Earth Changes and the Human-Cosmic Connection

[Cosmos]

Wonder how this relatively new discovery relates to the electrical dynamics of earth, with the rest of the solar sytem:

Scientists discover an ocean 400 miles beneath our feet that could fill our oceans three times over:
_http://www.extremetech.com/extreme/184564-scientists-discover-an-ocean-400-miles-beneath-our-feet-that-could-fill-our-oceans-three-times-over

That ocean beneath our feet has three times the volume of water then all oceans on the surface combined!

Interestingly the following german article says that this whole ocean is trapped within a crystalin structure of minerals... Which makes it even more interesting from an electrical standpoint...

http://de.sott.net/article/23109-Kein-Scherz-Riesenozean-unter-der-Erde-entdeckt-Groer-als-alle-Weltmeere-zusammen

 

[Redrock12]

Just finished reading this book, and what an amazing piece of work. Much gratitude to laura and team for their hard efforts in digging and compiling all the information.

Couldn't have said it better. Kudos to Pierre, Laura, and everyone involved in putting this work together.

 

[Human]

Note that the Moon hardly rotates. As we have already explained, the Moon doesn't have a double layer. It does not have any plasmasphere because its electric potential is equivalent to the potential of the surrounding space. The electric potential being equal, the Moon is not subject to any electric current, so no Lorentz force can be generated, hence the almost absent rotation.

However, the Moon rotates on itself once during each orbit around the Earth, which takes 27 days, while it takes the same amount of time for it to spin once around its axis. That's the reason why the Moon always shows the same face to the Earth.

Thus the Moon is subject to a 'lock' rather than a spin, possibly due to the Moon's residual magnetism [insert reference to Scott footnote here] 'locking' its visible face relative to Earth.

According to mainstream astronomy this happens due to so called tidal locking (synchronous rotation)
_https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tidal_locking (informative only)
and is not characteristic to Moon only, but to most of satellite bodies in our Solar system (and even to Pluto-Haron system, see above Wiki entry).

The "difficulty" with above interpretation of Moon's "slow" rotation becomes even larger, IMO, when Ganymede is taken into account which has a plasmasphere (discussed in ECHCC Ch. 7) and exhibits synchronous rotation WRT Jupiter.
_https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ganymede_(moon) (again, informative only)
OK, its orbital period is just 7 d, so it could be said that it spins really fast. :)

On the other hand, what about the most inner planets and their relatively large rotation periods: Mercury ~ 59 d and Venus ~ 243 d (retrograde)? The above ECHCC explanation would lead to that they sort of lack their proper DLs...
Maybe it would be wise to reconsider the above part in ECHCC completely, at least until some more coherent and more-inclusive explanation is not presented?

 

[Pierre]

Note that the Moon hardly rotates. As we have already explained, the Moon doesn't have a double layer. It does not have any plasmasphere because its electric potential is equivalent to the potential of the surrounding space. The electric potential being equal, the Moon is not subject to any electric current, so no Lorentz force can be generated, hence the almost absent rotation.

However, the Moon rotates on itself once during each orbit around the Earth, which takes 27 days, while it takes the same amount of time for it to spin once around its axis. That's the reason why the Moon always shows the same face to the Earth.

Thus the Moon is subject to a 'lock' rather than a spin, possibly due to the Moon's residual magnetism [insert reference to Scott footnote here] 'locking' its visible face relative to Earth.

According to mainstream astronomy this happens due to so called tidal locking (synchronous rotation)
_https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tidal_locking (informative only)
and is not characteristic to Moon only, but to most of satellite bodies in our Solar system (and even to Pluto-Haron system, see above Wiki entry).

The "difficulty" with above interpretation of Moon's "slow" rotation becomes even larger, IMO, when Ganymede is taken into account which has a plasmasphere (discussed in ECHCC Ch. 7) and exhibits synchronous rotation WRT Jupiter.
_https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ganymede_(moon) (again, informative only)
OK, its orbital period is just 7 d, so it could be said that it spins really fast. :)

On the other hand, what about the most inner planets and their relatively large rotation periods: Mercury ~ 59 d and Venus ~ 243 d (retrograde)? The above ECHCC explanation would lead to that they sort of lack their proper DLs...
Maybe it would be wise to reconsider the above part in ECHCC completely, at least until some more coherent and more-inclusive explanation is not presented?

Interesting point. Could it be that celestial bodies with DL spin, the ones without DL (and no remnant magnetism) don't spin, and the ones like the moon without DL but with remnant magnetism are locked?

Ganymedes magnetic field is extremely weak, thus remnant magnetism might inhibit the spin and keep it in a locked position.

 

[Eol]

Wonder how this relatively new discovery relates to the electrical dynamics of earth, with the rest of the solar sytem:

Scientists discover an ocean 400 miles beneath our feet that could fill our oceans three times over:
_http://www.extremetech.com/extreme/184564-scientists-discover-an-ocean-400-miles-beneath-our-feet-that-could-fill-our-oceans-three-times-over

That ocean beneath our feet has three times the volume of water then all oceans on the surface combined!

Interestingly the following german article says that this whole ocean is trapped within a crystalin structure of minerals... Which makes it even more interesting from an electrical standpoint...

http://de.sott.net/article/23109-Kein-Scherz-Riesenozean-unter-der-Erde-entdeckt-Groer-als-alle-Weltmeere-zusammen

When i read that :

This discovery suggests that Earth's surface water actually came from within driven to the surface by geological activity, as part of a "whole-Earth water cycle," rather than the prevailing theory of icy comets striking Earth billions of years ago.

I think it's interesting when you link this statement with the thousand years oscillation of the thermoline circulation and the numerous ocean decadal oscillations. Cycles are everywhere. Why not also within the Earth ? A cycle heating/cooling which impact this deep water layer resulting in several change in the ocean circulations and further the the whole climate systeme. The following question that arrise is what could cause this cycle inside the earth ?

In respect to the electrical theory, Pierre explained in his book that changes in the Earth's surface/core electric field can result in several geological phenomenas. It's maybe a possible link with this geological activity which drive the water inside the Earth to the surface.

 

[Human]

Interesting point. Could it be that celestial bodies with DL spin, the ones without DL (and no remnant magnetism) don't spin, and the ones like the moon without DL but with remnant magnetism are locked?

Ganymedes magnetic field is extremely weak, thus remnant magnetism might inhibit the spin and keep it in a locked position.

Could be, although I'm having a "problem" with this suggestion, coz:

a) mainstream claims that most of the natural satellites are (tidal) "locked" to their home planets,
(exception is Hyperion, moon of Saturn _https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyperion_(moon) )

Synchronous rotation is common throughout the solar system. It is found among the satellites of Mars, Jupiter, and Saturn. Pluto and its moon Charon are locked in mutual synchronous rotation, with both of them keeping the same faces towards each other.

b) planetary rotation does not follow this suggestion, IMO.
As stated in previous post Mercury and Venus exhibit very "slow" (sidereal) rotation, and at least Mercury has a planetary magnetic field,

Mercury's magnetic field is approximately a magnetic dipole (meaning the field has only two magnetic poles) that is significant, and apparently global, on planet Mercury.
Data from Mariner 10 led to its discovery in 1974; the spacecraft measured the field's strength as 1.1% that of Earth's magnetic field.

while Venus presents an exception among Solar system planets.

Venus is a rarity among planets – a world that does not internally generate a magnetic field. Despite the absence of a large protective magnetosphere, the near-Venus environment does exhibit a number of similarities with planets such as Earth. The latest, surprising, example is the evidence for magnetic reconnection in Venus’ induced magnetotail.

Planets which generate magnetic fields in their interiors, such as Earth, Mercury, Jupiter and Saturn, are surrounded by invisible magnetospheres. Their magnetic fields deflect the charged particles of the solar wind (electrons and protons) as they stream away from the Sun. This deflection creates a magnetosphere – a protective "bubble" around the planet – which ends in an elongated magnetotail on the lee side of the magnetosphere.

Then, we have Mars with (sidereal) rotation period of cca 1d (similar to Earth; _https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mars), while its magnetic field is 0.01% of Earth's one (if I understood correctly the text quoted below).

Magnetic Field

The first indication of the weakness of the magnetic field of Mars was obtained during the Mariner 4 spacecraft flyby in 1965. At a closest approach of 3.9 Mars radii, no indication of the Earth-like dipole magnetic field predicted by scaling arguments from theory was detected. Still, a shock-like disturbance in the solar wind signaled the presence of an obstacle approximately the size of Mars. Most subsequent magnetic field measurements in the vicinity of Mars were carried out on a series of five MARS spacecraft launched by the Soviet Union between 1971 and 1974 (see Soviet MARS missions). Several of these successfully operated in orbit for periods long enough to both confirm the Mariner 4 results and to measure the disturbance of the interplanetary magnetic field caused by the obstacle. However, none of these spacecraft approached Mars closer than ~ 1300 km or ~ 1.3 Mars radii from the center of the planet, and none probed the solar wind wake inside of the optical shadow, where the magnetotail of an intrinsic magnetosphere resembling a weak version of Earth's would be found. The Viking landers reached the surface of Mars in 1976, but did not carry magnetic field experiments its part of their scientific payloads. although they made ionospheric measurements of relevance to the magnetic field question. Because the available measurements could be interpreted front the viewpoint of either a small Earth-like magnetosphere, or a Venus-like ionospheric obstacle, different researchers have adopted both of these paradigms for over a decade. Their divergent views depended on the techniques and arguments used in analyzing the still ambiguous data (Luhmann and Brace, 1991).

These differences in opinion have to some extent been altered by the most recent magnetic field measurements on the Soviet Phobos-2 spacecraft in 1989 (e.g. Nature. 341. 19 October 1989, describes the first results). The orbit of Phobos 2 went into the deep wake of Mars, for the first time providing magnetic field data in the optical shadow at distances as close as ~ 2.7 Mars radii and as distant as ~ 20 Mars radii. These data unambiguously showed that the magnetic fields in the wake of Mars are determined by the interplanetary field orientation, and are thus not Earth- like, at least in the near-equatorial spacecraft orbit plane. The current upper limit on the dipole moment remains at ~ 10-4 times that of Earth, a value established on the basis of the previous observations. This moment is derived not from the wake data but from estimates of the subsolar altitude of the Martian obstacle to the solar wind of ~ 400 km. Additional indirect information concerning the magnetic field of Mars derived front ionospheric observations and the understanding of solar wind interactions is described below.

Therefore, I don't see direct correlation between magnetic field of a celestial body and its rotation period.
If presence of magnetic field of celestial body is directly related to (indicating) having DL, then correlation between DL strength and rotation speed is also lacking.

On the other hand, if DL has something to do with presence of body's atmosphere (like in case of Earth -> DLEarth = ionosphere; although (according to mainstream) presence of an atmosphere is intrinsically linked to body's magnetosphere), then again Mars presents a "problem", IMO, since it's atmosphere is comparably smaller in density then Earth's one, while rotation period is almost equal.

The atmosphere of Mars is the layer of gases surrounding Mars. It is composed mostly of carbon dioxide. The atmospheric pressure on the Martian surface averages 600 pascals (0.087 psi; 6.0 mbar), about 0.6% of Earth's mean sea level pressure of 101.3 kilopascals (14.69 psi; 1,013 mbar).

In addition, mainstream science claims that practically all celestial bodies rotate, with different rotation speeds though.

 

[John G]

Interesting point. Could it be that celestial bodies with DL spin, the ones without DL (and no remnant magnetism) don't spin, and the ones like the moon without DL but with remnant magnetism are locked?

Ganymedes magnetic field is extremely weak, thus remnant magnetism might inhibit the spin and keep it in a locked position.

Could be, although I'm having a "problem" with this suggestion, coz:

a) mainstream claims that most of the natural satellites are (tidal) "locked" to their home planets,
(exception is Hyperion, moon of Saturn _https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyperion_(moon) )

Synchronous rotation is common throughout the solar system. It is found among the satellites of Mars, Jupiter, and Saturn. Pluto and its moon Charon are locked in mutual synchronous rotation, with both of them keeping the same faces towards each other.

b) planetary rotation does not follow this suggestion, IMO.
As stated in previous post Mercury and Venus exhibit very "slow" (sidereal) rotation, and at least Mercury has a planetary magnetic field

I like the idea that the Solar System has phase transitions causing things like Mercury and Venus seeming to be unusual compared to the other planets:

http://vixra.org/pdf/0909.0014v1.pdf

So,there is a (mysterious to conventional astrophysicists) connection among static mass, angular momentum, and magnetic dipole moment,which suggests the existence of a gravitational/magnetic force that might be carried by a particle – call it the Wesson particle. Since it is related to static mass gravity, and since the strength of gravity is given by (1 / Mass_Planck )^2 the Wesson particle that should define the Wesson force should have a mass related to that of the pure-static-mass Planck mass.Since the Wesson particle has an electromagnetic component (to account for the magnetic dipole relationships) its mass should be the Planck mass reduced by a factor alpha = 1/137...

as is consistent with its fundamental Conformal Cosmological nature related to the Dark Energy Expansion of our Universe... (1 / Mass_Wesson)^2 = (1/alpha)^2 x (1 / Mass_Planck)^2 = (1/alpha)^2 x Ordinary Static-Mass Gravity... Acceleration x (1/alpha)^2 = G x Msun / R^2... 8 x 10^(-8) cm/sec^2 is the... acceleration and 8 x 10^(-8) cm/sec^2 / c^2 = 1 / ( 10^28 cm )...

phase transition of gravitational coupling to SPIN that is located at the Orbit-of-Earth boundary (around 1 AU) such that the gravitational coupling to spin at that distance from the sun is ( 2 G M_sun / c^2 r_es ) ( w_espin ) ( w_espin r_er ) ( 1/c^2 ) = 1 / (1.32 x 10^28 cm)...

Sirag...and Vasiliev in astro-ph/0002048...have observed that spin angular momentum is proportional to magnetic moment for planets, stars, and pulsars so it is possible that electromagnetic processes at the time of formation of our Solar System and of Earth itself dictated that our Earth have the particular size and spin giving the spin tensor described above, which in turn gives the relationship to 1 / ( 10^28 cm ).

It may be that when the Early Earth formed somewhat over 4 x 10^9 years ago, it carried more angular momentum than its magnetic moment could support, in which case the electromagnetic formation processes would have spun off excess mass to form the Moon, which carries no significant magnetic moment but does carry a lot of angular momentum, so that the Earth-Moon system as a whole would be in line with the Mass – Angular Momentum Density relationship that generally holds from Asteroids through the Gas Giant Planets, as shown by... the book “Solar System Evolution” by Stuart Taylor Ross (Cambridge 1992).

Note that the Planets inside the Earth Orbit Gravity-SPIN coupling phase boundary, that is, Venus and Mercury, are far off the red line and seem to be, for their mass, very deficient in Angular Momentum.

The same Mass – Specific Angular Momentum relationship holds for our Solar System as a whole and for Stars at least as massive as A5, as shown by... the book “An Introduction to Modern Astrophysics” by Carroll and Osterlie (Addison-Wesley 1996)... the Sun alone and Stars less massive than A5 have a lesser Specific Angular Momentum, which may indicate that they have Planets that carry some Specific Angular Momentum...

 

[Pierre]

I like the idea that the Solar System has phase transitions causing things like Mercury and Venus seeming to be unusual compared to the other planets:

http://vixra.org/pdf/0909.0014v1.pdf

So,there is a (mysterious to conventional astrophysicists) connection among static mass, angular momentum, and magnetic dipole moment,which suggests the existence of a gravitational/magnetic force that might be carried by a particle – call it the Wesson particle. Since it is related to static mass gravity, and since the strength of gravity is given by (1 / Mass_Planck )^2 the Wesson particle that should define the Wesson force should have a mass related to that of the pure-static-mass Planck mass.Since the Wesson particle has an electromagnetic component (to account for the magnetic dipole relationships) its mass should be the Planck mass reduced by a factor alpha = 1/137...

as is consistent with its fundamental Conformal Cosmological nature related to the Dark Energy Expansion of our Universe... (1 / Mass_Wesson)^2 = (1/alpha)^2 x (1 / Mass_Planck)^2 = (1/alpha)^2 x Ordinary Static-Mass Gravity... Acceleration x (1/alpha)^2 = G x Msun / R^2... 8 x 10^(-8) cm/sec^2 is the... acceleration and 8 x 10^(-8) cm/sec^2 / c^2 = 1 / ( 10^28 cm )...

phase transition of gravitational coupling to SPIN that is located at the Orbit-of-Earth boundary (around 1 AU) such that the gravitational coupling to spin at that distance from the sun is ( 2 G M_sun / c^2 r_es ) ( w_espin ) ( w_espin r_er ) ( 1/c^2 ) = 1 / (1.32 x 10^28 cm)...

Sirag...and Vasiliev in astro-ph/0002048...have observed that spin angular momentum is proportional to magnetic moment for planets, stars, and pulsars so it is possible that electromagnetic processes at the time of formation of our Solar System and of Earth itself dictated that our Earth have the particular size and spin giving the spin tensor described above, which in turn gives the relationship to 1 / ( 10^28 cm ).

It may be that when the Early Earth formed somewhat over 4 x 10^9 years ago, it carried more angular momentum than its magnetic moment could support, in which case the electromagnetic formation processes would have spun off excess mass to form the Moon, which carries no significant magnetic moment but does carry a lot of angular momentum, so that the Earth-Moon system as a whole would be in line with the Mass – Angular Momentum Density relationship that generally holds from Asteroids through the Gas Giant Planets, as shown by... the book “Solar System Evolution” by Stuart Taylor Ross (Cambridge 1992).

Note that the Planets inside the Earth Orbit Gravity-SPIN coupling phase boundary, that is, Venus and Mercury, are far off the red line and seem to be, for their mass, very deficient in Angular Momentum.

The same Mass – Specific Angular Momentum relationship holds for our Solar System as a whole and for Stars at least as massive as A5, as shown by... the book “An Introduction to Modern Astrophysics” by Carroll and Osterlie (Addison-Wesley 1996)... the Sun alone and Stars less massive than A5 have a lesser Specific Angular Momentum, which may indicate that they have Planets that carry some Specific Angular Momentum...

If I correctly understand, according to Dodd's article there seems to be correlation between the (log of) spin angular momentum and the (log of) magnetic moment:

Then, we have Mars with (sidereal) rotation period of cca 1d (similar to Earth; _https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mars), while its magnetic field is 0.01% of Earth's one (if I understood correctly the text quoted below).

Quote from: _http://www-ssc.igpp.ucla.edu/personnel/russell/papers/mars_mag/

Magnetic Field

The first indication of the weakness of the magnetic field of Mars was obtained during the Mariner 4 spacecraft flyby in 1965. At a closest approach of 3.9 Mars radii, no indication of the Earth-like dipole magnetic field predicted by scaling arguments from theory was detected. Still, a shock-like disturbance in the solar wind signaled the presence of an obstacle approximately the size of Mars. Most subsequent magnetic field measurements in the vicinity of Mars were carried out on a series of five MARS spacecraft launched by the Soviet Union between 1971 and 1974 (see Soviet MARS missions). Several of these successfully operated in orbit for periods long enough to both confirm the Mariner 4 results and to measure the disturbance of the interplanetary magnetic field caused by the obstacle. However, none of these spacecraft approached Mars closer than ~ 1300 km or ~ 1.3 Mars radii from the center of the planet, and none probed the solar wind wake inside of the optical shadow, where the magnetotail of an intrinsic magnetosphere resembling a weak version of Earth's would be found. The Viking landers reached the surface of Mars in 1976, but did not carry magnetic field experiments its part of their scientific payloads. although they made ionospheric measurements of relevance to the magnetic field question. Because the available measurements could be interpreted front the viewpoint of either a small Earth-like magnetosphere, or a Venus-like ionospheric obstacle, different researchers have adopted both of these paradigms for over a decade. Their divergent views depended on the techniques and arguments used in analyzing the still ambiguous data (Luhmann and Brace, 1991).

These differences in opinion have to some extent been altered by the most recent magnetic field measurements on the Soviet Phobos-2 spacecraft in 1989 (e.g. Nature. 341. 19 October 1989, describes the first results). The orbit of Phobos 2 went into the deep wake of Mars, for the first time providing magnetic field data in the optical shadow at distances as close as ~ 2.7 Mars radii and as distant as ~ 20 Mars radii. These data unambiguously showed that the magnetic fields in the wake of Mars are determined by the interplanetary field orientation, and are thus not Earth- like, at least in the near-equatorial spacecraft orbit plane. The current upper limit on the dipole moment remains at ~ 10-4 times that of Earth, a value established on the basis of the previous observations. This moment is derived not from the wake data but from estimates of the subsolar altitude of the Martian obstacle to the solar wind of ~ 400 km. Additional indirect information concerning the magnetic field of Mars derived front ionospheric observations and the understanding of solar wind interactions is described below.

Therefore, I don't see direct correlation between magnetic field of a celestial body and its rotation period.
If presence of magnetic field of celestial body is directly related to (indicating) having DL, then correlation between DL strength and rotation speed is also lacking.

I'm wondering if magnetic field measurements close the equatorial plane of Mars are relevant since most of Mars magnetism seems to be located in the Southern hemisphere, away from the equator:

 

[Human]

If I correctly understand, according to Dodd's article there seems to be correlation between the (log of) spin angular momentum and the (log of) magnetic moment:

Thanks for this plot!
Looking at the Moon's position on it, seems that it's kind of an "exception"...

I'm wondering if magnetic field measurements close the equatorial plane of Mars are relevant since most of Mars magnetism seems to be located in the Southern hemisphere, away from the equator:

True, there seems to be much more to it than just simply magn. field of a planet.
Have been checking the situation with Venus, and although there's no observed magn. field, there is a magnetosphere:

The 'magnetosphere' of Venus that was detected by spacecraft is now known to be an example of an 'induced' magnetosphere. In an induced magnetosphere, the solar wind interacts directly with the planetary ionosphere. The fields and plasmas that are observed are generally of solar wind or ionospheric origin. There are no belts of trapped radiation such as Earth's Van Allen belts, and there is no 'magnetotail' composed of fields of planetary origin.

So, it can be speculated that absence of magn. field has something to do with Venus' very large rotation period, and presence of an ionosphere (potential DL like in Earth's case) together with interaction with solar wind might be responsible for extraordinary rotation speed of Venus' atmosphere (just guessing, need to study these things a bit more in depth)...?

The atmosphere is in a state of vigorous circulation and super-rotation. The whole atmosphere circles the planet in just four Earth days, much faster than the planet's sidereal day of 243 days. The winds supporting super-rotation blow as fast as 100 m/s (~360 km/h or 220 mph). Winds move at up to 60 times the speed of the planet's rotation, while Earth's fastest winds are only 10% to 20% rotation speed. On the other hand, the wind speed becomes increasingly slower as the elevation from the surface decreases, with the breeze barely reaching the speed of 10 km/h (2.8 m/s) on the surface. Near the poles are anticyclonic structures called polar vortices. Each vortex is double-eyed and shows a characteristic S-shaped pattern of clouds.

 

[Human]

Coming back to the book.
Ch. 6 (p.16, 2nd paragraph) reads:

This means that plasma spans a magnitude of 30 orders (1030, or 10 followed by 30 zeroes) as far as size scale is concerned.

Usual scientific jargon for bolded part would be:
"plasma spans over 30 orders of magnitude"
and there's a typo in brackets, it should be
"(1030, or 1 followed by 30 zeroes)"
instead of "10 followed ...".

Regarding the Moon's rotation part:

Note that the Moon hardly rotates. As we have already explained, the Moon doesn't have a double layer. It does not have any plasmasphere because its electric potential is equivalent to the potential of the surrounding space. The electric potential being equal, the Moon is not subject to any electric current, so no Lorentz force can be generated, hence the almost absent rotation.

I would suggest to rephrase first bolded sentence into something like:
"Note the Moon's relatively slow rotation compared to Earth (for example)."
since there are other celestial bodies with larger rotation periods than the Moon in our Solar system, as discussed above.

Also, I'd suggest rephrasing the last bolded part into something like:
"which could be responsible for its relatively slow rotation."
since the term "hence" is rather strong one, and usually in scientific papers denotes something that can be proven.
Or, maybe, just ditch that last bolded part completely, since it's kind of speculation (at least that's how I see it).

 

[Cosmos]

Ben Davidson from Suspicious0bservers just published a very, very interesting video about the most up to date data they have gathered. As usual, very good scientific work there.

The video is 21 minutes long and worth every second. He presents quite some new and startling data which is very interesting when you connect it with what Pierre wrote and what happens on our planet right now. Should be mentioned that Ben doesn't take into account Komets and Nemesis in his analysis. Despite that, what he presents is pretty startling, even without those two factors at play. He brings in a bunch of new information on the sun and connects it like I have never heard before which might also point to "the big one" in america.

The earth is in for a huge ride, I'm afraid. And it won't be pretty..:

http://<iframe width="560" height="...yQ" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

 

[Altair]

Hubble Discovers Moon Orbiting the Dwarf Planet Makemake

Peering to the outskirts of our solar system, NASA’s Hubble Space Telescope has spotted a small, dark moon orbiting Makemake, the second brightest icy dwarf planet — after Pluto — in the Kuiper Belt.

The moon — provisionally designated S/2015 (136472) 1 and nicknamed MK 2 — is more than 1,300 times fainter than Makemake. MK 2 was seen approximately 13,000 miles from the dwarf planet, and its diameter is estimated to be 100 miles across. Makemake is 870 miles wide. The dwarf planet, discovered in 2005, is named for a creation deity of the Rapa Nui people of Easter Island.

http://<iframe width="884" height="...0s" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

The Kuiper Belt is a vast reservoir of leftover frozen material from the construction of our solar system 4.5 billion years ago and home to several dwarf planets. Some of these worlds have known satellites, but this is the first discovery of a companion object to Makemake. Makemake is one of five dwarf planets recognized by the International Astronomical Union.

The observations were made in April 2015 with Hubble’s Wide Field Camera 3. Hubble’s unique ability to see faint objects near bright ones, together with its sharp resolution, allowed astronomers to pluck out the moon from Makemake’s glare. The discovery was announced today in a Minor Planet Electronic Circular.

The observing team used the same Hubble technique to observe the moon as they did for finding the small satellites of Pluto in 2005, 2011, and 2012. Several previous searches around Makemake had turned up empty. “Our preliminary estimates show that the moon’s orbit seems to be edge-on, and that means that often when you look at the system you are going to miss the moon because it gets lost in the bright glare of Makemake,” said Alex Parker of Southwest Research Institute, Boulder, Colorado, who led the image analysis for the observations.

A moon’s discovery can provide valuable information on the dwarf-planet system. By measuring the moon’s orbit, astronomers can calculate a mass for the system and gain insight into its evolution.

Uncovering the moon also reinforces the idea that most dwarf planets have satellites.

“Makemake is in the class of rare Pluto-like objects, so finding a companion is important,” Parker said. “The discovery of this moon has given us an opportunity to study Makemake in far greater detail than we ever would have been able to without the companion.”

Finding this moon only increases the parallels between Pluto and Makemake. Both objects are already known to be covered in frozen methane. As was done with Pluto, further study of the satellite will easily reveal the density of Makemake, a key result that will indicate if the bulk compositions of Pluto and Makemake are also similar. “This new discovery opens a new chapter in comparative planetology in the outer solar system,” said team leader Marc Buie of the Southwest Research Institute, Boulder, Colorado.

The researchers will need more Hubble observations to make accurate measurements to determine if the moon’s orbit is elliptical or circular. Preliminary estimates indicate that if the moon is in a circular orbit, it completes a circuit around Makemake in 12 days or longer.

Determining the shape of the moon’s orbit will help settle the question of its origin. A tight circular orbit means that MK 2 is probably the product of a collision between Makemake and another Kuiper Belt Object. If the moon is in a wide, elongated orbit, it is more likely to be a captured object from the Kuiper Belt. Either event would have likely occurred several billion years ago, when the solar system was young.

The discovery may have solved one mystery about Makemake. Previous infrared studies of the dwarf planet revealed that while Makemake’s surface is almost entirely bright and very cold, some areas appear warmer than other areas. Astronomers had suggested that this discrepancy may be due to the sun warming discrete dark patches on Makemake’s surface. However, unless Makemake is in a special orientation, these dark patches should make the dwarf planet’s brightness vary substantially as it rotates. But this amount of variability has never been observed.

These previous infrared data did not have sufficient resolution to separate Makemake from MK 2. The team’s reanalysis, based on the new Hubble observations, suggests that much of the warmer surface detected previously in infrared light may, in reality, simply have been the dark surface of the companion MK 2.

[...]

Source: _https://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/2016/hubble-discovers-moon-orbiting-the-dwarf-planet-makemake

 

[Altair]

First-ever ‘tailless’ comet discovered, could give clue to solar system formation

A first-of-its-kind “nearly tailless” comet has been spotted by scientists, who say the object has been preserved for billions of years, as it appeared pristine. The discovery could shed light on how our solar system was formed.
The newly found celestial object was named after a tailless breed of cats – the “Manx” comet.

The reason it lacked a tail lies in its composition, the researchers believe. Most comets are usually made of ice and frozen compounds, and when they approach the sun water vaporizes and produces a tail that glows in reflected sunlight. In the case of the “Manx” comet it’s not possible because it’s made of rocky materials.

The discovery of such a “strange” comet has left researchers wondering whether there are more.

"Depending how many we find, we will know whether the giant planets danced across the solar system when they were young, or if they grew up quietly without moving much," study co-author Olivier Hainaut, an astronomer with the European Southern Observatory in Germany, said.

Scientists believe the comet was formed in the same region as Earth, the inner solar system, unlike most others that “are born” at much greater distances. Researchers say the planet then ejected and reached the so-called Oort Cloud, a cold region that preserved the comet from the sun for billions of years. At some point it entered an orbit that was in range for observation and study.

"We already know of many asteroids, but they have all been baked by billions of years near the sun. This one is the first uncooked asteroid we could observe: it has been preserved in the best freezer there is," lead author Karen Meech of the University of Hawaii's Institute for Astronomy said in a statement.

The study, detailing the discovery that was published in the journal Science Advances on Friday, says the comet, also known as C/2014 S3, was first spotted in 2014.

Now the mainstream scientists start to use terms comets and asteroids interchangeably, though still experiencing cognitive dissonance calling it "strange" comet. :D

 

[Cosmos]

First-ever ‘tailless’ comet discovered, could give clue to solar system formation

A first-of-its-kind “nearly tailless” comet has been spotted by scientists, who say the object has been preserved for billions of years, as it appeared pristine. The discovery could shed light on how our solar system was formed.
The newly found celestial object was named after a tailless breed of cats – the “Manx” comet.

The reason it lacked a tail lies in its composition, the researchers believe. Most comets are usually made of ice and frozen compounds, and when they approach the sun water vaporizes and produces a tail that glows in reflected sunlight. In the case of the “Manx” comet it’s not possible because it’s made of rocky materials.

The discovery of such a “strange” comet has left researchers wondering whether there are more.

"Depending how many we find, we will know whether the giant planets danced across the solar system when they were young, or if they grew up quietly without moving much," study co-author Olivier Hainaut, an astronomer with the European Southern Observatory in Germany, said.

Scientists believe the comet was formed in the same region as Earth, the inner solar system, unlike most others that “are born” at much greater distances. Researchers say the planet then ejected and reached the so-called Oort Cloud, a cold region that preserved the comet from the sun for billions of years. At some point it entered an orbit that was in range for observation and study.

"We already know of many asteroids, but they have all been baked by billions of years near the sun. This one is the first uncooked asteroid we could observe: it has been preserved in the best freezer there is," lead author Karen Meech of the University of Hawaii's Institute for Astronomy said in a statement.

The study, detailing the discovery that was published in the journal Science Advances on Friday, says the comet, also known as C/2014 S3, was first spotted in 2014.

Now the mainstream scientists start to use terms comets and asteroids interchangeably, though still experiencing cognitive dissonance calling it "strange" comet. :D

Source: https://www.rt.com/news/341450-tailess-comet-first-discovery/

 

[Eol]

Several previous searches around Makemake had turned up empty.
[...]
These previous infrared data did not have sufficient resolution to separate Makemake from MK 2. The team’s reanalysis, based on the new Hubble observations, suggests that much of the warmer surface detected previously in infrared light may, in reality, simply have been the dark surface of the companion MK 2.

Are there sufficiently uncertainties to suppose that the moon could has been captured recently by Makemake ? Like the cases that Pierre expose in is book with the gas giant ones ?