etc.) which has lead us where we today with theoretical garbage propping up more theoretical garbage. I prefer to theorise based on observable and testable facts that stand up to sensible reasoning.
Maol wrote: Sat Jan 28, 2023 3:24 pm Obviously, iron rich magma, AKA 'molten rock', is a conglomeration of several elements and pumice formed in space is not constrained by the processes of formation we are familiar with here on earth, underwater or in the atmosphere, and the void content of a particular mass of molten source material is only limited by the physical properties of temperature, viscosity, surface tension, etc, the gasses in the material acting akin to blowing glass bottles in a weightless environment, and any iron content would merely bring the magnetic property to the final cooled and solidified product.

Here is information about glass intentionally made with iron content for the purpose of utilizing the magnetic properties.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/a ... 0801006304
You can’t create pumice type material without rapid cooling to trap the bubbles and for that you need liquid. Where are these 1,000 km moons being immersed in liquid? You can’t just imagine it might happen somewhere else. Might as well just imagine it was cooled by unicorn blood swirling in a liquified dark matter black hole.

These moons are not formed by some weird unknown chemical process, they're just rocks like everything else we observe / visit / collect, all rocks at circa 3.5 - 5.5 g/cm. That gravity observations force some to think they're either ice or a weird exotic combination of elements is a fundamental failure of the predominant theories. Which, in part, is due to unconstrained "belief" of some truly misguided imaginations.

Maol
Posts: 467
Joined: Fri Mar 11, 2011 8:40 pm

Re: beginner question - from EU Perspective

Unread post by Maol » Mon Jan 30, 2023 9:35 pm

Aardwolf wrote: Mon Jan 30, 2023 4:46 pm
Maol wrote: Sat Jan 28, 2023 3:24 pm
Aardwolf wrote: Sat Jan 28, 2023 2:18 am
Maol wrote: Fri Jan 27, 2023 8:35 pm
Aardwolf wrote: Fri Jan 27, 2023 12:51 pm
Maol wrote: Fri Jan 27, 2023 7:53 am
Aardwolf wrote: Mon Jan 23, 2023 5:31 pm And then we have the sub 0.5 g/cm density group of moons like Atlas, Helene, Pan etc. As far as I can tell they won't even suggest what these are made of, because the only densities they match are of wood. And that's still not enough to falsify the garbage that parades as theory in their holy belief system.
How about a process akin to the formation of pumice? If a large mass of gas rich molten planetary core was explosively ejected to space by some means, volcanic, massive collision, electric discharge between planetary bodies, pick some huge energetic event, the rapid pressure drop and cooling could form very porous rock of low density.
That's not entirely out of the question for some smaller rocks and I'm sure there is some porosity but Hyperion is 300km in diameter! The process also needs rapid cooling in liquid water. The vacuum of space can't do that so it doesn't seem plausible to me. It's even more difficult to explain the stupid low density of fully formed moons like Tethys at 1,000km+ diameter.
Presumably ejecta from a molten core could be high in iron content, in which case the pumice formed could initially agglomerate by magnetic means until large enough masses are formed that gravity becomes a significant influence on mass accretion.
If you want low density pumice it needs to be rock in principally silicon/oxygen composition not iron. If empty space can produce iron pumice, it would still be much denser than 0.5 g/cm. Even at 80% porosity iron is still 2 g/cm and you still need rapid cooling. Where are you getting this iron rapidly cooled to keep all these large bubbles in place?

Note these very low density moons don't have any mainstream explanation of their composition or formation because they fall below the lowest density explanation they have; ice. Why do you think they say everything is made of ice, when upon observation these objects are clearly rock? It's because the whole theory (i.e. that mass directly drives gravity) is complete bunk.
I don't understand why you are constraining your imagination.
There are many things imagined in science with no evidence (black holes, big bang, dark matter etc.) which has lead us where we today with theoretical garbage propping up more theoretical garbage. I prefer to theorise based on observable and testable facts that stand up to sensible reasoning.
Maol wrote: Sat Jan 28, 2023 3:24 pm Obviously, iron rich magma, AKA 'molten rock', is a conglomeration of several elements and pumice formed in space is not constrained by the processes of formation we are familiar with here on earth, underwater or in the atmosphere, and the void content of a particular mass of molten source material is only limited by the physical properties of temperature, viscosity, surface tension, etc, the gasses in the material acting akin to blowing glass bottles in a weightless environment, and any iron content would merely bring the magnetic property to the final cooled and solidified product.

Here is information about glass intentionally made with iron content for the purpose of utilizing the magnetic properties.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/a ... 0801006304
You can’t create pumice type material without rapid cooling to trap the bubbles and for that you need liquid. Where are these 1,000 km moons being immersed in liquid? You can’t just imagine it might happen somewhere else. Might as well just imagine it was cooled by unicorn blood swirling in a liquified dark matter black hole.

These moons are not formed by some weird unknown chemical process, they're just rocks like everything else we observe / visit / collect, all rocks at circa 3.5 - 5.5 g/cm. That gravity observations force some to think they're either ice or a weird exotic combination of elements is a fundamental failure of the predominant theories. Which, in part, is due to unconstrained "belief" of some truly misguided imaginations.
Aardwolf wrote: Mon Jan 30, 2023 4:46 pmYou can’t create pumice type material without rapid cooling to trap the bubbles and for that you need liquid.
This just is not so. Volcanoes on dry land all over planet Earth erupt 'air cooled' pumice every day. Pumice from underwater volcanoes gets flashy press because it floats, so people are impressed, "Gee, wow, rock that floats."
https://volcano.oregonstate.edu/igneous-rocks-lesson-12
"Pumice is a very light colored, frothy volcanic rock. Pumice is formed from lava that is full of gas. The lava is ejected and shot through the air during an eruption. As the lava hurtles through the air it cools and the gases escape leaving the rock full of holes. (image caption in above link) This is the volcano Paricutin that is located in Mexico. It is erupting cinders and pumice which are examples of extrusive igneous rocks."

Kilauea volcano in Hawaii is famous for its air cooled "Golden Pumice" which was definitely not erupted or cooled underwater.
https://www.usgs.gov/news/volcano-watch ... ce-kilauea

It is not necessary to contend a debate of the EU vs. Gravity subject to postulate an explanation for large low density masses in space when simple explanations are found in physical processes which we can see every day are occurring all around us. What is your alternate theory?

Aardwolf
Posts: 1456
Joined: Tue Jul 28, 2009 2:56 pm

Re: beginner question - from EU Perspective

Unread post by Aardwolf » Tue Jan 31, 2023 12:21 pm

Maol wrote: Mon Jan 30, 2023 9:35 pm
Aardwolf wrote: Mon Jan 30, 2023 4:46 pmYou can’t create pumice type material without rapid cooling to trap the bubbles and for that you need liquid.
This just is not so. Volcanoes on dry land all over planet Earth erupt 'air cooled' pumice every day. Pumice from underwater volcanoes gets flashy press because it floats, so people are impressed, "Gee, wow, rock that floats."
https://volcano.oregonstate.edu/igneous-rocks-lesson-12
"Pumice is a very light colored, frothy volcanic rock. Pumice is formed from lava that is full of gas. The lava is ejected and shot through the air during an eruption. As the lava hurtles through the air it cools and the gases escape leaving the rock full of holes. (image caption in above link) This is the volcano Paricutin that is located in Mexico. It is erupting cinders and pumice which are examples of extrusive igneous rocks."
Yes it is. Look at any actual scientific description of the process. It won't cool in the air down from 800 degrees or so, and definitely won't fix/form until it hits water. It takes up to 130 days for lava to cool. Is that how long this lava is in the air? How high did this lava go exactly?
Maol wrote: Mon Jan 30, 2023 9:35 pmKilauea volcano in Hawaii is famous for its air cooled "Golden Pumice" which was definitely not erupted or cooled underwater.
https://www.usgs.gov/news/volcano-watch ... ce-kilauea
So you found some pumice by the coast on a whole island group formed by eruptions out of the ocean. Yes, obviously no water involved...
Maol wrote: Mon Jan 30, 2023 9:35 pmIt is not necessary to contend a debate of the EU vs. Gravity subject to postulate an explanation for large low density masses in space when simple explanations are found in physical processes which we can see every day are occurring all around us.
No we don't. No 1,000km sized balls of pumice. And there is neither water nor atmosphere to cool in space. In space you can't convect the heat away, only radiate it. Probably take billions of years to radiate heat out of a 1,000km sphere of rock in space. Likely all still be magma now. Which they're all clearly not.
Maol wrote: Mon Jan 30, 2023 9:35 pmWhat is your alternate theory?
The EU. It's related to charge, likely due to size and proximity to the sun/planet being orbited. However, an alternative theory isn't even necessary to debunk obvious nonsense.

Maol
Posts: 467
Joined: Fri Mar 11, 2011 8:40 pm

Re: beginner question - from EU Perspective

Unread post by Maol » Tue Jan 31, 2023 12:52 pm

You need to accept the fact that pumice formation does not require water cooling. If you're not too busy playing "gotcha" and you can trouble yourself to read this link you stand to learn something and better understand the physical universe. Good Luck ;)

https://news.yahoo.com/pumice-ash-depth ... 86LoClrV9B

Aardwolf
Posts: 1456
Joined: Tue Jul 28, 2009 2:56 pm

Re: beginner question - from EU Perspective

Unread post by Aardwolf » Tue Jan 31, 2023 4:18 pm

Maol wrote: Tue Jan 31, 2023 12:52 pm You need to accept the fact that pumice formation does not require water cooling. If you're not too busy playing "gotcha" and you can trouble yourself to read this link you stand to learn something and better understand the physical universe. Good Luck ;)

https://news.yahoo.com/pumice-ash-depth ... 86LoClrV9B
Not the greatest idea to take scientific guidance from yahoo, I prefer geological and chemical studies. However, these anecdotal stories are for tiny fragments of magma/pumice which is why they can cool rapidly via convection in air. How is an entire 1,000 km moon going to rapidly cool in a vacuum?

Aardwolf
Posts: 1456
Joined: Tue Jul 28, 2009 2:56 pm

Re: beginner question - from EU Perspective

Unread post by Aardwolf » Tue Jan 31, 2023 5:00 pm

Below is a chart showing density of all large rocky planets/moons in order from the sun. Apart from a couple of outliers like Titan/Triton they indicate gravity/density as a predominantly a product of distance not mass. The outliers like Titan are due to theie relatively large size in their orbital environment but they still follow the general trend. If this is not the case who has organised all the denser objects to be near the sun and less dense further away? God?
Gravity.png
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest