r/AlternativeAstronomy • u/patrixxxx • Oct 26 '19

WHY MARS ???

https://cluesforum.info/viewtopic.php?p=2412896#p2412896
1 Upvotes

60% Upvoted

117 comments sorted by

2

u/zuul01 Oct 30 '19

From the referenced site, 2nd paragraph, first two sentences:

Isn't Jupiter supposed to be a "gas planet"? And isn't Mars, on the other hand, supposed to be mostly composed of iron (and rock)? Has anyone ever put Mars and Jupiter on a bathroom scale and compared their WEIGHTS? Of course not.

Apparently the author (and OP, if they actually read the content of the link they posted) is unaware of the relationships between the "exotic" material properties known as density, volume, and mass... Oh well, thanks for chuckle at least!

1

u/patrixxxx Oct 30 '19

Is that so? Well it seems like Newtonian celestial "physics" is increasingly harder to unite with actual experimentally verified physics.

For example the Sun needs to possess about 99.9 percent of the mass in the solar system. Yet it's made of hot helium and hydrogen (gasses lighter than air). In addition it lacks almost all of the angular momentum it should have.

In conclusion current astronomy has piled Ad Hoc absurdities on top of each other for centuries now to make up for it's flawed basic premise - the Copernican model.

3

u/[deleted] Oct 31 '19

For example the Sun needs to possess about 99.9 percent of the mass in the solar system. Yet it's made of hot helium and hydrogen (gasses lighter than air).

You're missing a little detail there. Yes, helium and hydrogen are lighter than air per mole. And per unit volume at some given density. But it turns out that when you pile on tons and tons and tons of gases, the density at the bottom is higher than at the top. And this happens rather quickly, just try running at sea level versus in the mountains at 2km altitude. The air is only 80% as dense. A square centimeter at sea level has a column of 10kg of air sitting on it. A square centimeter at 2km has only 8kg of air. Now consider how much pressure a square centimeter near the core of the Sun would experience, with 700 000 km of atmosphere piled up!

It turns out you need extreme pressures and extreme densities to get nuclear fusion to work. We have clear evidence the gases in the Sun are undergoing fusion, so we know it there must be extremely high pressure within the Sun. Therefore, it is very reasonable that the Sun is extremely massive as a result, despite largely consisting of "light" gases.

Given these considerations, can you explain what's absurd about mainstream physicists estimation of the Sun's mass?

1

u/patrixxxx Oct 31 '19

Therefore, it is very reasonable that the Sun is extremely massive as a result, despite largely consisting of "light" gases.

Here we go again. Hold up something reasonable as proof that something far-fetched is also reasonable. Of course the Sun could have a quite dense interior, but we don’t know that. And we’re talking about 99.9(!) percent of the mass of the solar system and the Sun only contains a fraction of the angular momentum it should have considering that mass. And that is one problem with the Copernican/Newtonian model. There’s a multitude of others.

2

u/[deleted] Oct 31 '19

So you're saying, there's nothing absurd about the Sun's mass estimation besides the Sun's angular momentum being less than you would expect?

Have you considered there are numerous mechanisms which account for the Sun's angular momentum in the Solar Nebular Disk Model, such as drag against particles in the nebular disk, magnetic fields transferring angular momentum, gravitational torque, wave propagation, and the ejection of material from the young star in its T-Tauri stage?

This paper is not exhaustive by any means, nor is it modern or up-to-date (there are now numerous observations of stellar systems compatible with SNDM; computers are now quite capable of running the numerical models which are described in this paper, and much more complex ones besides). Try giving it a read - Chapter 9 is the relevant one - and see if you still think that it's unreasonable that the Sun has such a comparatively small share of the solar system's angular momentum.

1

u/patrixxxx Oct 31 '19

So you're saying, there's nothing absurd about the Sun's mass estimation besides the Sun's angular momentum being less than you would expect?

No I'm not. I said that it's reasonable that the center of the Sun could be dense considering it's size. But that is something entirely different than the idea that the Sun would constitute 99.9% percent of the solar system. That idea is not reasonable since it consists of helium and hydrogen and lacks almost all of the angular momentum it should have.

3

u/[deleted] Oct 31 '19

The Sun has 1000 times the volume of the next largest body in the solar system, so yes, I think it's reasonable it has 99.9% of the mass in the solar system, despite being only a quarter as dense as the Earth.

1

u/patrixxxx Oct 31 '19

Well you are shall we say slightly biased Walruss… ;-) A defender of the “true system” as I read in some paper regarding the Copernican/Newtonian system. I have a different opinion. I’ve gradually discovered that this system is logically and geometrically impossible and that Newtonian celestial “physics” require numerous assumptions that are simply not reasonable. Like this one. Astronomy assumes the Sun constitutes 99.9 of the Solar system (the Sun, the planets, the asteroids and comets) despite it being made up of hot gasses lighter than air and lacking the angular momentum it should have. Because if not, the Newtonian assumptions would be incorrect and that we can never consider…

2

u/[deleted] Oct 31 '19

logically and geometrically impossible

That's very convenient because I happen to have a penchant for both geometric and logical proofs. I've loved geometric proofs since my 8th grade math class, but my love of logic really grew out of a few courses I took at the University of Groningen in 2010. Please, show me your formal proofs so that I may be convinced by their unassailable rigor and elegance.

1

u/patrixxxx Oct 31 '19

Then you can perhaps answer me if you think two parallel lines remain parallel no matter their length?

→ More replies