Jupiter, Saturn Plowed Through Asteroids, Study Says

Oh dear, the rise of the third fruitcake. (Looks like it is becoming a convention)
“To make my point again, the EU theorists tend to want to establish electro-magnetism and that it is being attacked suppressed.”
Sounds the same diatribe, except different name.

http://www.sott.net/articles/show/177417-Hot-Solar-Winds-Energy-Simulation-Explains-Physical-Mystery-of-the-Voyager

Hail Salacious B Crumb!
What are they doing in this area of science? How can you tell I am a fruitcake? I may be a Turing program. How can you tell?
“Diatribe” well spotted! Yes it is. I am summarizing what many EU theorists say. Not content with putting forward a theory that is revolutionary although stretching back centuries, they say others are against it. Is it more than conventional scientific fear of truth or do they have a point?
That was what I was asking? Is that clear now? Perhaps you can address it? Or anything else I said?
Hi!

Hi Pat:

OilIsMastery have been asked for examples of how the electromagnetic mechanism that mimics gravity works, he have failed to do so.

Whether anyone likes it or not, the gravitational model have great success in explaining orbital mechanics. That does not make it the only force in action, but it does lend great credibility. Oil is disqarding that credibility completely based on what looks like his own ‘beliefs’ as he have not explained any further. The examples he have submitted do not explain what he claims they do.

Rest of his polemic is only quoting random sources that say things he like, and implying conspiracy. Not much of a debate.

Anaconda:
“Dating craters on the Moon is an inexact science at best. The dating is mostly assumptions based on probability and incomplete radiometrical dating.”

Dating craters is an inexact science, but it is exact enough that we have a general picture of the cratering history of the Moon (and by extension, the inner solar system). We see evidence that there was a period of heavy bombardment, and that the cratering rate seems to have declined rapidly at about 3.9-3.8 billion years ago. By about 3.5 billion years ago the cratering rate had dropped to a low, steady rate that has persisted to the present day. There may have been fluctuations in the rate due to collisions between asteroids in the main belt, but the rate has remained relatively constant (within a factor of 2 or so) as objects have slowly leaked out of the asteroid belt (plus the occasional comet strike). This big picture story is supported by a wide range of evidence from numerous independent sources (dating of lunar lava flows and dating of lunar impact melts using multiple radiometric isotope systems, statistical crater counting studies, studies of rate of impacts on Earth, studies of meteorites, etc.). All these studies tend to converge on this story in the broad sense. The details are what we tend to argue.

“As one paper studying the date of solar system caters stated: “Upon study of figure 1 it becomes apparent that, while the cratering history of the solar system between 4.5 and 3.0 billion years (Gyr) is well known, that little is known afterwards. “”

I would say that this is almost exactly backwards. It’s the cratering history between 4.5-3.5 Gyr that has been the source of much of the contention in the field for the last forty years or so. It also happens to be my favorite period of time in solar system history, in part because of the contentiousness. It’s been my experience that most scientists love to argue and disagree with each other, but we like it best when the arguments are backed up by rigorous science.

“…author Kevin Walsh added, “Qualitatively, it looks as if a snow plough were driven through the main asteroid belt…”

“Surely, in the course of 3.8 billion years ago, such a neat hole in the asteroid belt would have blurred as gravity from Jupiter pulled on the various asteroids.”

I’m not sure what you mean by “blurred” but one of the main points of our study was to actually figure out what Jupiter’s gravity actually does to the distribution of asteroids over 4 billion years. In fact, our main conclusion is that there are regions in the main belt where Jupiter’s influence is small and that these regions are perfectly capable of keeping asteroids around for 4 billion years, yet they seem to be depleted in asteroids. These depleted, but stable, regions are distributed throughout the main belt in a very systematic way, and we hypothesized that this was the signature of giant planet migration. So we tested that hypothesis against a model of planet migration, and (so far, at least) it passed the test.

“So, while I greatly respect Minton’s work, I do find reason to disagree with his certainty as regards the conclusions he makes on the timing of the orbital migrations.”

I’m sure many of our colleagues will disagree with our conclusions too! That’s the great thing about science: there’s plenty of room to disagree.

“As regards the evidence of electromagnetic causality of migrating planetal orbits, I suspect he is unfamiliar with the evidence.”

I am somewhat familiar with EU and related ideas, mainly from my days lurking about in various web forums before I decided to study science as a career. I have found that the evidence put forth by its proponents is lacking in any rigor, and fails to stand up to real scrutiny.

@ Alex Jones:

Review my comments on this thread.

They are on topic (other than my commentary on OilIsMastery and my response to Salacious B. Crumb’s personal attacks) and pertinent.

It seems that you characterize my proceeding comment as disgusting, so now who’s the one attempting to elicit an emotional response?

@ Salacious B. Crumb

This person OilsMastery is a troll, i.e. someone who posts controversial, inflammatory, irrelevant or off-topic messages in this forum, with the intention of provoking others into an emotional response and to disrupt normal on-topic discussion. Yes, indeed, I think, this person’s posts are disruptive, and –– interpreting his numerous “contributions” –– indeed, i think, this person has the aformentioned intensions.

Above that, there are some of those pertinent “open minded” participants, who are willing to “discuss” each and every rubbish.

The disgusting post, where the terms “scientific conversation”, “adult”, “hypothesis “, “gracious”, “respect”, and “willingness” are used, and “That is mature scientific discussion” is said, is the limit.

With all due respect –– and I’m serious about this respect for you ––, Salacious B. Crumb, you are guilty , because by responding again and again you encourage the troll to continue his disruptive posts.

Please, do not feed the troll!

This should be a forum about _ astronomy_ again.

Alex Jones, said;
“This person OilsMastery is a troll, i.e. someone who posts controversial, inflammatory, irrelevant or off-topic messages in this forum, with the intention of provoking others into an emotional response and to disrupt normal on-topic discussion.”

I disagree. Historically, mostly his attacks are solely to gain some credibility. The difference is that he honestly believes what he is writing. He has a known history of disrupting many forums, whose main aimed is to discredit the current role of cosmology and astrophysics – forming doubt in the way science obtains its results from observation. Much of what he contends has made him banned from many places on the internet, and even his own website is a reactionary consequence of such imposed bans.
I have used tactics of provocation (probably wrongly in some eyes) to expose his fraudulent behaviour and clearly wrong beliefs, as he specifically avoids direct scrutiny by attempting to bamboozle the reader. The means of success is confronting him directly so he makes the occasional slip-ups. It mostly works. I.e. He stated, for example, “Yes but most likely electromagnetism causes gravity.” – which will now haunt him for the rest of his days.
Admittedly my responses doesn’t look very pretty, but the question is do you tolerate the deception or do you confront it and expose it? (From my perspective, I have been totally upfront. I have no real agenda, and respond in the way I see it.)

So Sorry. In this case, IMO, ignoring him is more dangerous than not directly confronting him. He deserves not quarter and no resting place. After a time he will go somewhere else for his “jollys”, but he will still profess the same deluded garbage.
As towards your statement;
“With all due respect –– and I’m serious about this respect for you ––, Salacious B. Crumb, you are guilty , because by responding again and again you encourage the troll to continue his disruptive posts.”
As I’ve already stated provocation sometimes can be a particularly effective and useful tool – especially if with someone who is trying to influence others who don’t know any better. In the end, blog site are supposed to be about exchange of information, but what it up as is a physiological laboratory of anonymous people who really know little about each other. There is an assumption that the opinions are always benevolent, yet the disruptive blogger knows this. The eternal dilemma is not to simply to ignore the individual causing the disruption, but at what time you should strike down the deceit.
However, I do take you point that “This should be a forum about _ astronomy_ again.”
Perhaps Universe Today moderation needs to consider to start removing more points that stray far from the topic at hand (like this reply to you) or are absolutely dishonest towards scientific credibility. But on this latter point, is this necessary censorship?

Anaconda said;
“You rely on angular momentum for most of your explanations.”
No, not really. I brought up the issue because it is exactly the place in your misguided logic about your completely wrong and ridiculous application of electromagnetic (whatever) and plasma (whatever) theories are forever doomed to failure.
You don’t understand do you? Otherwise you wouldn’t be asking silly things like; “And angular momentum is what causes problems for the “accretion” theory of planetary development.”
So be my guest. Go right ahead and try to destroy the very basis of angular momentum in astrophysics and physics. (Be very careful though, because the laws governing angular momentum (and its conservation) also equally apply to relativistic mechanics, quantum mechanics, atomic theory, and even your precious electrodynamics.
Note: I notice your total and absolute silence on “Noether’s theorem” (like OilIsMastery) Do you understand its implications? If you do, then you might learn the link in various fields and understanding of the laws of physics.
Now of course, if you can logically prove any part of Noether’s theorem is wrong, then you might have some justification to claim the overall physics adopted by all the cosmologist and astrophysicists is also wrong. Well really, and until you do, whatever you say is well frankly absolutely and totally meaningless.

@ Salacious B. Crumb:

You state: “Gravitation as a predictive tool is very useful, because it can explain the behaviours of nearly all astronomical phenomena. This can be from the Solar System, binary stars, galaxy interactions and rotation, accretion disks, etc.”

No.

That’s why “black holes”, “neutron” stars, “dark” matter, and “dark” energy were hypothesized because gravity alone could not explain various structures and processes in deep space, or the hypothesized “big bang”. Those supposed phenomenon when closely scrutinized are not natural outcomes of the laws of gravity, but were ad hoc solutions to the paradoxes of an all encompassing theory of gravity that failed by its own constraints and requirements.

Electromagnetism doesn’t require the above exotics that have been assumed and incorporated into “modern” astronomy.

Because the properties of electromagnetism can account for the various observed objects and phenomenon for which “modern” astronomy has recruited the above exotics.

It is the belief that gravity must account for all the observed objects and processes in deep space that has led into the adoption of exotics.

Let’s take your examples one at a time.

Solar System — Do you deny that NASA has confirmed electromagnetic processes and phenomenon are ubiquitous in the Solar system?

Binary stars (and multiple star sytems) — Gravity doesn’t account for binary and multiple star systems. Electromagnetism does.

Galaxy interactions — Again, gravity doesn’t explain those interactions very well.

Rotation — Yes, some objects can be explained by gravity, but electromagnetism does a much job of explaining rotation. Rotation is a product of electromagnetic force, think electrons spinning around a magnetic field as in synchrotron radiation.

Accretion disks (Which one, the one supposedly around a “black hole” or the one that supposedly formed planets?) — How to account for “hot jupiters” giant gas exoplanets in close orbit to their stars, “accretion” theory doesn’t explain their formation. That is why there is interest in planetary orbital migration. Also, angular momentum stands in the way of the “accretion” theory. “Accretion disks” around “black holes” are a complete ad hoc reaction to the paradox that jets are emitted from an object who’s gravity is supposedly so strong that no even light can escape, but it does.

I’ve paraphrased this before, and I will here, all forces need to be considered because all forces have a role in the structrue and dymanics of the Universe.

The relevant question is what is their respective roles in relation to each other?

ND said;
“what the…. Who’s writing under who’s name?”
I thought I posted this, but I don’t understand how OilIsMastery also actually posted this. Makes you wonder.