Earth Cyclones, Venus Vortices Have Much in Common
Written by Anne Minard
Scientists have spotted an S-shaped feature in the center of the vortices on Venus that looks familiar — because they've seen it in tropical cyclones on Earth.
Researchers from the United States and Europe spotted the feature using NASA's Pioneer Venus Orbiter and The European Space Agency's Venus Express. Their new discovery confirms that massive, swirling wind patterns have much in common where they have been found — on Venus, Saturn and Earth.
At cloud top level, Venus' entire atmosphere circles the planet in just about four Earth days, much faster than the solid planet does. Despite this "superrotation," some dynamical and morphological similarities exist between the vortex organization in the atmospheres of Venus's northern and southern hemispheres and tropical cyclones and hurricanes on Earth.
Organization of the Venus atmospheric circulation into two circumpolar vortices, one centered on each pole, was first deduced more than 30 years ago from Mariner 10 ultraviolet images. The S-shaped feature in the center of the vortices on Venus was first detected by the Pioneer Venus Orbiter near the northern pole and recently by Venus Express orbiter around the southern pole. It is also known to occur in Earth's tropical cyclones.
Using an idealized nonlinear and nondivergent barotropic model, lead author Sanjay S. Limaye, of the University of Wisconsin-Madison, and his colleagues are proposing that these S-shaped features are the manifestations of barotropic instability. The feature can be simulated with a barotropic model and, like in the vortices on Venus and in tropical cyclones, it is found to be transient.
Another similarity between the observed features in the vortex circulations of Venus and in terrestrial hurricanes is the presence of transverse waves extending radially outward from the vortex centres. The lack of observations of such features in Earth's polar vortices is suggestive that the dynamics of the Venus polar vortices may have more in common with hurricanes than their more direct terrestrial counterparts.
Given the challenges in measuring the deep circulation of Venus's atmosphere, the authors expect that the morphological similarities between vortices on Earth and Venus might help scientists better understand atmospheric superrotation on Venus and guide future observations.
IMAGE CAPTIONS: 1. The ‘eye of the hurricane’ on Venus, taken by the Visible and Infrared Thermal Imaging Spectrometer (VIRTIS) on board Venus Express. The yellow dot represents the south pole. Credit: ESA 2. An infrared satellite image of Hurricane Howard [1998], showing an S-shaped pattern in the low (warm) clouds in the tropical cyclone's eye. Credit: Sanjay S. Limaye.
Source: Geophysical Research Letters
Filed under: Astronomy, NASA, Venus
Related stories on Universe Today
Comment policy: Be nice and brief. Don't advertise your stuff, or promote your personal theories. We'll delete any comments that break these policies. Click here for more details.
March 13th, 2009 at 3:19 pm
The vortex phenomenon is common to electromagnetic phenomenon, so both Venus and Earth has vortex phenomenon that can be detected in their respective atmospheres.
Interesting, could the link possibly be electromagnetic dynamics?
March 14th, 2009 at 1:57 am
Anoconda,
"Interesting, could the link possibly be electromagnetic dynamics?"
Highly unlikely. For you this is the worst example at clutching at straws" I've seen. Ever heard of differential rotation? Guess not. (probably a just figment of made-up science again, eh?)
So called "simple sheer" might easily explain the origin of the phenomena. Perhaps you should learn something about fluid dynamics which applies to such phenomena. Oops! forgot mathematics is not your strong suit! Such a terrible pity.
Don't you love the fact that Venus has such a strong magnetic field. Might explain a few things.
Have a good one!
(Whoops – Let's see those dreaded accretion disks rising again! See the just same old familiar pattern I'm afraid.)
March 14th, 2009 at 6:25 am
Love how you guys debate the science with light hearted insults and sarcasm. I'll just watch, thanks.
March 14th, 2009 at 6:41 am
I witnessed a similar vortex phenomenon when I flushed my toilet this morning. I wonder if it has anything to do with giant lightning bolts from space.
March 14th, 2009 at 8:42 am
Salacious B. Crumb, (whoever that is in reality), is soon to discover that their theories are are wrong .
March 14th, 2009 at 9:33 am
Chris Coles Said:
Salacious B. Crumb, (whoever that is in reality), is soon to discover that their theories are are wrong.
Oh Rapture! The second coming has finally come!
It is you who are in fact to discover a great many things. Anyone who is involved in a cult organisation, with theories of indoctrination and hidden agendas which have little to do with science and more with 'fringe science' (akin to dabbling in the occult).
Funny, I don't really recall mentioning any theories here – right, wrong or otherwise. Sorry, must have just imagined it!
Next you will tell me that my avatar is some Communist plot or that I am, like the gravity that holds me to the ground, simply fictitious.
No. You are totally incorrect. It is YOU that is soon to discover that their theories are wrong.
Anyway, what has that got to do with the magnetic fields of Venus, if I may ask?
Note: In that Thunderbolts group did you know there is a insider/ double agent in their midst right at this very moment. I wonder when these plasma (whatever) will reveal about your and others of you group about your underhanded plans. No, don't tell me. I'll just have to wait until it happens. The only one to be sucked into a vortex is your own screwball ideas.
Oh. Please give my regards Anaconda, nudge nudge wink wink, Mr. Coles.
March 14th, 2009 at 10:07 am
Oh, Mr Coles. I checked several things regarding you rapidly evaporating credibility the other day…
Didn't you say once (Sept 2008, if I recall) that there are no particles called neutrons (something you read in a upcoming book I think) Your explanation was that the "Neutron is simply a package of dynamic energy."
You explained that new beastly LHC collider is merely delivering "packages of dynamic energy" to the detector that were "through pipes completely full of electromagnetic force fields."
Maybe it could be "the link possibly be electromagnetic dynamics"
Perhaps you think that the missing mass – that the dark whatchmacallit – are just neutrons hanging around in space – and this is about to be proven by the LHC thingamadoodle machine. (Shame they can't be anti-neutrons, because they are a plot by them nasty secretive scientists)
Pity, isn't it, that neutrons in isolation only last about 885.7 seconds. No. Don't tell me. That is an illusion too!
I suppose this might explain the vortices seen on Venus. Do you think that is right?
Diatribe. You gotta love that!
Have a NICE day, won't you C.W. !
March 14th, 2009 at 10:48 am
Nothing to do with electricity, they say what it is in the text: "idealized nonlinear and nondivergent barotropic model"
"barotropic model" means pure old pressure caused by old fashioned gravity.
Can someone explain to me what "idealized nonlinear and nondivergent " means?
March 14th, 2009 at 11:24 am
@ To the readers of this website:
While not always manning the gates, it seems Salacious B. Crumb sees himself as a gatekeeper of sorts.
I made a very short comment suggesting a mere possibility, no less, that electromagnetism could be involved in the post's observation.
And Crumb responds (his response to my comment was entirely appropriate), but when Chris Coles returns the favor, Crumb explodes out of control into a stream of invective.
Does that have any place on a science website comment board?
Crumb's comments seem primarily designed to stymie and discourage discussion of alternative theories.
Per Wikipedia: "It is a place to discuss the Universe Today news and also to ask space-related questions and discuss alternate theories."
Sadly, Crumb ignores the mission statement of the Universe Today website, which is to discuss alternate theories — in a civil manner.
Crumb deliberately coarsens the discussion and he justifies his self-proclaimed "rancid" tactics because he's on "your side" of the argument.
It seems that Crumb's real intent is to inject coarse personal abuse to "warn off" commenters that want to express alternative theories.
That's the real definition of a troll: an ogre laying in wait under a bridge to accost those that run afoul of the troll's sensibilities.
Is that what the readers of this website want?
March 14th, 2009 at 12:52 pm
Oh Dear. Must have hit very very close to the mark methinks. (The closer to the truth the more extreme response. Ah! Poof… "Anaconda's Law")
Now let's see. I wonder who said;
"I'm sorry for my reaction, but, yes, I have been subjected to abuse for expressing my opinions on this website, and I suppose that has left me a little touchy – and regrettably liable to misinterpret, which I did in response to your comment."
I see. Now we are playing the poor defenceless victim now? (Nobody takes me seriously… if they only listen,,, I want my mommy!)
Next you are now desperately appealing to the masses because your wrong plasma (whatever) and electric mumbo jumbo is not only be debunked idea by idea – that people are now out-and-out mocking your own silliness.
As to the "alternative theories", well that's fine, however even saying that is just another one of you deceptions. Let's thing of a few examples…
- You have proven time and time again that your arguments are either irrational and deliberately misleading.
- You are prepared to falsify information in what you write
- You use totally bogus websites with misleading links and anonymous people, who claim totally false associations with legitimate government bodies – that amazingly know nothing about what you are doing or why.
- We see now transparent adopted methods with secret unravelled agendas, which mean to convert people to some crazy cause – mainly aimed to be inflict on the unwary.
- You quote out-of-date scientific papers and peoples who are either now dead for decades or have been superceded by far more advanced work.
- You venerate the quite wacko man Peratt, who also has an illegitimate and deceptive agenda (and he believed in the crazier Immanuel Velikovsky and nonsense hieroglyphics)
- You always avoid direct scrutiny by glossing over facts, reject well established and perfectly tenable theories backed by indisputable observations.
- You treat and speak to nearly everyone as if they are stupid, roughshodding over anyone who disagrees – novice through to qualified scientists
- You claim science and scientists are mislead everyone, and have some secret agenda for some unknown purpose (yet you use the exact same tactics yourself.
- You claim no great knowledge of mathematics, and yet you think it is OK to reject anything others produce because you think it is all 'theoretical' and therefore irrelevant.
- You ignore established observation (Anti-matter being the classic)
- Someone gives you incontrovertible proof, you instantly dismiss it then run away.
- You can't even define basic definitions I.e Plasma [cosmology, universe, astrophysics or physics] without deception.
- More than 50 others on this and various other blog sites totally disagree with you on nearly everything you have to say. (and we are of course all wrong and are all victimising you too.)
So need I say anymore more.
But let us see. Then you now have the absolute audacity to desperately plead and appeal that you little voice in the wilderness isn't being heard and you think you can demand "equal time".
Well sorry, you have been proven as an out-and-out fraud and phoney. Frankly few care, and even fewer believe anything you say at all.
Even by stating "Interesting, could the link possibly be electromagnetic dynamics?" already proves you have a hidden agenda – and is based on wild irrelevant speculation and no real actual observation to back it up. (If you had half a brain you should realise the relationship with the clue I gave you about "fluid dynamics" – but of course that BS too!)
Perhaps instead you should consider going way and taking your claptrap with you! Do you think "Is that what the readers of this website want?" (I wonder how many 'yes" votes I can get? Pity we don't have the means of taking a poll.)
Games' up!!
Now go away you silly little man and give us all some well deserved peace, please.
March 14th, 2009 at 1:29 pm
"Is that what the readers of this website want?"
errrhhhhh,,, no
I still want to know what "idealized nonlinear and nondivergent barotropic model" means since this is the explanation the researcher gave and the seem to be pertty sure about it and have actually proof to back it up.
"barotropic model" means the model based on pressure caused by gravity.But what is "idealized nonlinear and nondivergent"?
March 14th, 2009 at 1:42 pm
Olaf:
I may be wrong here, but I think in the context of this article "Nonlinear and non divergent" essentially means "Chaotic, but not to the point of insane".
In other words introducing an instability into the system will cause a nonlinear, chaotic response that is not directly proportional to the original disturbance, but not to the extent where the system keeps swinging between increasingly extreme extremes.
March 14th, 2009 at 2:10 pm
Olaf;
I think "idealized nonlinear and nondivergent" is based on the model of the wind flow and the way the turbulent air flows within some stable vortex. Although atmospheric science isn't my strongest point, I'd say it is roughly based on ordinary ideal conditions (gases, pressures, temperatures, wind velocities, etc) without the addition of more unpredictable phenomena. I.e. stability components, multiple eddies or other disrupted forces wanting to destroy or dissipating the vortex itself. I do know it is based on the principles of fluid dynamics.
Recommend you might read from 'Journal of Atmospheric Science';
http://mathsci.ucd.ie/met/msc/MatLab/Doswell-JAS-April-84.pdf
It might give you a much better picture and clues to the problem. (pretty complex though.)
Perhaps someone with more experience in this field might be able to say more.
Hope this helps.
Note: Sorry, I can seem to access the original article, though the abstract uses these terms.
March 14th, 2009 at 2:20 pm
Sorry. I meant to say " with the addition of more unpredictable phenomena." NOT "without…"
The abstract says the 'S' shape feature "…it is found to be transient."
March 14th, 2009 at 2:31 pm
@ Olaf:
Your question is a very sensible and reasonable one: "what [does] 'idealized nonlinear and nondivergent barotropic model' mean?"
Olaf, you are right to take the statement and divide it. From my perspective you are right that "barotropic" refers to atmospheric pressure and thermal gradients. Also, the motions of a rotating barotropic fluid are strongly constrained.
Constrained usally means in science that the system is quantifiable. In this case It could mean there is identifiable physical restrictions on the system.
But the other half of the phrase implies something else, entirely, "nonlinear" means not in a quantifiable progression on a straight line.
Per Wikipedia: "In mathematics, a nonlinear system is a system which is not linear, that is, a system which does not satisfy the superposition principle, or whose output is not proportional to its input. Less technically, a nonlinear system is any problem where the variable(s) to be solved for cannot be written as a linear combination of independent components."
That definition may be too involved to be helpful, but there it is for consideration.
Olaf, only as a possible consideration, know the Maxwell equations of electromagntism are a non-linear set of equations.
In other words, electromagnetism is a non-linear fundamental force.
So, is it possible that the authors of the paper, in a round about, oblique way are introducing the idea that electromagnetic forces contribute in some way to the dynamics of Venus's atmosphere?
Maybe, maybe not.
Venus has no magnetic field or magnetosphere, whereas Earth does, that is a principle difference between Venus and Earth. What does that mean in practical terms? It means that the Sun's solar wind and attendant electromagnetic properites have a more direct impact on Venus's atmosphere. It this be why Venus's atmosphere experiences "superrotation"?
Possibly.
Certainly, there are other evidences that electromagnetic forces play a role in the venus's atmosphere:
The signals sent back from Venus Express, as well as those from previous missions, are typical of what is seen in a gas discharge tube (a plasma physics laboratory experimental apparatus).
The Magellan orbiter detected highly reflective mountain peaks on Venus, prompting one theorist to describe them as wearing coats of "St. Elmo's fire."
Other measurements taken from orbit show that only 2% of sunlight reaches the surface, although landers on the surface saw a landscape lit up as if the sky were glowing.
Venus radiates twice the energy it receives from the sun.
The atmospheric layers are also uniform in temperature from dayside to nightside, despite the planet's slow rotation.
Venus does possess an ionosphere and a plasma tail with "stringy things" (NASA's desriptive), some suggest these are Birkeland currents.
Some suggest Venus is a charged body immersed in an electrical circuit connected to the Sun much like Earth is known to be connect by Birkeland currents to the Sun.
Some suggest electrical energy also powers the intense UV airglow, also known as “ashen light.”
These electromagnetic interpretations are based on salellite observation & measurement of Venus's atmosphere.
So, inspite of Salacious B. Crumb's preemptory rejection of electromagnetism as a possible cause of this "vortex" observation, there is scientific evidence that supports the hypothesis.
Are there other alternative theories?
Of course there are.
All hypothesis should be presented and compared against the actual physical observations & measurements and each should be analyzed with an open-mind to see which hypothesis best explains the phenomenon at hand.
Sound fair?
March 14th, 2009 at 3:03 pm
Crumbs response to my "troll" analogy speaks for itself.
March 14th, 2009 at 3:08 pm
Dear me, we are in for the Grandmother of all debates.
"Divergence" is a term used in the study of vector fields. It's a tool for exploring…
the flow of fluids (such as ocean currents and wind patterns)
AS WELL AS
the nature of electromagnetic fields
I'm not an experienced expert in any of this – I make animated models for movies. They need to look realistic, so I feed my computer Real World kinematics to make it cook up animations of cool cloud formations.
Sorry, Trippy,
I barely understand how it works – but actually explaining the concept of nondivergent vortex flow is WAY beyond me. There are PDF's available for download, that's how I learned enough to be able to use it for cloud simulations… but please, be warned: It took me days to "wrap my head around it"…
March 14th, 2009 at 3:13 pm
Anaconda: "Other measurements taken from orbit show that only 2% of sunlight reaches the surface, although landers on the surface saw a landscape lit up as if the sky were glowing."
That's just a matter of getting the exposure on the camera right. I've taken night time pictures, and with a long enough exposure the houses are brightly lit and the sky is a bright blue. All this from the light pollution in the sky. Granted my exposures were about a minute long.
March 14th, 2009 at 3:41 pm
Feenixx:
No need to apologize. My comments were based on from what little I could recall of the Chaos Theory that I have managed to study (which isn't much to begin with) and the chaotic (ie non linear) behaviour that's inherrent in weather systems.
March 14th, 2009 at 3:57 pm
"Olaf, only as a possible consideration, know the Maxwell equations of electromagntism are a non-linear set of equations."
This still does not prove anything, none-linear could mean anything. It just means that then numbers do not follow 1,2,3,4,5,
I stil dont know why they use the word nondivergent, is that not the same as converging?
March 14th, 2009 at 4:14 pm
At least this reaseach team has a working idealized nonlinear and nondivergent barotropic model that can predict this.
March 14th, 2009 at 4:39 pm
Anoconda said;
" But the other half of the phrase implies something else, entirely, "nonlinear" means not in a quantifiable progression on a straight line.
Per Wikipedia: "In mathematics, a nonlinear system is a system which is not linear, that is, a system which does not satisfy the superposition principle, or whose output is not proportional to its input. Less technically, a nonlinear system is any problem where the variable(s) to be solved for cannot be written as a linear combination of independent components." "
Just shows you shouldn't always rely on Wikipedia. The quote above is in physics not mathematics. In the quote in the abstract it is used in the paper, it means far more simply "involving measurement in more than one dimension." (3D or 4D)
As for "So, inspite of Salacious B. Crumb's preemptory rejection of electromagnetism as a possible cause of this "vortex" observation, there is scientific evidence that supports the hypothesis."
I actually said "Highly unlikely". Also there is also no scientific evidence that supports the hypothesis, that is YOUR hypothesis. especially as "Vortex circulation on Venus: Dynamical similarities with terrestrial hurricanes" calculated only by atmospheric modelling. Vortexes in the lower surface atmosphere – even the surface wind velocity especially in the polar regions is still poorly understood. I think you'll find that any electromagnetic force is independent of the wind vectors with in the vortex. No radio observation of lightning has been made or correlated with both the vortices, though it is suspected to be active on Venus – perhaps 50% as seen on Earth.
Regardless, the effects in vortices of mostly atmospheric, whose electromagnetic forces, if they exist, would be only minor. As yet, there is no evidence to speculate either way.
Furthermore, these vortexes are at the poles, and since Venus has no significant magnetic field, the 'electromagnetic effects' from the Sun would be small. More likely, the very slow rotation rate of 243 days and the tilt of about 2.6 degrees, means the differential from sunlight on the lit and unlit side very likely provides energy enough to explain the four day rotation (the superrotation)
As for my open criticism, that still remains If it forces you to act reasonably for a change, then the aggressive actions prove justified. (The only problem you will have is maintaining it. Reading the recent Universe Today "Hubble Finds Evidence of Dark Matter Around Small Galaxies" doesn't auger very well IMO. I.e. Leopards don't change their spots.
March 14th, 2009 at 5:47 pm
@ Salacious B. Crumb:
Crumb states: "The quote above is in physics not mathematics." I appreciate the heads up.
Crumb states: "No radio observation of lightning has been made or correlated with both the vortices, though it is suspected to be active on Venus – perhaps 50% as seen on Earth."
Yes, I would agree that does strike a blow against an electromagnetic dynamic, although, electromagnetic interactions do not necessarily require that lighting is present.
The lack of any radio emissions, is more telling, because that does suggest any electromagnetic forces would have to be fairly low level — in 'dark' current mode. There are three modes: 'dark', 'glow', and 'arc' mode.
Science has observed Venus glowing in the dark in infrared
http://www.universetoday.com/2009/02/24/venus-is-glowing-in-the-dark/
And the dark, if one was to hypothetically stand at one spot on the surface of Venus would last a long time, as previously pointed out 243 days.
On a positive note, while there are many unanswered questions about Venusian dynamics, one by one those questions should be answered because Venus is relatively close by, so science can explore Venus and over time Venus should reveal its secrets.
March 14th, 2009 at 6:18 pm
In this case there is clearly no evidence of electric stuff that actually can influence this phenomenon. Yes there could be some lightning created by the movement of the particles but it these clouds are clearly normal matter and these lighnings are peanuts about the rest of the driving mechanism.
May I advice Anoconda to actually do some deeper understanding about this plasma cosmology since the more I learn about it, the more I understand why he is misguided.
Nowhere does http://www.plasmas.org or Los Alomos have any references with EU! They talk about plasma, they talk about that scientists are now trying to get deeper into this field that was left behind (no they do not clame any conspiracy), and the clearly do support the standard model, for example
plasmas.org wants to use a plasma Z-pinch to start a nuclear fusion! Remember EU clames nulcear fusion does no exists so does gravity!
An example if misguid is this:
"Plasmas are the most common form of matter, comprising more than 99% of the visible universe, and
permeate the solar system, inter-stellar and intergalactic environments."
It really means that 99% of the 4% matter of the universe, aka the normal matter we see is in it's plasma state, this still means that 22% dark matter is still out there confirming the standard model.
Now this 99% of this 4% visible matter is located in stars, exploded stars. while maybe 0.01% is located in the upper atmosphere of the other planets. The rest maybe also 0.01% is just solar wind but distributed in a spherical way in out complete solar system so bacisally vacuum an none-existing.
Basically, gravity exists, Nuclear fusion exist, dark matter still exists, no evidence of EU.
March 14th, 2009 at 7:34 pm
Nowhere in EU theory does it say that fusion or gravity don't exist. Don Scott clearly states that fusion would happen in the upper photosphere of the Sun. Fusion within a Z-pinch is expected in EU theory and it's known that plasma phenomena are scalable to many orders of magnitude.
Gravity is still not well understood, even by 'mainstream' science, and EU theory includes gravity, but when electro-magnetic forces (39 orders of magnitude stronger than gravity) are included in a description of the universe, gravity is a weak force comparatively.
Since analogies are made between Earth hurricanes and the polar vortrex on Venus, EU theory says that hurricanes are likely a form of 'dark mode' discharge vortex. Some powerful hurricanes have been seen to have hexagonal structure as well as hub and spoke forms. Hexagonal structure is observed at Saturns north pole, as well as on Jupiters north pole, both have strong auroral activity and magnetic fields.
A diocotron instability in a discharge vortex has similar characteristics to fluid models, btw.
http://nonneutral.pppl.gov/pdfpapers/PP.1998.5.3497.RD.pdf
A discharge vortex ususally consists of two or more central columns that rotate around each other due to electromagnetic attraction and repulsion. This applies to dark, glow or arc modes.
The S-shaped structure is analogous to this.
Even if one discounts EU theory, the 'solar wind' is a flow of charged particles, 'flux tubes' have been detected connecting the Earth to the Sun with an electric current of millions of amps (per NASA's own description). It's likely that all other planets have a similar 'flux tube' connection. All those amps of current have to go somewhere. It's logical to conclude that the possibility exists that this energy is dissipated through the atmosphere via discharge vortex (hurricanes, tornades) or sudden arc discharge (lightning, sprites, elves). Scientists admit that lightning is too powerful to be static electricity caused by wind driven, atmospheric friction. Sprites and elves prove there is a connection with lightning to the charged ionosphere. Atmospheric conditions (convection, moisture content) provide paths of varying resistance by which the current discharges to ground. The combination drives the weather.
More and more observations and lab results are proving that electro-magnetic forces and plasma play at least a supporting, if not important role in the dynamics of the universe. EU theory's claim that EM/plasma forces are at least dominant, if not fundamental, is very valid and worthy of further investigation and research.
March 15th, 2009 at 1:32 pm
@ Olaf:
Electric Universe theory is an extension of Plasma Uiverse. It is true that Electric Universe theory has less quantification than Plasma Universe theory because the observations are more difficult to quantify and there has been less education, funding, and research going into it.
But the principles and interpretations are based on observations & measurements carried out in plasma physics laboratories.
What I find remarkable about the position that Olaf and others take is that they believe 96% of the matter in the Universe is undetectable and some like Olaf believe the Universe started off smaller than an atom, but they have difficulty grasping the scientifically demonstrated principle that electric currents in plasma (electromagnetism) concentrates matter and energy much more effectively than gravity. And also electric current in plasma conveys energy and matter over longer distances in a more concentrated and efficient way.
If they could grasp this laboratory proven and in situ confirmed phenomenon, perhaps they wouldn't cling so tightly to ideas that require them to believe in matter ("dark") and energy ("dark") that have never been detected. And, they wouldn't subscribe to an event ("big bang") and objects ("black holes") that also haven't ever been observed, and require the "infinity concept", which can't be quantified by it's very definition.
Infinity can't be quantified.
in effect, they would rather believe in pink unicorns than a fundamental force, electromagnetism (one of the Four Fundamental Forces), that has been demonstrated and quantified in the plasama physics laboratory.
March 15th, 2009 at 2:59 pm
Olaf wrote: "Basically, gravity exists, Nuclear fusion exist, dark matter still exists, no evidence of EU."
Ever use a solar cell?
EU is dark matter as plasma, right?
Interdimensional vortices anyone?
March 15th, 2009 at 3:20 pm
http://www.larryspring.com/electromagnetism.html
I think its good to visualize things from many angles… Donno if I'm not supposed to put an addy up? But offer this site for your considerations and amuzement.
March 15th, 2009 at 6:22 pm
@ Solrey
Excellent post! Thanks I learned from that.
Since we are posting interesting sites that do not rely on "dark matter" and "dark energy" (these are inelegant expressions of unknown unknowns!)
http://www.electric-cosmos.org/electricplasma.htm
There are very simple explanations of plasma phenomena that may apply to observations reported as "mysterious".
Given the use of the term dark, it seems that those who oppose plasma based explanations, do so for emotional reasons and this can be detected by their emotive arguments. Always look for the science in any argument. That which is not understandable in an argument is an indication that the proponent does not understand what they are attempting to say. It does not mean that they are wrong, necessarily, but we all lack some understanding and reaching for a better understanding will expose areas that require investigation. Pointing this out, politely, is a valid part of the scientific process.
March 15th, 2009 at 6:27 pm
@Aqua
Cool music on that site! I used the term "Aqua" instead of the term "Earth" on several occasions in posts and I have also seen that some consider that the strong magnetic fields on this planet are influenced or even caused by the large bodies of water. Probably not true, but aqua is more important than some have given it credit?
Incidentally, I have been impressed by Paul LaViolette lately. He has little to say on the topic of Venus however, but he does explain why catastrophe may be a constant in this and other galaxies!
March 15th, 2009 at 11:08 pm
To anyone who might even consider wasting their time with Electric Universe, forget about the Universe that we don’t know much about and let’s consider the Sun, something that we do know a lot about:
http://www.bautforum.com/against-mainstream/41877-electric-sun.html
March 16th, 2009 at 4:34 am
It is so funny to watch people who don't know anything about what they are spouting out, yet answer questions and bibble out answers as if they do.
Anaconda, Solacious, Oills and the rest. I'll give you a hint. If you really know what you are talking about, it doesn't take so many words to describe it, and also you can explain it so a layman can understand it. Something none of you patzers can do.
Like defining "non-linear" equation. You twit, you name off all the definitions, but couldn't expound on the SINGLE DEFINITION which applied best. Why? Because you have no clue.
I had a hearty laugh about, "the above quote was physics… not mathematics". Wow, you are a moron. If it is a type of equation in physics, it is the exact same in math.
There is one question I'm sure you guys can answer, and everyone might just listen to.
…just how can you be so moronic, and live with yourself?
Because I think we are all shocked you can master cut & paste in order to plagerize, and screw up some of the most basic scientific facts.
March 16th, 2009 at 6:05 am
OilisMisery
"If it is a type of equation in physics, it is the exact same in math."
Sorry. No it isn't.
"If you really know what you are talking about, it doesn't take so many words to describe it, and also you can explain it so a layman can understand it."
In fact I did.
I.e. "In the quote in the abstract it is used in the paper, it means far more simply "involving measurement in more than one dimension." (3D or 4D)"
Isn't that simple enough so the layman can understand?
Hence by stating; "…but couldn't expound on the SINGLE DEFINITION which applied best. Why?"
Is because it has different meanings across other disciplines.
I.e. For the "physics" reference, the definition is "whose output is not proportional to its input."
Even a fool would realise that these two definitions are not compatible. As the article says; "The feature can be simulated with a barotropic model" – the model being a mathematical one.
[You even said "Like defining "non-linear" equation" ]
For example, in physics, say, a nonlinear electronic circuit, can be one that transmits discrete chaotic signals. In mathematics, it means a multidimensional space (actually vector mathematics / vector spaces).
Unfortunately all non-linear, partial differential equations are exactly the equations that describe most real-life situations, like weather systems, cyclones, turbulent motion, or friction, etc.
As previously said in this thread, the mathematics using nonlinear is very difficult to use and apply – but is the basis of explaining complicated phenomena.
A good example of multiple meanings in science is the term "rectification" I.e Mathematics, chemistry, geometry or electronic. (and yes even astrology has a different meaning.)
This is the reason why. (and the appropriate question by Olaf)
If you think I'm a moron then so be it. Takes one to know one.
March 16th, 2009 at 7:10 am
SolaciousB-A-Dummie, you are wrong on so many accounts it isn't even funny. Once again you prove my point. Thank you very much.
I really should pitty you, except you woudln't get it either. Take some real classes, and instead of defining things as you believe they should be defined; based on your own logic… you will learn to define them as they are meant to be.
Yet I will give you a chance to prove me wrong.
If you are so intelligent, then you should easily be able to handle this question, since you 'appear' to believe you know this model so well.
Why is the geopotential of the free surface used in the first two parts of the barotropic model, and not in the third? And secondly, exactly what should it be describing?
Two very simple answers which take no more than one sentence.
March 16th, 2009 at 7:21 am
OillsMisery said:
"If you are so intelligent, then you should easily be able to handle this question, since you 'appear' to believe you know this model so well."
Oh dear, yet another self-opinionated twit.
March 16th, 2009 at 8:06 am
I don't appear as anything more than what I've said.
Funny, you act like you have a superiority in knowledge, but the truth of it you show no evidence that you yourself know anything about baratropic models. Really, pretending to hold the moral high ground is one thing, evidence of having useful knowledge in another. If you did, then you might have contributed something positive.
Now let see, I wonder who said;
"Although atmospheric science isn't my strongest point, I'd say it is roughly based on… .
"I do know it is based on the principles of fluid dynamics…."
"Perhaps someone with more experience in this field might be able to say more."
Does this actually sound like someone who is pretending ".. to 'appear' to believe you know this model so well."
As I said, I don't appear as anything more than what I've said.
At least it is better than deception of misleading others.. as you appear to be doing!
If I am wrong, then I'll simply cop it on the chin.
March 16th, 2009 at 8:23 am
@ OilIsMisery:
Oh my goodness, I'm stepping in to say a word in agreement with Salacious B. Crumb. Reality can be stranger than fiction.
Admittedly, I'm not a math guy — and have received abuse, here, for that admission. But I know that there are different definitions for pure mathematics and as opposed to physics.
For someone to claim the terms are identical simply means they are ignornant.
But there is a reason for that ignorance: Pure mathematics rarely emphasizes the differences. For to hold out those differences for public display, particularly those differences with physics — is to highlight the abstract nature of pure mathematics, as opposed to applied mathematics.
In physics, at its best, there are no undefined terms. And terms must be consistently applied. Pure mathematics persists in leaving critical terms undefined, an easy example, the definition of a point.
OilIsMisery, your credibility takes a hit right out of the gate when you incorrectly state a fact that almost all physicists know about.
And even lame brain scientific observers such as myself.
March 16th, 2009 at 8:42 am
"Why is the geopotential of the free surface used in the first two parts of the barotropic model, and not in the third? And secondly, exactly what should it be describing?"
The first parts allow elimination of the dependant variables, the third I think solves a time independent equation. I think it describes the nature of the wind field and the pressures.
(Never done the mathematics though)
However, I think you mean barotropic models and not any one singular model.
March 16th, 2009 at 9:16 am
Oh, I forgot OillsMisery…
I'm also a pretty good chess player…
Thanks for the compliment !!
March 16th, 2009 at 9:32 am
Solacious B. Incorrect.
Actually, there is only one model which you could answer the question to. The BASIC model.
As far as the rest. I don't go around spouting out either rediculous or poorly thought rubbish taking up 3/4 of a web page. Nor do I poorly plagerize material and act like I know it better than those who actually study the subject at hand for a living. Others also do not waste others time by bringing up things which don't even apply to the subject. Although a few seem to believe plasma is the base material of the universe.
One of your errors, is you know a little of something and apply it to something else. For instance, your atmospheric or 'gas' relationship to fluid. The dynamics appear to be alike, as if you can substitute one for the other. In some small experiments, you may be able to get an idea of the dynamic of one through substitution, and do just fine, but overall you cannot. There are many instances, but the simplest and most known is, one you can compress, the other you cannot. So to believe one acts like the other is wrong.
Don't bring up credibiilty. Nobody here would say you have any. The fact I'm pointing this out to you actually adds to mine. Which is not the intent.
You want to debate, fine. However, do it with some thought and logic. Don't just spurt out something you 'think'.Not everything on the Internet is true, current or accurate.
If someone brings out a point, it is rediculous to toss out some reference pointing out something else. If you really understood it, you could break down what THEY SAID, not add more fuel to the idiocy by including some paper which barely applies to the original topic.
March 16th, 2009 at 10:03 am
And as usual OillsMisery speaks a lot, and just says absolutely nothing!
"Why is the geopotential of the free surface used in the first two parts of the barotropic model, and not in the third? And secondly, exactly what should it be describing?"
Then you say the answer is "The BASIC model."
What? That isn't an answer is it!
There are three parts to any barotropic models in the partial differential equations!
Oh!! So you don't know!!!
And then you have the absolute audacity to say "Don't bring up credibiilty."? No one buys it.
March 16th, 2009 at 11:05 am
@ Ahora:
That discussion demonstrated one thing: Sol88 was out of his league, he was more like a pinata getting the candy knocked out of him by experienced astrophysicists (with fixed opinions about solar mechanics) with heavy wooden sticks.
(There was one other 'Electric Sun' proponent, but his idea was slightly different.)
That discussion was a massacre.
I would hardly suggest all Plasma Universe theory, and its extension Electric Universe theory rises or falls because one person got beat like a pinata until the candy came falling out all over the floor.
I suspect the senior commenters at Baut who participated in that "discussion" enjoyed it, kind of like a "blanket party" for astrophysicists.
But the fact that you would pass off one lopsided "pinata party" as represenative of the merits of a whole theory speaks to your objectivity.
Thanks for the insight — don't present the most articulate proponent for a hypothesis, rather present the worst, and pretend it was the best.
Good scientific reasoning there.
Not.
March 16th, 2009 at 11:34 am
Hey OillsMisery,
What do you reckon the height of the "free surface" of this vortex of Venus?
Really be interested to know.
March 16th, 2009 at 5:03 pm
salaciousbcrumb,
You seem to understand mathematics well enough.
Do you see math as a form of language?
Check out the link in my prior post regarding diocotron instabilities and wrap your head around that math.
Not saying that you can't. I'm just saying that EM influenced plasma is very fluid-like. Since you seem to understand the math of fluid dynamics by correctly pointing out that there is a difference betewen a compressible and non-compressible fluid, I'm curious about your thoughts on the fluidity of magnetic fields.
peace
March 17th, 2009 at 4:00 am
By their desperate reactions, it is Obvious the explanation was far too complicated for them to understand.
March 17th, 2009 at 4:09 am
Mr. Oblivious
Oh dear. Now back to the familiar hit and run tactics eh?
As usual, you criticise but you say absolutely nothing.
Perhaps it was to complicated for yourself to understand.
March 17th, 2009 at 5:20 am
Sally B. Drumb, you must be on crack. You memory is so poor you don't even remember what you stated. Saying it was the BASIC model was in response to you believing it could be one of many. Just thinking it was an answer, shows how rediculous you are. Maybe work on your short term memory.
Of course I understand it. However, first of all you wouldn't believe me. Second, proving it would take a lot of space. Third, you wouldn't understand what I was saying. Understanding what the model is used for is simple. Understanding how it works and why it is set up the way it is… is another story. It doesn't take a genius to use a formula. However, you have to have some skill in order to set one up and prove it.
Yet once again, you can't put out any information that you can prove, you toss out rediculous questions or poorly paraphrased info based on the information you've picked up from Googling the Internet.
Reckon… Are you a hillbilly now? Your question doesn't make a lot of sense… which further shows you have no clue; but to go on… if it did make some sort of sense, there wouldn't be enough data to do any modeling.
I'm not seeking your approval or grace. So as far as what credibility I have with you doesn't concern me. I just enjoy pointing out how rediculously moronic you are…. to yourself. I don't have to point this fact out to others, they see it already!
Keeping you busy on Google in your quest to learn more about this has been enough to laugh about on its own. Your responses are just added gold. It follows the same pattern as everything else. You toss out the nomenclature you've seen, yet apply it incorrectly. Too elfin funny!
So anytime you attempt to BS or berate people here, I'm going to call you out, so you can see just how ignorant you really are.
I'm not even going to respond to you anymore… only to the BS you are spreading.
March 17th, 2009 at 5:46 am
"Of course I understand it. However, first of all you wouldn't believe me. Second, proving it would take a lot of space. Third, you wouldn't understand what I was saying.."
So it is true, you don't know!
"So anytime you attempt to BS or berate people here, I'm going to call you out, so you can see just how ignorant you really are.
I'm not even going to respond to you anymore… only to the BS you are spreading."
Coward! So we know who really is speaking the BS!
March 17th, 2009 at 6:03 am
And as usual OillsMisery speaks a lot, and just says absolutely nothing!
"Why is the geopotential of the free surface used in the first two parts of the barotropic model, and not in the third? And secondly, exactly what should it be describing?"
Then you say the answer is "The BASIC model."
What? That isn't an answer is it!
There are three parts to any barotropic models in the partial differential equations!
Oh!! So you don't know!!!
And then you have the absolute audacity to say "Don't bring up credibiilty."?
No one buys it.
March 17th, 2009 at 10:19 am
Salacious B. Crumb,
When it comes to your stupidity I don't have to say a lot. It is quite Obvious. You are the only one who doesn't get it. A side effect (for sure), whereas you wouldn't understand it if it was drawn out in pictures.
btw…. with the equation, the answer lies in how the prime represents the derivative with respect to…. (nah, cant allow you to look it up that easy) hint: Rossby speed, horizontal divergence, and baroxxxxx wave drag.
There you are. I said a lot for you. Happy?
Go ahead. Get upset and say something to deflect the Obvious.
March 17th, 2009 at 7:34 pm
Let see…
Oblivious said;
You say the answer is "The BASIC model."
Then you say.
Sorry, it doesn't quite equate, does it.
YOU CLEAR DON"T KNOW
The thing is you didn't expect an answer, and now you have nowhere to run and hide behind silly rhetoric . By your pathetic reacts you are by behaving like a naughty little schoolgirl who has just been CAUGHT OUT
Simply you have show this behaviour on a number of occasions doing exactly the same pattern of irrational behaviour.
So do what you like, because everyone already can sees through your deception and clear falsehoods. Otherwise you wouldn't be making open threats to me on blogs site like this one.
Have a NICE day!
March 17th, 2009 at 7:42 pm
Two very simple answers which take no more than one sentence.
So why is it;
<BLOCKQUOTE"Of course I understand it. However, first of all you wouldn't believe me. Second, proving it would take a lot of space. Third, you wouldn't understand what I was saying."
So you want ME do it in one sentence, but it would take YOU "a lot of space.
No one believes you.
Just Pathetic.
March 18th, 2009 at 9:11 am
Do you not comprehend simple words?
He said you wouldn't believe the answer. So then he would have to PROVE IT, which would take up space. To boot, you STILL wouldn't get it.
You not getting it is Obvious, since you couldn't comprehend the explanation to begin with.
March 18th, 2009 at 9:33 am
Mr Oblivious,
No one actually believes you know…
Let's see the great expert and I remember you call them "planet nebula"
You are just a pathetic fraud. [Get it!]
March 18th, 2009 at 11:22 am
Sally B. VERY STUPID.
Have you been to: http://www.space.com/nebulas
Perhaps there you'll be able to figure it out.
What is that?? Can't hear you with that foot in your mouth
March 18th, 2009 at 11:25 am
Salcious…. you are one of the last people who should berate someone for grammar, spelling, or any other type of typo correction.
March 18th, 2009 at 4:47 pm
Aodhhan said:
Yeah. But he did it three times!
March 18th, 2009 at 4:52 pm
Mr.Oblivious said:
Perhaps there you'll be able to figure it out.
What is that?? Can't hear you with that foot in your mouth
It is 'planetary nebula' stupid not 'planet nebula'. The plural is 'planetary nebulae'.
Where is 'planet nebula' on the link?
How ignorant are you?? eh?