The Flat Earth Society
Flat Earth Discussion Boards => Flat Earth Theory => Topic started by: Science Supporter on April 10, 2019, 03:43:46 AM
-
'Oumuamua is a comet that had a hyperbolic trajectory with an eccentricity of 1.2. It passed the Sun in late of 2017, with the object's velocity at the perihelion (.25 AU) being 87km/s. Far greater than the Sun's escape velocity at that distance, thus a hyperbolic orbit. I was wondering how flat earthers can explain this? According to the FET, everything is around the dome, completing a full rotation once every 24 hours. How can an object break this rule, and have a hyperbolic orbit?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%CA%BBOumuamua
-
According to the FET, everything is around the dome, completing a full rotation once every 24 hours.
I think you have this place confused with YouTube.
-
According to the FET, everything is around the dome, completing a full rotation once every 24 hours.
Try not to make claims about something you don't understand or know much about. If you're disputing a specific claim that someone here has made (if they did, they'd be in the minority, but that doesn't preclude discussion in any way), make sure to reference it.
-
According to the FET, everything is around the dome, completing a full rotation once every 24 hours.
Try not to make claims about something you don't understand or know much about. If you're disputing a specific claim that someone here has made (if they did, they'd be in the minority, but that doesn't preclude discussion in any way), make sure to reference it.
Celestial dome, celestial plane, celestial whatever. Does it really make that much of a difference to the gist of the OP's question about the comet's trajectory?
-
Celestial dome, celestial plane, celestial whatever. Does it really make that much of a difference to the gist of the OP's question about the comet's trajectory?
It doesn't. With that in mind, you should heed the same advice.
-
Non-gravitational acceleration of the Oumuamua comet:
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg2122759#msg2122759
-
I think you have this place confused with YouTube.
No... this is clearly YouTube. Although this new update looks weird.
Non-gravitational acceleration of the Oumuamua comet:
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg2122759#msg2122759
So I read the post, and then briefly looked at the rest of the links. The comet is still being affected by gravity, causing its path, but it was mostly affected by cometary outgassing.
-
As an RE, I expect a single story with evidence. If you invakidate that story, you have proven your claim. In my experience, the FE culture is different.
With FE, it seems there are many models, so you can't assume anything about FE in general. Also, someone might invent a FE model in the future that explained the comet. So you haven't proven the earth is round.
I don't think they want to argue your proof point, they want to chat about their models. You would need someone excited about their personal version of the dome model. You might try:
Does anyone have a model that the comet fits into really well?
Maybe you will get someone who is proud that their FE model makes sense with space and astronomy to reply. More likely, they will spend their time chatting about their models, which is fair, they have a lot of work to do.
-
So I read the post, and then briefly looked at the rest of the links. The comet is still being affected by gravity, causing its path, but it was mostly affected by cometary outgassing.
You haven't done your homework.
https://arxiv.org/pdf/1810.11490.pdf
From a theoretical point of view, Rafikov (2018) has shown that if outgassing was responsible for the acceleration (as originally proposed by Micheli et al. 2018), then the associated outgassing torques would have driven a rapid evolution in ‘Oumuamua’s spin, incompatible with observations.
https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/6-strange-facts-about-the-interstellar-visitor-oumuamua/
The extra push for ‘Oumuamua could have originated by cometary outgassing if at least a tenth of its mass evaporated. But such massive evaporation would have naturally led to the appearance of a cometary tail, and none was seen. The Spitzer telescope observations also place tight limits on any carbon-based molecules or dust around ‘Oumuamua and rule out the possibility that normal cometary outgassing is at play (unless it is composed of pure water). Moreover, cometary outgassing would have changed the rotation period of ‘Oumuamua, and no such change was observed.
https://academic.oup.com/mnras/article/476/3/3031/4909830
The lack of evidence for outgassing means that the purely observational prior favours an asteroid-like composition.
https://arxiv.org/pdf/1809.06389.pdf
However, a recent measurement by Micheli et al (2018) of a substantial non-gravitational acceleration affecting the orbit of this object has been interpreted as resulting from its cometary activity, which must be rather
vigorous. Here we critically re-assess this interpretation by exploring the implications of measured
non-gravitational acceleration for the ’Oumuamua’s rotational state. We show that outgassing torques
should drive rapid evolution of ’Oumuamua’s spin (on a timescale of a few days), assuming torque
asymmetry typical for the Solar System comets. However, given the highly elongated shape of the
object, its torque asymmetry is likely higher, implying even faster evolution. This would have resulted
in rapid rotational fission of ’Oumuamua during its journey through the Solar System and is clearly
incompatible with the relative stability of its rotational state inferred from photometric variability.
Based on these arguments, as well as the lack of direct signs of outgassing, we conclude that the
classification of ’Oumuamua as a comet (invoked to explain its claimed anomalous acceleration) is
questionable.
-
So I read the post, and then briefly looked at the rest of the links. The comet is still being affected by gravity, causing its path, but it was mostly affected by cometary outgassing.
You haven't done your homework.
https://arxiv.org/pdf/1810.11490.pdf
From a theoretical point of view, Rafikov (2018) has shown that if outgassing was responsible for the acceleration (as originally proposed by Micheli et al. 2018), then the associated outgassing torques would have driven a rapid evolution in ‘Oumuamua’s spin, incompatible with observations.
https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/6-strange-facts-about-the-interstellar-visitor-oumuamua/
The extra push for ‘Oumuamua could have originated by cometary outgassing if at least a tenth of its mass evaporated. But such massive evaporation would have naturally led to the appearance of a cometary tail, and none was seen. The Spitzer telescope observations also place tight limits on any carbon-based molecules or dust around ‘Oumuamua and rule out the possibility that normal cometary outgassing is at play (unless it is composed of pure water). Moreover, cometary outgassing would have changed the rotation period of ‘Oumuamua, and no such change was observed.
https://academic.oup.com/mnras/article/476/3/3031/4909830
The lack of evidence for outgassing means that the purely observational prior favours an asteroid-like composition.
https://arxiv.org/pdf/1809.06389.pdf
However, a recent measurement by Micheli et al (2018) of a substantial non-gravitational acceleration affecting the orbit of this object has been interpreted as resulting from its cometary activity, which must be rather
vigorous. Here we critically re-assess this interpretation by exploring the implications of measured
non-gravitational acceleration for the ’Oumuamua’s rotational state. We show that outgassing torques
should drive rapid evolution of ’Oumuamua’s spin (on a timescale of a few days), assuming torque
asymmetry typical for the Solar System comets. However, given the highly elongated shape of the
object, its torque asymmetry is likely higher, implying even faster evolution. This would have resulted
in rapid rotational fission of ’Oumuamua during its journey through the Solar System and is clearly
incompatible with the relative stability of its rotational state inferred from photometric variability.
Based on these arguments, as well as the lack of direct signs of outgassing, we conclude that the
classification of ’Oumuamua as a comet (invoked to explain its claimed anomalous acceleration) is
questionable.
It is questionable, however scientists are certain it came from an interstellar space, possibly from a solar system like ours. They also concluded it had high speeds before reaching the solar system.
-
They have to say that it came from some other solar system, in order not to arouse suspicions or too many questions.
"If cometary outgassing is ruled out and the inferred excess force is real, only one possibility remains: an extra push due to radiation pressure from the sun."
Abraham Loeb is chair of the astronomy department at Harvard University, founding director of Harvard's Black Hole Initiative and director of the Institute for Theory and Computation at the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics.
This is an IOP article.
https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.3847/2041-8213/aaeda8/pdf
Alternatively, a more exotic scenario is that ‘Oumuamua may be a fully operational probe sent intentionally to Earth vicinity by an alien civilization.
https://arxiv.org/pdf/1810.11490.pdf
-
So I read the post, and then briefly looked at the rest of the links. The comet is still being affected by gravity, causing its path, but it was mostly affected by cometary outgassing.
You haven't done your homework.
https://arxiv.org/pdf/1810.11490.pdf
From a theoretical point of view, Rafikov (2018) has shown that if outgassing was responsible for the acceleration (as originally proposed by Micheli et al. 2018), then the associated outgassing torques would have driven a rapid evolution in ‘Oumuamua’s spin, incompatible with observations.
https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/6-strange-facts-about-the-interstellar-visitor-oumuamua/
The extra push for ‘Oumuamua could have originated by cometary outgassing if at least a tenth of its mass evaporated. But such massive evaporation would have naturally led to the appearance of a cometary tail, and none was seen. The Spitzer telescope observations also place tight limits on any carbon-based molecules or dust around ‘Oumuamua and rule out the possibility that normal cometary outgassing is at play (unless it is composed of pure water). Moreover, cometary outgassing would have changed the rotation period of ‘Oumuamua, and no such change was observed.
https://academic.oup.com/mnras/article/476/3/3031/4909830
The lack of evidence for outgassing means that the purely observational prior favours an asteroid-like composition.
https://arxiv.org/pdf/1809.06389.pdf
However, a recent measurement by Micheli et al (2018) of a substantial non-gravitational acceleration affecting the orbit of this object has been interpreted as resulting from its cometary activity, which must be rather
vigorous. Here we critically re-assess this interpretation by exploring the implications of measured
non-gravitational acceleration for the ’Oumuamua’s rotational state. We show that outgassing torques
should drive rapid evolution of ’Oumuamua’s spin (on a timescale of a few days), assuming torque
asymmetry typical for the Solar System comets. However, given the highly elongated shape of the
object, its torque asymmetry is likely higher, implying even faster evolution. This would have resulted
in rapid rotational fission of ’Oumuamua during its journey through the Solar System and is clearly
incompatible with the relative stability of its rotational state inferred from photometric variability.
Based on these arguments, as well as the lack of direct signs of outgassing, we conclude that the
classification of ’Oumuamua as a comet (invoked to explain its claimed anomalous acceleration) is
questionable.
This collection of links is strange to me in the given context. What we have here is an interstellar object which displays small deviations from a keplerian orbit. This is notable in its uniqueness. There is a search to identify the cause of these deviations, hoping in part to potentially classify a new morphology of interstellar object.
In no instance is there any new possible gravitational model proposed which contests keplerian orbits. Indeed, there are plenty of phenomena in space which produce accelerations.
It is critically important to understand not only the scientific import of research being cited, but also its applicability to the present discussion. It would be rather easy for me to cite an article, rattle off a bunch of technical jargon that would be over everyone’s head, and claim victory — irrespective of the current topic.
That would, of course, be incredibly dishonest.
And anyone present who actually understood the science would call me on it ;)
-
They have to say that it came from some other solar system, in order not to arouse suspicions or too many questions.
"If cometary outgassing is ruled out and the inferred excess force is real, only one possibility remains: an extra push due to radiation pressure from the sun."
Abraham Loeb is chair of the astronomy department at Harvard University, founding director of Harvard's Black Hole Initiative and director of the Institute for Theory and Computation at the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics.
This is an IOP article.
https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.3847/2041-8213/aaeda8/pdf
Alternatively, a more exotic scenario is that ‘Oumuamua may be a fully operational probe sent intentionally to Earth vicinity by an alien civilization.
https://arxiv.org/pdf/1810.11490.pdf
“They have to say that it came from some other solar system, in order not to arouse suspicions or too many questions.
"If cometary outgassing is ruled out and the inferred excess force is real, only one possibility remains: an extra push due to radiation pressure from the sun.””
Untrue. And the following quote you use does not support that claim. The quote uses an if statement to detail a logical chain, and it is a big “if,” by the way.
The exotic scenario you state is indeed mentioned, and is a good example of how open minded scientists generally are!
We are willing to entertain ANY scenario. Because we pursue the truth. Not some agenda, not some conspiracy.
The truth. Nothing more.
It would be my pleasure to help you in your pursuit of understanding science, Sandy, as I have often observed you citing research and technical scientific material, but then drawing drastically incorrect conclusions from it. I know you don’t want to do that, so let us work together. I can help you out!
-
Why worry about the particular characteristics of a particular comet? As I understand it, the OP question was "how does FE explain the elliptical path of a comet? Then it went into the weeds about some specific comet. To return to the spirit of the OP ...
If there are comets flying around space at all, then space exists, right? FE models that do not include somewhere for comets to fly around, aka outer space, are wrong, right? Or maybe some FE has explanation of how comets travel on the dome to appear to have huge elliptical orbits quite different than the background star field. I would like to see observations and calculations on that. Of course, all can be explained by conspiracy, but that is not satisfying to me when there is no evidence and what they would have to do is implausible, but conspiracy is always an explanation. Or a complete misunderstanding of the laws of nature by scientists and brainwashed REs?
Is there an FE model that explains comets and is consistent with known physics and does not require that NASA be a giant yet secret global conspiracy?
Would the original poster allow conspiracy, changes to the laws of physics, and the possibility that the poster and physicist and astronomers and REs are brainwashed and find that satisfying?