Operation: ISON Barycentrism for Comet ISON enthusiasts

Got a question on astronomy that you'd wanted to ask? Ask your questions here and see if the old timers can give you some good answers.
Post Reply
superiorstream
Posts: 1449
Joined: Mon Nov 03, 2008 4:45 pm

Re: Operation: ISON Barycentrism for Comet ISON enthusiasts

Post by superiorstream »

Hi,Vincent and all
Your theory is not surprising at all.I had been odserving the sun since 1980 and with Ha,Cak filters since 2008.The 'magnetic flux' lines on the sun is never constant and hence the overall picture of the sun as a dipole should not be fixed naturally.Also,after 2008,upon carefully comparing the 3 views ,I
become convinced that at various juncture of the sunspot cycle,different events dominates the sun---take the cycle 24 for example;the first 6 months are dominated by localized events like superbig sunspots,tall prominences,long filaments and then the next 6 months--if I can remember correctly--by mono-pole type sunspots with relatively calmness.All these points to indicates changes in the sun's
magnetic and electric field and hence if the sun is considered as a dipole; a shift in its position.Well,that only make solar obing more interesting.
Further,if the particles thrown out by comets are charged--say by charged particles of solar wind--then its no surprise;esp when near the sun ,to follow the path of the magnetic field lines(well by
high school physics,implied by the formula F=Bev);hence no surprise of comet tail shifting direction,esp when near the sun.;when under the influence of such strong magnetic field.However I dont believe
the polarity of this dipole is fixed even wrt the sun.It should be perhaps slightly off the centre and
of variable position wrt the sun and its position changes with the sort of events on the sun.
Anyway whatever it is,this make observing the sun more interesting,and with the filaments on the sun as a indicator of the flux lines on the sun---just like iron dust on a normal magnets---one can sometimes trace such lines.That makes daily solar watching worthwhile.
Dark Neptune
Posts: 124
Joined: Sat Jan 21, 2012 11:18 am
Favourite scope: Sky-Watcher SkyMax 90mm, Coronado PST

Re: Operation: ISON Barycentrism for Comet ISON enthusiasts

Post by Dark Neptune »

superiorstream wrote:Hi,Vincent and all
Your theory is not surprising at all.I had been odserving the sun since 1980 and with Ha,Cak filters since 2008.The 'magnetic flux' lines on the sun is never constant and hence the overall picture of the sun as a dipole should not be fixed naturally.Also,after 2008,upon carefully comparing the 3 views ,I
become convinced that at various juncture of the sunspot cycle,different events dominates the sun---take the cycle 24 for example;the first 6 months are dominated by localized events like superbig sunspots,tall prominences,long filaments and then the next 6 months--if I can remember correctly--by mono-pole type sunspots with relatively calmness.All these points to indicates changes in the sun's
magnetic and electric field and hence if the sun is considered as a dipole; a shift in its position.Well,that only make solar obing more interesting.
Further,if the particles thrown out by comets are charged--say by charged particles of solar wind--then its no surprise;esp when near the sun ,to follow the path of the magnetic field lines(well by
high school physics,implied by the formula F=Bev);hence no surprise of comet tail shifting direction,esp when near the sun.;when under the influence of such strong magnetic field.However I dont believe
the polarity of this dipole is fixed even wrt the sun.It should be perhaps slightly off the centre and
of variable position wrt the sun and its position changes with the sort of events on the sun.
Anyway whatever it is,this make observing the sun more interesting,and with the filaments on the sun as a indicator of the flux lines on the sun---just like iron dust on a normal magnets---one can sometimes trace such lines.That makes daily solar watching worthwhile.
Hello superiorstream,

Your post is interesting. I am at the moment still digesting your above post. Could you elaborate more on the specifics of the solar cycle, based on your observations and knowledge? Thank you. Also, I am sure you and Vincent would enjoy an exchange of information based on this topic of solar activity of the Sun. :)
Thanks.
ChaosKnight
Posts: 293
Joined: Sun Oct 05, 2003 6:54 pm

Re: Operation: ISON Barycentrism for Comet ISON enthusiasts

Post by ChaosKnight »

Hi TS, i find many questionable points about your 'theory'. However i will only mention 2.

Firstly, if you do an order of magnitude estimate, you will find the momentum shift required to deflect the ion tail of a comet to be on the same order of magnitude as the solar wind pressure. This is especially true of fast moving comets (~70km/s, e.g. Halley) and comets with dense ion tails (~100x the solar wind density). Inertia and solar wind pressure are about equally strong. Therefore, it is expected the ion tail will point in the general direction away from the sun, but not always directly away from the sun.

In other words, we do not need another 'magnetic ring centre' to explain why ion tails do not point directly away from the sun.

Secondly, you are assuming there is a competing force courtesy of the 'magnetic ring centre' to deflect the ion tail. However for the effects of such a force to be observable, it has to be on par with the force from the sun, i.e. the solar wind. To generate a force of this magnitude, the mechanism giving rise to this force must be directly observable. For example, to generate a magnetic field strong enough to deflect the ion tails, there must be a whole lot of charged particles concentrated and moving at the location of the 'magnetic ring centre', and the mass of these particles should be only a few magnitudes smaller than the sun. In other words, the existence of a smaller 'star' within the solar system.

Nothing like this was ever detected, either visually or through its gravitational effects on other celestial bodies.

Also, if the 'magnetic ring centre' is a dipole, i.e. N-S are present, the charged particles from the sun will be channeled to its centre, where they will neutralize and as a result give off a glow. No such glow has ever been observed, either in the visible or non-visible spectrum.
superiorstream
Posts: 1449
Joined: Mon Nov 03, 2008 4:45 pm

Re: Operation: ISON Barycentrism for Comet ISON enthusiasts

Post by superiorstream »

Hi,Dark Neptune
In short,a sunspot cycle is a cycle of the ups and down of activities on the sun and most people
will take it to mean when it peaks,most active and when minimum,least active and this shows itself in the sunspot numbers.Yes,in sunspot numbers,it does.However,when I got my Ha,Cak scope and compares their views in this cycle 24,it makes me think otherwise--example-during the first 6 months of this cycle,it give me the most wanted views of the sun--from hugh prominences,solar earthquake,superlong filaments to giant sunspots which exchanges one another's energy(i.e.Hugh localized activities).Subsequence
6 and 8 months period give all different overall view--like the 2nd 6 month give mostly monopole type sunspot.There are also periods that give ants like sunspots(i.e. sunspots group consisted of mostly
small spots moving across the sun as a group and decaying or increasing in numbers as it proceeds).
All these are also associated with show of different filament/prominences type.Very interesting to try to match them and then try to associated whats happening to the sun force field/magnetic field.Thus to me its no surprise that comet ,when it comes near such field, to show changes in its tail structure.
One thing,take a look at some of the pic I took of 'floating prominences'which(much bigger than earth size) floats above the surface the sun for hours and sometimes days---if it can do that,why not such created localized field affect on comets when it come near them.Thanks.
User avatar
Vincent_WF
Posts: 73
Joined: Mon Aug 26, 2013 9:27 pm
Contact:

Re: Operation: ISON Barycentrism for Comet ISON enthusiasts

Post by Vincent_WF »

ChaosKnight wrote:Hi TS, i find many questionable points about your 'theory'. However i will only mention 2.
Hi ChaosKnight, I have no idea who is TS, but judging from what was articulated, you might be addressing the content to me.

UVS propositions on comet phenomena cannot be considered as a theory by the mainstream definition; it is merely a UVS hypothesis. And I hope you are not setting up the strawman here in this thread; winning a debate does not make a proposition true or the counter position not true when refers to the realities of nature. Would like to reiterate some clauses mentioned in the OP started by Dark Neptune: "This thread here explores an alternate hypothesis based on a vortical Solar System model to resolve these comets’ anomalies. Readers should be forewarned that what is stated in this thread are not based on mainstream physics; anyone finding insights for the presented issue based on mainstream physics perspective is unlikely to find this thread suitable for their inquiries and discussion."
ChaosKnight wrote:Firstly, if you do an order of magnitude estimate, you will find the momentum shift required to deflect the ion tail of a comet to be on the same order of magnitude as the solar wind pressure. This is especially true of fast moving comets (~70km/s, e.g. Halley) and comets with dense ion tails (~100x the solar wind density). Inertia and solar wind pressure are about equally strong. Therefore, it is expected the ion tail will point in the general direction away from the sun, but not always directly away from the sun.

In other words, we do not need another 'magnetic ring centre' to explain why ion tails do not point directly away from the sun.
The observations by SOHO for a short period Comet 96P/Machholz that visited Sun in 2002, 2007 and 2012 have had shown an interesting anomaly for its gas tail deflection.

Apparently, the video clips show that in 2002 when the Sun's magnetic pole was normal, the gas tail of Comet 96P/Machholz pivot to deflect at a point located far outside the Sun, but when the comet returned in 2007 and 2012 when the Sun's magnetic pole was reversed, on both of these occasions the gas tail of Comet 96P/Machholz were pivoted to deflect at points located very near to the Sun.

With the 2007 and 2012 observations of Comet 96P/Machholz for the comparison, the anomaly of the comet tail deflection as observed in 2002 cannot be explained by inertia of the propagating comet that causes the momentum shift to deflect the ion tail to be not aligned to the Sun.

But perhaps you can rationally and coherently explain this anomaly, as well as the other cometary anomalies, then I might be conceded on there is no need to postulate the magnetic Ring Center.
ChaosKnight wrote:Secondly, you are assuming there is a competing force courtesy of the 'magnetic ring centre' to deflect the ion tail. However for the effects of such a force to be observable, it has to be on par with the force from the sun, i.e. the solar wind. To generate a force of this magnitude, the mechanism giving rise to this force must be directly observable. For example, to generate a magnetic field strong enough to deflect the ion tails, there must be a whole lot of charged particles concentrated and moving at the location of the 'magnetic ring centre', and the mass of these particles should be only a few magnitudes smaller than the sun. In other words, the existence of a smaller 'star' within the solar system.

Nothing like this was ever detected, either visually or through its gravitational effects on other celestial bodies.

Also, if the 'magnetic ring centre' is a dipole, i.e. N-S are present, the charged particles from the sun will be channeled to its centre, where they will neutralize and as a result give off a glow. No such glow has ever been observed, either in the visible or non-visible spectrum.
Your argument that speculate on the behavior of the magnetic Ring Center was based on Kepler's model with a heliocentric Sun, which as a matter of fact, suffers foundational crisis; equivocation fallacy. On this, you might want to see a book on "The Universal Helicola" written by Dr. Vladimir Ginzburg that elaborates on the actual mechanism that impels the Solar System, it was analytically, qualitatively, and quantitatively presented with its geometry model. You can also see a thesis on "Motions of Observable Structures Ruled by Hierarchical Two-body Gravitation in the Universe" written by Dr. Yang that elaborates on barycenter motion of the Solar System, it was also analytically, qualitatively, and quantitatively presented in vector model.

You argument on there was no empirical observation for magnetic Ring Center commits the act of appeal to authority fallacy. Was Heliosphere not detected in the 1960 after it was hypothesized in the late 1950's? Even then, some Heliosphere structures such as the heliosheath and the heliotail were not detected until recently, so according to your argument, does it mean all these did not exist at all until recently?

See an external link for the topic on "Fomalhaut debris ring" that illustrates the empirically observed debris rings of a star system with its star off-centered by a billion miles. This is an empirical evidence for the inference of its magnetic Ring Center suggested with its debris rings and charged particles that lines up as spokes pointing to it. No nova-liked phenomenon nor any mini star was detected at all like you had extrapolated, so how do you explain this?

Image
Debris ring of the Fomalhaut star with its Ring Center

In the UVS worldview, the gas tail vortex in the coma of the comet points inward directly to the barycenter of the Solar System (BOTSS), which is supposedly a spinning dual-core magnetic Ring Center of the Solar System located dynamically around the Sun. It has been known that the gas tail of a comet follows magnetic field lines while its dust tail follows its orbital trajectory. The magnetic Ring Center can be perceived as the anode of the Solar System, and it is also the vortical gravitational singularity of the Solar System that vortically displaces aether corpuscles around it as a low pressure system of aether that obeys the principle of inverse-square law; a Solar System manifested precursor of a smaller scale dual-core black hole. Therefore, a magnetic Ring Center of the Solar System would have significant effects for its perturbation on the gas tail of comet as well as the Sun.

It was labeled as a magnetic Ring Center because this entity was postulated to significantly perturb the magnetic field of the Sun, and even causes the periodical magnetic reversal of the Sun; it is not a magnetic dipole by itself.

No glow around the Ring Center of star Fomalhaut has ever been observed, either in the visible or non-visible spectrum, but can this absolutely conclude something significant was not there?

See a series of video on "Primer fields" that presents an intriguing solution with a plasma experiment to explain numerous phenomena of nature from the macrocosms to the microcosms, which also elaborates on a magnetic Flip Ring and a magnetic Choke Ring in a peculiar plasmatic structure that exhibits dipole magnetic field around it.

Meanwhile, please keep your questions coming on the UVS hypothesis on comet anomalies in this thread; a wider perspective based on conventional knowledge might also help to reveal some blind spots and silly mistakes.

Best to you & peace out.

P.S.: I read some of your posts and can see that you are very knowledgeable in modern physics, as well as had comprehended Inflation Cosmology on metric expansion of space quite well; probably better than I do. Care to investigate a UVS topic on "Critiques on the scientific method with mainstream consensus"? And perhaps I can start another thread on this topic if you are keen to explore it. Of course I understand like most people, you should endeavor on pursuing knowledge of proven theories with mainstream consensus, if so please don't let all these bother or hinder you too much.
Last edited by Vincent_WF on Wed Sep 04, 2013 8:52 am, edited 11 times in total.
- The entire observable universe is subliminally paradoxical.
- By realizing the paradoxical effect of nature, it enlightens on how natural phenomena could be negated to render their delusions in a typical obfuscated manner.
User avatar
Vincent_WF
Posts: 73
Joined: Mon Aug 26, 2013 9:27 pm
Contact:

Re: Operation: ISON Barycentrism for Comet ISON enthusiasts

Post by Vincent_WF »

Hi superiorstream, greeting.

Your posts were very interesting indeed. And with more than three decades of solar observation, you must have lots to offer about the Sun.

Agreed with your observation on the overall picture of the sun as a dipole should not be fixed naturally.

The effect of the cycle 24 caused by the supposedly shift in the dipoles position you had observed was intriguing, especially on the mostly monopole type sunspots; this is refreshing.

And I also don't believe the polarity of the Sun's dipole is fixed even wrt the sun. From the UVS perspective, the Sun's dipole is significantly perturbed by the magnetic Ring Center of the Solar System.

Visited your blog and saw some very amazing pic there, but nothing beats giving the accounts of your picture by yourself, such as " 'floating prominences which(much bigger than earth size) floats above the surface the sun for hours and sometimes days"; would not be able to grasp such notion by merely looking at the pictures alone. This does give weight to suggest something invisible holding it was there.

The UVS propositions are unconventional and not yet well developed, and therefore beside attracting flaks, only with some rare exception, it has been generally very hard to find any sort of agreement at all, let alone acceptance. So am glad you find the UVS proposition for the comet tail deflection not surprising at all, and even provided us some of your very unique observation experience that supports the UVS proposition. Incredible!

I would like to invite you to visit or even review my UVS webpage on "Sunspot", and perhaps I can start a thread in this forum to discuss on sunspot for tapping your knowledge and experience about the Sun? Am also alright to converse via private messaging.

Happy obing!
- The entire observable universe is subliminally paradoxical.
- By realizing the paradoxical effect of nature, it enlightens on how natural phenomena could be negated to render their delusions in a typical obfuscated manner.
superiorstream
Posts: 1449
Joined: Mon Nov 03, 2008 4:45 pm

Re: Operation: ISON Barycentrism for Comet ISON enthusiasts

Post by superiorstream »

Hi,Vincent
Thanks for your article.Well,will keep a open mind for the hypothesis.Also I found this interesting article-Long term solar activity influences on South American rivers--.Yes,tell you something.Its almost always true in this cycle 24--
Every time I see a CONTINUOUS GLOWING BAND in both Ha and Cak,somewhere there is a report of severe flooding--a good example is the June flooding of Europe and the recent storm that hit China,Taiwan,Philipines.For one,the orchard flooding in that consecutive year also coincides with one.
Only trouble is how to predict WHERE.Thus facts presented in that article is no surprise.
Thus I am glad to be able to see the sun in Cak,Ha and actually hope more people join in to appreciate what I see.Another is the coincidence between Earthquake and solar explosion.--for one the march 2011 earthquake coincide with the first X class solar flare of cycle 24 that occured a few days before.I did photo that as 3 bright close spots near central sun--a good sign that its earth directed.
I think we definitely need more people to give up luxury and money and concentrate on theortical science to really get an more insight and in depth understanding of that and also your hypothesis.
One thing for sure,there are people who disagree but hope that they take it with the open mind and accept that there are lots of totally new ideas in scientific exploration.
ChaosKnight
Posts: 293
Joined: Sun Oct 05, 2003 6:54 pm

Re: Operation: ISON Barycentrism for Comet ISON enthusiasts

Post by ChaosKnight »

Vincent_WF wrote: Hi ChaosKnight, I have no idea who is TS, but judging from what was articulated, you might be addressing the content to me.

UVS propositions on comet phenomena cannot be considered as a theory by the mainstream definition; it is merely a UVS hypothesis. And I hope you are not setting up the strawman here in this thread; winning a debate does not make a proposition true or the counter position not true when refers to the realities of nature. Would like to reiterate some clauses mentioned in the OP started by Dark Neptune: "This thread here explores an alternate hypothesis based on a vortical Solar System model to resolve these comets’ anomalies. Readers should be forewarned that what is stated in this thread are not based on mainstream physics; anyone finding insights for the presented issue based on mainstream physics perspective is unlikely to find this thread suitable for their inquiries and discussion."
TS = threadstarter.
I'm not setting up a strawman. Neither am i looking to win any debate. I believe we are all here to share ideas. Your 'friend' said
Dark Neptune wrote: Universal Vortical Singularity is a Theory of Everything
So is this a theory or not? Claiming it's a 'theory' when making your assertions (for example the comet tail business), but later backtracking and saying it's only a hypothesis to avoid rigorously backing up those assertions is clearly having your cake and eating it too.
Vincent_WF wrote: The observations by SOHO for a short period Comet 96P/Machholz that visited Sun in 2002, 2007 and 2012 have had shown an interesting anomaly for its gas tail deflection.

Apparently, the video clips show that in 2002 when the Sun's magnetic pole was normal, the gas tail of Comet 96P/Machholz pivot to deflect at a point located far outside the Sun, but when the comet returned in 2007 and 2012 when the Sun's magnetic pole was reversed, on both of these occasions the gas tail of Comet 96P/Machholz were pivoted to deflect at points located very near to the Sun.

With the 2007 and 2012 observations of Comet 96P/Machholz for the comparison, the anomaly of the comet tail deflection as observed in 2002 cannot be explained by inertia of the propagating comet that causes the momentum shift to deflect the ion tail to be not aligned to the Sun.

But perhaps you can rationally and coherently explain this anomaly, as well as the other cometary anomalies, then I might be conceded on there is no need to postulate the magnetic Ring Center.
You can easily work this out on your own through order of magnitude estimation. Anyone else who's curious about the math can pm me.
Vincent_WF wrote: Your argument that speculate on the behavior of the magnetic Ring Center was based on Kepler's model with a heliocentric Sun, which as a matter of fact, suffers foundational crisis; equivocation fallacy. On this, you might want to see a book on "The Universal Helicola" written by Dr. Vladimir Ginzburg that elaborates on the actual mechanism that impels the Solar System, it was analytically, qualitatively, and quantitatively presented with its geometry model. You can also see a thesis on "Motions of Observable Structures Ruled by Hierarchical Two-body Gravitation in the Universe" written by Dr. Yang that elaborates on barycenter motion of the Solar System, it was also analytically, qualitatively, and quantitatively presented in vector model.
I'm sorry i don't get you. In what way does the references you quoted suggest the existence of a 'magnetic Ring Center'?
Vincent_WF wrote: You argument on there was no empirical observation for magnetic Ring Center commits the act of appeal to authority fallacy. Was Heliosphere not detected in the 1960 after it was hypothesized in the late 1950's? Even then, some Heliosphere structures such as the heliosheath and the heliotail were not detected until recently, so according to your argument, does it mean all these did not exist at all until recently?
I hope you are not taking the opposite stance, which is even worse, i.e. that which cannot be proven not in existance must then exist.
Vincent_WF wrote: See an external link for the topic on "Fomalhaut debris ring" that illustrates the empirically observed debris rings of a star system with its star off-centered by a billion miles. This is an empirical evidence for the inference of its magnetic Ring Center suggested with its debris rings and charged particles that lines up as spokes pointing to it. No nova-liked phenomenon nor any mini star was detected at all like you had extrapolated, so how do you explain this?

Image
Debris ring of the Fomalhaut star with its Ring Center
And you also later said
Vincent_WF wrote: No glow around the Ring Center of star Fomalhaut has ever been observed, either in the visible or non-visible spectrum, but can this absolutely conclude something significant was not there?
You are obviously adamant about the existance of your 'magnetic ring center'. Again you are committing a serious error here. If you cannot disprove the existence of your 'magnetic ring center', it does not automatically mean it exists.

Offhand, i'd say the spokes are an image artifact. They are probably diffraction rays from the star blocked by the coronagraph, same as those in all the prior images you presented.
Also, the debris are dust particles, not ions similar to the ion tail in comets. So does your 'magnetic ring center' affect dust too? Or just ions? Because you keep mentioning the ion tail of comets are affected by the 'magnetic ring center' but made no mention of the dust tail.
Vincent_WF wrote: In the UVS worldview, the gas tail vortex in the coma of the comet points inward directly to the barycenter of the Solar System (BOTSS), which is supposedly a spinning dual-core magnetic Ring Center of the Solar System located dynamically around the Sun. It has been known that the gas tail of a comet follows magnetic field lines while its dust tail follows its orbital trajectory. The magnetic Ring Center can be perceived as the anode of the Solar System, and it is also the vortical gravitational singularity of the Solar System that vortically displaces aether corpuscles around it as a low pressure system of aether that obeys the principle of inverse-square law; a Solar System manifested precursor of a smaller scale dual-core black hole. Therefore, a magnetic Ring Center of the Solar System would have significant effects for its perturbation on the gas tail of comet as well as the Sun.

It was labeled as a magnetic Ring Center because this entity was postulated to significantly perturb the magnetic field of the Sun, and even causes the periodical magnetic reversal of the Sun; it is not a magnetic dipole by itself.

No glow around the Ring Center of star Fomalhaut has ever been observed, either in the visible or non-visible spectrum, but can this absolutely conclude something significant was not there?

See a series of video on "Primer fields" that presents an intriguing solution with a plasma experiment to explain numerous phenomena of nature from the macrocosms to the microcosms, which also elaborates on a magnetic Flip Ring and a magnetic Choke Ring in a peculiar plasmatic structure that exhibits dipole magnetic field around it.

Meanwhile, please keep your questions coming on the UVS hypothesis on comet anomalies in this thread; a wider perspective based on conventional knowledge might also help to reveal some blind spots and silly mistakes.

Best to you & peace out.
I'm sorry, i'm still confused. You said
Vincent_WF wrote: ...Magnetic Ring Center of the Solar System (aka Barycenter of the Solar System; BOTSS).
So what exactly is this 'magnetic ring center'? Is it one and the same as the barycenter of the solar system? I don't think so, because from all your pictures this barycenter is located a few solar diameters from the sun, whereas if i'm not wrong the actual barycenter of the solar system is very close to the surface of the sun (< 1 solar diameter from the surface). So what barycenter is it? The barycenter of the some sun-star system? Or is your definition of 'barycenter' different from what is presented here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barycentri ... astronomy)?

And why call it a 'magnetic ring center'? Does it generate a magnetic field? Does it have mass? Is it physical matter? Is it a magnetic monopole?
And what is the mechanism which this 'magnetic ring center' use to align the ion tail of comets? Is it through generation of its own solar wind? Or through output of its own charged particles? Or magnetic field?
Vincent_WF wrote: P.S.: I read some of your posts and can see that you are very knowledgeable in modern physics, as well as had comprehended Inflation Cosmology on metric expansion of space quite well; probably better than I do. Care to investigate a UVS topic on "Critiques on the scientific method with mainstream consensus"? And perhaps I can start another thread on this topic if you are keen to explore it. Of course I understand like most people, you should endeavor on pursuing knowledge of proven theories with mainstream consensus, if so please don't let all these bother or hinder you too much.
If i have the time. But i can't say i'm really knowledgeable in anything at all.
Last edited by ChaosKnight on Fri Sep 06, 2013 9:44 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Dark Neptune
Posts: 124
Joined: Sat Jan 21, 2012 11:18 am
Favourite scope: Sky-Watcher SkyMax 90mm, Coronado PST

Re: Operation: ISON Barycentrism for Comet ISON enthusiasts

Post by Dark Neptune »

Hello CK, thank you for your reply,

The astronomical barycentric coordinates are merely the points mathematically calculated with the planets, and do not embody BOTSS.
ChaosKnight wrote: I'm sorry i don't get you. In what way does the references you quoted suggest the existence of a 'magnetic Ring Center'?
Dr. Vladimir’s and Dr.Yang’s work as linked by Vincent provide the foundation to better grasp the intricacies of the concept of the vortical Solar System model, in which the magnetic Ring Center (aka BOTSS) is the centre of our Solar System, and not the Sun as we had previously believed.

ChaosKnight, you ask many questions that were already answered to you, had you bothered to read the entirety of the content in all the links Vincent has kindly took his busy time to send them to you, as well as specific, expounded answers Vincent himself gave you in his earlier post. But however, do note it is redundant asking questions with answers already explicitly stated. I will politely suggest for you to read up on all the links Vincent and I had provided. Thank you.
Thanks.
ChaosKnight
Posts: 293
Joined: Sun Oct 05, 2003 6:54 pm

Re: Operation: ISON Barycentrism for Comet ISON enthusiasts

Post by ChaosKnight »

Dark Neptune wrote: Hello CK, thank you for your reply,
You're welcome, i'm sure we are all here to learn.
Dark Neptune wrote: The astronomical barycentric coordinates are merely the points mathematically calculated with the planets, and do not embody BOTSS.
Ok, so i get now what you call the 'barycenter' is indeed a center of mass, i.e. the conventional view, and is specifically the center of mass of the entire solar system.
So why not just call it the barycenter, instead of inventing the term ‘dual core magnetic ring center’ to describe it?
And why is your barycenter ~5 solar diameters from the sun? Conventional theories state the barycenter of the 9 planets+sun or the entire solar system should be < 1 solar radius.
Can you explain this deviation?
Dark Neptune wrote: Dr. Vladimir’s and Dr.Yang’s work as linked by Vincent provide the foundation to better grasp the intricacies of the concept of the vortical Solar System model, in which the magnetic Ring Center (aka BOTSS) is the centre of our Solar System, and not the Sun as we had previously believed.
I did indeed look through the links, in particular these two pdfs you mentioned. I did some work on simulating planet/comet trajectories before, so I have an idea about the mathematics in the two references. And if all they say is that multiple bodies will orbit some barycenter, it's nothing new.

However I still don’t see how the references reinforce your assertions that the ‘barycenter of the solar system’ or ‘magnetic ring center’ can affect the tail of a comet, or that the barycentre is anything other than the center of mass of multiple bodies.

Please remember this is your ‘theory’, therefore it is your job to convince others of its value. It is also your job to explicitly and succinctly back up your claims when questioned.

Also please do not throw to your audience tons of irrelevant references to send them on a wild goose chase. Because if I were to chase down those references, and find them not to support your claims, then I’ll have to think all you are really trying to accomplish is bog me down so I’ll not ask uncomfortable questions you can’t answer.
Dark Neptune wrote: ChaosKnight, you ask many questions that were already answered to you, had you bothered to read the entirety of the content in all the links Vincent has kindly took his busy time to send them to you, as well as specific, expounded answers Vincent himself gave you in his earlier post. But however, do note it is redundant asking questions with answers already explicitly stated. I will politely suggest for you to read up on all the links Vincent and I had provided. Thank you.
I think my all questions are fair and to the point, and I do not think they have been answered satisfactorily.

Also, I’d like to point out I’m also taking time off from my busy schedule to discuss and help you refine your ‘theory’. And I can certainly see you have made changes to your website according to the discussions here.

Please excuse me for being blunt, but your ‘theory’ as is presented here is severely lacking. There is no coherent link between your ideas and the references. All I see are merely a whole lot of baseless assertions that you insist to be true.

If you were to present this to an international community, I’m sure you will be shot down immediately. And the comments from others will not be as polite as mine. If you doubt my words, i suggest you prepare a manuscript for submission it to a reputable peer-reviewed journal. You will probably be shocked at the reviewers' comments, if you get any at all.

I’m also sure you have previously tried to present your ‘theory’ on numerous internet forums over the years. And I’m sure you will recall some of the criticisms are pretty harsh.
Post Reply