Slashdot Mirror

1) Hmm, I used the algorithm you mentioned earlier for reaching that number, and the gravitational force between Alpha Centauri A+B and Proxima Centauri came out as 4.40 x 10E-13 "Earth gee's" at their current distance of about 13,000 AU. It's a magnitude above what you call "a completely inconsequential force," yet Proxima seems to be in orbit around them as per this paper: https://www.aanda.org/articles.... I don't see how gravitational interactions would cease shortly after this point, especially as star clusters, gas, dust and a lot of dark matter comes into play gravitationally at great distances.

2) We may have different viewpoints on how scientific progress should operate. I consider both the continual refinement of existing theories and investigation of paradigm-shifting hypotheses to be necessary for progressing. But for the paradigm-shifting hypotheses to deserve serious attention they need to be robust enough to explain and predict what the current leading theory does, and preferably some of its shortcomings, in a falsifiable manner. So I find the Electrical Universe model trying to explain way too much with sporadic and tangentially related data.

4) The Big Bang theory makes a bunch of necessary predictions. If, say, the cosmic microwave background radiation was found to have another source, or the universe was shown to not be expanding, or a distant galaxy is blue-shifted, or stars certainly older than 13.8 billion years were discovered... then the theory would be in trouble.

I'm aware of the galactic filaments in the universe, but I don't see how all this leads to an internally consistent alternative to the leading theories of dark matter and general relativity, which I know how they can accurately predict time dilation of GPS satellites and calculate trajectories across space. I remain unconvinced and unimpressed by the Electric Universe.

You appear to be in a state of denial

Astronomy & Astrophysics
The jets of AGN as giant coaxial cables

From the paper:

"It also indicates that astrophysical jets are fundamentally electromagnetic structures."

Bayesian analysis is a statistical method on the data about the star, not a method of observation. The Wikipedia article in question is talking about this paper http://www.aanda.org/index.php?option=com_article&access=doi&doi=10.1051/0004-6361/200811531&Itemid=129 where data about the movement of a star that was known to already have a planet around it was analyzed using Bayesian techniques to show that there was very likely a second planet. But that isn't an observational technique.

Well, the inverse square law plus the low albedo (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albedo/) of http://www.aanda.org/articles/aa/full/2002/39/aah3 638/aah3638.right.html/ most asteroids would necessitate an incredibly bright "light". Anyone feel like whipping out a napkin to do some calculations? I doubt if the visible spectrum would be better than radio wavelengths (after all, we're mainly after large objects, right?). I wonder what the design restrictions would be for a radar which has to wait several hours for an echo would be: I'd guess a fluorescent screen wouldn't be optimal! :-)

To improve results, you'd like to have at least two or preferably more observation points. Looking at NEO asteroid orbits http://neo.jpl.nasa.gov/orbits// projected onto the ecliptic is a scary sight. Looking at them in three dimensions is rather more reassuring.

Right now, I'd guess that Earth-based telescopes are the more economical alternative: easier to service, no pesky problem with energy supply or orbital station keeping. One drawback is that we need longer series of observations in order to resolve asteroidal orbits: hence the recurring "alarm bells" when a newly discovered asteroid rates high on the Palermo or Torino scales, only to be downgraded once more observations are matched to it.

Maybe, just maybe, you could also actually read the article you cited, and realize that it actually weakens a common argument against Global Warming. But that may be asking just too much.