Jupiter to spit out new planet on July 4?

I think it is. We need some calculations on how much energy it took to move Venus from Jupiter to it's current location in a given timeframe. If the energy needed is lower than the energy in the colliding storms then you have a theory with just a hint of credibility, but without calculations it is worthless.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

The lame ass theory of the month.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I don't have a theory. I have a string of hypotheses. I haven't much of a chance of testing those hypotheses except in a "what if there is this much energy available" fashion. The hypothesis includes the idea that the vortex taps the energy that is available. It's not whether the vortex has that energy already, or both vortexes have it. It is whether they will penetrate the mantle for long enough to tap the energy in the core. I've read that some astronomers already believe that the Red spot penetrates all the way to the core. Obviously if it does it is not open enough to spit out large quantities that we can see.

If everything lined up just right and there was a mass of heavy elements that was hot enough, once the mass started up the vortex, it would explode the metallic hydrogen surrounding it. The tube would even form an electromagnetic guide because it is superconducting (presuming that there is a layer of metallic hydrogen thousands of miles thick). So we've got a hypothetical gun barrel to make a Verne shot. Now we're talking about an unknown but large and very hot mass that may be electrically charged, a narrow barrel to contain it as it gathers momentum, a lot of heat, and millions of pounds per square inch behind it. Any magnetic field that it has will be repelled by the superconductive metallic hydrogen. Any contact it makes with the barrel will increase the pressure.

Some people will say that it will happen when the spots merge on the Fourth of July not because of the special significance of the date for Americans but because of the ways that nature has of doing its little coincidences at times so opportune that even the most rational or rationalizing mind can't quite dismiss the idea of intelligent action. I'm just sincerely sorry that the notice was too short for them to make a movie out of it. It would have been a vastly entertaining movie.

If the histories actually do say that several different cultures witnessed the same things, then I would not have a leg to stand on to deny it. No matter how well developed my theories or hypotheses were, they would be wrong if they went against observed fact. Mega-events that are observed from many different angles by people from many different cultures cannot be gotten rid of by denial. Velikovsky spent a lot of time assessing the histories, with expertise, experience, and work that cannot be duplicated without spending a lot of years doing the same thing, on a very broad base of knowledge. I don't have a way to deny the histories.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

The lights were actually in the sky. They saw something that was actually there. There were no lasers three thousand years ago that we know of.

 

It would be fallacious to argue by consequences.

The people who originally rebutted this theory thought that Jupiter had a cold, rocky core. Their physical theory was wrong on one of the very basic parts of their rebuttal. They failed to demonstrate that the phenomenon was not observed, so they tried to say that it could not have happened.

This total energy idea of yours is a non-starter. The energy release that you are talking about is not a flash of light. It is the kinetic energy in a mass the size of a planet. That energy would not reach the Earth unless the actual material carrying it reaches the Earth.

You have no idea if Venus would still be in a wildly eccentric orbit.

 

Nice contribution. Do you have anything to support your statement?

 

The thing to work on is the observations. If the observations are irrefutable then it doesn't matter if it was the hand of God, but if we want to presume that this is a universe ruled by physical law, we have to revise our physics to fit observed phenomena. I just hope that either we do not have the opportunity to witness this first hand or that it is thousands of years between the ejection and the disasters, giving us enough time to prepare.

Myself, I think that Jupiter should be monitored from several sides at once, and a 24/7 watch kept on the Red Spot from close range. If small objects come out of it every once in a while, then it is a hazard, Velikovsky was very likely right, and we should seriously think about putting a few hundred nuclear-powered space stations in orbit that have the capacity to take large number of humans and animals out of harm's way. Not that this is something that we shouldn't do anyway because of the large number of asteroids crossing the Earth's path. The people who told us that the probability of a continent-killer was low once told us that the shuttle had something like a one in 100,000 chance of exploding.

Whatever, we live in a universe that requires some kind of foresight, on the scale of thousands to millions of years. Some day we might be kicking ourselves for not being ready for something that would only have required twenty years of preparation. It's been over thirty years since the last manned moon launch, BTW. We should have had some huge hardware out there by now. It's a lot more fun than a war.

 

Metakron, I fully support the exchange of ideas - even those that are a little off the wall. But I stand by my judgement of your idea. Partly because of Eburacum45's good points, and partly because of the following:

Echoing Eburacum, the energy released in your supposed event would, presumably, be huge, and I don't know of a mechanism by which it would occur. I'm no expert in this field though, so I'll gloss over it.

I can't imagine how Venus migrated to its current orbit without affecting the orbits of Mars, Earth and Jupiter's satellites?

I don't know how Venus's orbit became circularised, given that initially its aphelion would have been at about 5.2 AU.

I don't know how Venus's composition is similar to the Earth's and how it stratified and solidified over historical time.

I don't know how Venus acquired approximately 500 million years-worth of impact scars. (Unless, of course, you believe they're from the planet's migration.)

The Titius-Bode law wouldn't have worked before Venus was around (though I admit that this is not a strong argument against your idea).

 

Lasers weren't mentioned (and indeed weren't involved - another example of someone jumping to conclusions based on something they've read).
The POINT was that those at the time miscontrued what they'd seen. And some continued to miscontrue it even after it had been explained - therefore eyewitness testimony is unreliable. And more unreliable are conclusions based on extremely selective "reading" of those reports well after the event.
Velikovsky has a record of adjusting facts to suit his conclusions.

Observations are NOT irrefutable, they are made by fallible human beings, many of whom have pre-conceived ideas on want they want to see, and even more who are relatively easily swayed by someone else with a more outspoken interpretation.

How does this hypothetical metallic hydrogen stay cold if it's in contact with an extremely hot core? AFAIK superconductors do heat up, it's just that the whole thing has to reach equilibrium rather than a piece at a time like ordinary conductors.

I like the way you state "fact" and then follow it with the word "if" - twice.
It's fact that if the moon was made of cheese then mice would have invented space travel...

 

The material inside Jupiter is thought to be at 50,000 degrees Fahrenheit and under something like 2,000,000 atmospheres of pressure. That's the mechanism for ejection. Punch a hole in the pressure cooker, release the contents under pressure. This would be especially effective if the mass to be ejected were actually liquified and incompressible.

The story goes that all of these were affected.

I am hypothesizing, without mathematical support yet, that circularization could happen that quickly because the planet was mostly vapor and liquids. This is of course a rather nebulous sort of hypothesis, but the mechanism has enough plausibility to be analyzed.

No one does.

The planet started out as an aggregation of materials that weren't even close to being a single mass. Impact scars are absolutely inevitable. The thing would have to have been hundreds of thousands, maybe millions of miles long when it first came out.

The funny thing is that Venus is the planet with the most circular orbit and very closely obeys Bode's law, although if I remember correctly Pluto's average is closer to the Bode's law prediction while having the most eccentric orbit. The planet that obeys the rules the most closely is an anomaly. It takes time for an orbit to be perturbed by other forces. Something turned Uranus on its side a long time ago, and it's a lot bigger then Earth.

It is very logical to believe that the planet with the most circular orbit and the least inclination to the plane of the Sun's equator is the newest. I can hypothesize that while it was condensing, the sum of all the collisions of the materials forming the planet tended to circularize the orbit and to keep the orbital plane in line with the Sun's equator. A funny thing about orbits is that if you start with two satellites of a planet or a star, in the same circular orbit except for that one starts x number of degrees above the ecliptic and the other starts x number of degrees below the equatorial plane, those orbits will intersect twice each time around. Set a few million of these up like that and add a large mass surrounded by a lot of gasses, you have a situation in which the object will tend to eliminate much of its deviation from the equatorial plane. A similar situation exists in regards to the circularity of the orbit. There is a tendency for the planet to assemble in a circular orbit at the equatorial plane of its primary. This is where the most collisions will occur.

Other interactions between the orbits of the new planet and the old planets are more complex, but we still don't know everything about how this works.

 

So do the people who say that he is wrong.

Which explains why there are scientists who do not believe that people saw Venus coming out of Jupiter. Some people have more outspoken interpretations that others believe.

The trouble is, a lot of observations are not open to such revision. Several cultures seeing the same thing in the sky from widely separated points on the Earth, what they saw is not open to much revision. They saw one planet become two planets. One moved in a strange manner, the other moved like it had before.

Ask the mainstream scientists who say that Jupiter has an extremely hot core. This is the mainstream consensus now. Don't start telling me that what mainstream scientists believe is impossible then tell me that mainstream science has disproven Velikovsky's idea.

 

Re-read what is THOUGHT about the metallic hydrogen on Jupiter - it's liquid and as (I said it would be) hot - it's the pressure that makes it metallic. So any pressure differential between the core and the lower atmosphere will not give your hypothetical gun, since it will equalise through the liquid.
And as for fusion in the planet:

from http://www.harmsy.freeuk.com/jupiter.html
and

from http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/h2g2/A402003
(although that's just a couple of results I got from Google).

Of course what they saw is open to revision/ interpretation, as is any eyewitness testimony, the story about UFOs in Hull demonstrates that. And "several cultures" did not see the event - it was reported that it was seen - by someone, maybe at the time or a long while after and then claimed by Velikovsky as a "fact". Massive difference.

But the weight of evidence would suggest that Velikovsky is wrong.
http://abob.libs.uga.edu/bobk/vdtopten.html
http://abob.libs.uga.edu/bobk/velstcol.html

 

Leroy Ellenberger has no idea how to refute a claim, Oli. I realize that like most of the other skeptics of the different societies of skeptics, he does not feel like his rebuttals have to be well-written or contain actual content, but I can never get on with people like that. "A stupid question deserves a stupid answer" is not scientific.

Those who let themselves get into the kind of tangle that someone like him promotes should only do so for a considerable annual wage. It is a bad job, unrewarding, and will put a scientific career on hold. There is no way past someone like him. The right thing to do is to walk right over him.

 

Oli,

I seem to recall reading in some thread or another that while Jupiter is too small to initiate fusion with standard hydrogen, it is massive enough to cause fusion in deuterium. I'm too lazy to go digging for it though.

 

Ellenberger doesn't understand his own material. There may or may not be evidence in the Greenland icecap. It can be missed. The layers are not uniform. In any one spot a number of layers can be missing. I would have no idea unless someone could do a thorough analysis what the chances are of even finding the right layer for several years around 3,000 B.C. and even being able to date that layer precisely. The glaciers melt off periodically, and even if that didn't destroy the evidence it would destroy the liability of the dating. The tribulations covered a quite narrow span of time. Forty years can both build and erase a lot of the surface of a glacier. Just look at the case of the WWII planes that were buried deep in the ice and uncovered by melting. Where is your record then? It certainly hasn't been the hottest few decades in the last few centuries.

Also, adding a lot of bombastic phrasing does not make his essays look more intelligent. Statements like this:"When Rose says "Velikovsky's critics had no decent arguments against him" & Wolfe says "there is no reason why Velikovsky...should be wrong _a priori_," [in Pearlman (ed.)] they merely show they, too, along with Ginenthal are each TRULY "an ignoramus masquerading as a sage"--deluded beyond redemption." say a lot more about Ellenberger than they do about Velikovsky and his supporters.

I think that skeptics should be embarassed to quote Ellenberger but I have yet to meet a skeptic who can feel embarassment.

 

Thanks Invert. I found this:

at http://www.astrophysicsspectator.com/topics/planets/GiantGaseousPlanets.html by but will keep looking.

Metakron - I just posted the first couple of links I found, didn't read them beyond the titles so I doubt I need to feel embarassed. Were I to support Velikovsky, however I can assure you that I certainly would...
Although having had a glance I do genuinely like the comment

since according to the lead-in from Ellenburger

So you're saying a guy with 30 years of exposure to the concept (including a substantial portion of that defending the original idea and being a confidante to Velikovsky) doesn't understand it and that the request that you not let his passion onscure the message counts for nothing? So what does qualify someone to understand the material? Reading the book and accepting it on faith despite the evidence to the contrary?
But of course even if Ellenberger is completely unreliable it doesn't answer the other points raised does it?

 

The standard line is that even at really low temperatures, hydrogen and deuterium do fuse. They just don't do it often enough to make things around them really hot. This is or should be common knowledge. Fusion contributes to the heating of Jupiter's core, but 50,000 degrees in the core isn't enough to heat the metallic hydrogen that formed around it before any reactions started it. The metallic hydrogen is the most efficient possible heat radiator. If I understand correctly, most of the heating is due to compression. In my own opinion, the reason that a metallic hydrogen mantle exists is because it was there, formed under pressure, before the core got particularly hot. This is typical planet formation theory, that the gas giants formed by mostly hydrogen gathering in one spot.

Anyway, they tell us that Jupiter has a very hot core, maybe as hot as 30,000 degrees C. No matter is anything but a plasma at that temperature. It is compressed to millions of atmospheres pressure. A quick search says that the temperature at cloudtops averages 94 degrees Kelvin, quite cold. How can this radiate all that heat inside? I once wondered how the inside of the Earth could be so hot until I realized that a few inches of glass insulation works to keep a thousand degrees or more from heating the surface of a container more than a few degrees. It radiates the heat away faster than it is produced because the interface between the metallic hydrogen and the plasma resists heat transfer. It doesn't have to have much resistance if it is many kilometers between the superconductive layer and the hottest parts of the core. Then the only thing that can hurt the superconductive layer is something hot in direct physical contact with it. I was thinking that an asteroid should be able to sink through it and a blob of heavy elements might be able to tunnel out, which is easier if the tunnel is already there. The asteroid might make the tunnel on the way in, too.

The superconductive layer makes it so that the small amount of heat transferred from the core under normal circumstances dissipates through its bulk rapidly. What might be tens of thousands of degrees when it hits rapidly becomes a fraction of a degree increase in temperature.

 

Oli, I've been reading Ellenberger's material, and this isn't the first time. If he thinks that the survival of the bristlecone pines makes for a critical test, he has another think coming. Some places were hit a lot harder than others. A lot of people didn't even report increased temperatures. A lot of animal and plant life survived. That's part of Velikovsky's story. This is a lot like taking a part of someone's thesis, saying exactly what he said, saying that this statement is true, then saying that this proves him wrong. It is specious. It is just something he uses as pettifoggery and obfuscation.

He's not even very good at that.

It's not "passion." Ellenberger is a poor writer and he doesn't know what he is talking about.

 

Let's put it another way. Leroy Ellenberger says enough stuff that is patent nonsense in his writings to prove that if he knew what he was talking about he would have written a better essay.

 

“To back up his theory Velikovsky made a variety of predictions that would have to happen in order for his theory to be plausible. 1- Magnetic planetary fields, proven. 2- The negative charge of the Sun, proven. 3- Venus had to have a high planetary temperature, proven. 4- Venus had to be covered in hydrocarbon clouds, proven. 5-Venus had to have an odd orbit, proven. 6- Jupiter had to have radio emissions, proven.

I think by now fifty years after his book, Worlds in Collision, came out its time to reconsider the theories of Velikovsky. More and more evidence is constantly coming out that does nothing but support him and he has never been proven wrong.”

That’s a quote taken from part 1 of a two part synopsis of Worlds in Collision - links below:


The Velikovsky theory: Part one

The Velikovsky theory: Part two

I first read Worlds in Collision in the early 1970’s.
It lays out his theory based on human historical data.
It was so poorly received by the Cosmologists of the day that he wrote another book. Earth in Upheaval put forth the same theory only based Earth’s natural history.

I was very impressed with the logic and documentation in both books