Thursday, February 5, 2009

HD 80606b

HD 80606b is a very special planet.

Scientists are now referring to HD 80606b as "everyone's second favorite planet" (after the Earth of course).

HD 80606b has "the most eccentric orbit of any known exoplanet."

Bloomberg: NASA Telescope Spots Weather Changes Outside This Solar System.

Laughlin, 41, a professor at University of California, Santa Cruz, said the gaseous planet has an unusual orbit that brings it closer to its star than Mercury is to the sun, and it then shoots out to a distance almost as far away as Earth is from its sun.

The orbit is extremely eccentric,” Laughlin said. “Of the exoplanets that have been detected -- we’ve observed 300 -- this is the most extreme orbit we’ve seen so far.”
Translation: gravity is a myth.


Quantum_Flux said...

I just don't see how this invalidates gravitation.

OilIsMastery said...

Why does the planet have an eccentric orbit?

Is gravity an eccentric force that acts randomly with respect to mass and distance or is gravity a consistent force that acts according to known mathematical principles?

The planet is 4 times the mass of Jupiter yet approaches it's star at a distance closer than Mercury's orbit without the alleged force of gravity effecting it and causing it to fall on it's star.

How is that obeying the inverse square law?

Why isn't the planet torn apart by tidal forces at periastron?

Why doesn't the planet fly into outer space at apastron?

Jeffery Keown said...

All orbits are eccentric to some degree. Never, ever, ever, ever,(ever) will you find a planet in a perfectly circular orbit.


The planet's angular momentum conserves it's orbit. In other (smaller) words, it's going too fast to fall in and not fast enough to break away.

This is simple stuff, OiM. I do not understand why you don't understand. Unless apprehension would negate your feelings of censorship and victimization, and you can't allow yourself to be "in" on Big Science.

OilIsMastery said...

"All orbits are eccentric to some degree."

I haven't observed all orbits so I can't comment.

"Never, ever, ever, ever,(ever) will you find a planet in a perfectly circular orbit.


And people said we would never see a black swan.

"The planet's angular momentum conserves it's orbit. In other (smaller) words, it's going too fast to fall in and not fast enough to break away."

That doesn't make any sense. If it's going too fast to fall in then why doesn't it break away? And if it isn't going fast enough to break away then how come it doesn't fall in?

Jeffery Keown said...

Your straw-man mischaracterizations of orbital mechanics does you more harm than it does orbital mechanics.

You just sound silly. The same arguements could be made for your electric universe hypothesis, you know that don't you? The difference is observation and simulation.

If something caused the planet to speed up, or slow down, you would see a result like infalling or break-away. Another planet passing too close, say ahead of the planet in its orbit might give it a bit of speed, and it might break away.

Conversely, a close pass behind it in orbit would cause a decrease in speed that would result in the world falling into its star.

What predictions does Electrical Universe make for a system such as HD80606b that are unique to that hypothesis?

In other words, what can your model tell us that gravitation cannot? I am willing to accept certain aspects of "EU" but I am not willing to replace gravitation with it. Similarly, you may be on to something with Abiotic Oil, but screwing with GRAVITY? Outrageous.

Anaconda said...


Based on observation & measurement of planets in our solar system and the limited number of exoplanets, although growing all the time (since first detecting exoplanets about 10 years ago, roughly 300 have been observed), all have been observed with elliptical obits to some degree.

That's called stating a fact based on observation & measurement.

Is it possible that there is a perfect orbit somewhere out in the Universe? Yes, but science has to go on what has been observed, not on what might be possible.

All observed planet's orbits are elliptical.

The relevant question is why are the planet's orbits elliptical?

Or better still, what causes the differences between the various orbits of the planets? And what if anything causes the orbits to change over time, say from a highly elliptical orbit to nearly circular orbit? Or vice versa?

Posing these questions and then searching for observation & measurement (evidence) will increase our understanding of the dynamics at work.

Does science completely understand orbital dynamics?


It is my understanding and correct me if I'm wrong, that at least with comets, they do speed up when heading toward the Sun and slow down when heading to the outer solar system. I also understand planets also speed up and slow down, but because their orbits are so much less elliptical than comets the speed up and slow down is much less.

It's not a matter of "scewing with gravity," just understanding the component dynamics of the gravitational force.

And should the evidence support the "intrinsic" theory of gravity, draw the necessary conclusions about how that effects Man's understanding of other various hypothesis and theories.

Taking the good: Jeff seems to be acknowledging components of Plasma Cosmology, that's called being objective and evaluating the scientific evidence.

And it truly is a welcome change from other sceptics who seemingly refuse to even consider the scientific evidence.

And it's understandable that it takes some time and consideration to come to that conclusion.

Arguments are not made to make others change their mind on the spot, but rather so they will consider the evidence with an open-mind at their own pace.

And that is all anybody can ask for: Analyze the scientific evidence then compare side-by-side which theories match the observations & measurements best.

And, Jeff, keep digging into the scientific evidence regarding Abiotic Oil theory.

Focus on ultra-deep oil deposits and presalt oil deposits, those are the best in situ evidence for Abiotic Oil theory.

Somehow, oil 7,000+ feet below sea level and another 20,000 feet+ below the ocean bottom and under a layer of salt often a kilometer thick+ doesn't bode well for "fossil" theory.

Above all keep digging and analyzing the scientific evidence.

OilIsMastery said...


"What predictions does Electrical Universe make for a system such as HD80606b that are unique to that hypothesis?"

Electric Universe predicts that planets revolve in a flat plane perpindicular to the lines of force of the stars's magnetic field. It must just be coincidence, accident, and random chance that that is exactly and precisely what we observe.

"All planets revolve in approximately one plane. They revolve in a plane perpendicular to the lines of force of the sun’s magnetic field." -- Immanuel Velikovsky, cosmologist, 1946

OilIsMastery said...


I used the word "eccentric" poorly in this context because in this context eccentric simply means elliptical so Jeff saw the opportunity to jump on that and threw in the straw man of circular orbits even though he knows I accept Keplerian elliptical orbits.

Meanwhile he deliberately ignored every question I asked because his only chance to appear logical is to focus on a straw man and ignore my questions.

Jeffery Keown said...

"All planets revolve in approximately one plane. They revolve in a plane perpendicular to the lines of force of the sun’s magnetic field." -- Immanuel Velikovsky, psychiatrist, 1946

Fixed that for you.

Re: Pluto, Sedna, Quaoar, Chaos, Eris. Dwarf Planets. Yes. Perpendicular? No.

In fact, most planets are ~3 degrees off the sun's equator.

Try again.

OilIsMastery said...

"In fact, most planets are ~3 degrees off the sun's equator.

Try again."

I don't need to try again because that is perfectly consistent with our theory whereas gravity predicts that planets should NOT revolve within 3 degrees of a flat plane.

Similarly, since gravity is alleged to act equally in all directions, the rings of Saturn cannot be explained except by Electric Universe theory.

Raptor Lewis said...

Jefferey, you're an idiot!! You're just afraid of being wrong.

OiM- Never heard of it, but, cool. I'll be sure skies that night. Thanks for posting this.

And, Jefferey, you're just full of yourself. You're not proving anything to anyone, Jefferey, other than your own ignorance. So, Mr. Keown, Shut Up!!

OilIsMastery said...


We don't want Jeffery to shut up. We want him to critique our ideas. And we should criticize Jeffery's ideas only and not him personally.

OilIsMastery said...

"Ignorance is always ready to admire itself. Procure yourself critical friends." -- Nicolas Boileau-Despréaux, poet/critic, 1674

Raptor Lewis said...

I'm sorry. But, he HAS insulted YOU personally. That's what I want him to quit doing. It's not his criticism I'm bothered by. He's just so.....arrogant, rude, and insulting. I respect his opinion just fine. I just wish he wasn't so disrespectful. I was trynig to defend you. No harm intended.

OilIsMastery said...

True. I agree. All good...=)

Raptor Lewis said...

Thank you.....=)

Jeffery Keown said...

I have been a bit full of myself, yes. For that, I apologize. I simply find it hard to accept some of the baskets OiM places his eggs in.

It's like this- I arrived here from the Evolution/Creation "debate" Over in that discussion (raging everywhere on the net, really) Creationists do a few odd things:
Quote Mining/Cherry Picking
Denying/Ignoring Evidence
Using words like "myth" to describe solid scientific fact.
Claiming victimization by a big scientific foe (Ivory Tower Syndrome, I call it) and shouts of censorship.
Ringing the Death Knell of the currently accepted theory.

When I found this blog, here was more of the thinking found over on Uncommon Descent, AiG, and elsewhere.

It's tiring. I have realized I can't change your mind. Especially since I have decided to take up the banner of Big Science, I'm just as right in my mind as you are in yours.

It's been fun... but it has been pointless. I have writing and illustrating to do, and I should be about it.

OilIsMastery said...


Well it hasn't been pointless from my perspective Jeffery. I appreciate your contributions. And hopefully you have come away from the experience having learned that, just as every point in the universe is not moving away from every other point in the universe, so too are massive bodies not all attracted to one another, and that gravity is an occult force which requires God, miracles, and divine intervention.

" establish it [gravity] as original or primitive in certain parts of matter is to resort either to miracle or an imaginary occult quality." -- Gottfreid W. Leibniz, polymath, July 1710

So if you were looking for creationism you certainly found it with Newton and the theory of gravity:

"...lest the systems of the fixed stars should, by their gravity, fall on each other, he [God] hath placed those systems at immense distances from one another." -- Isaac Newton, mathematician, 1687

Jeffery Keown said...

For what its worth, I do not beleive in God. I do not think the opinions of those centuries in their cold graves have impact on today's theories. Liebnitz and Kepler and all those other corpses gave it a good try, but their woefully limited views can be undone by 5 minutes of experimentation on the simplest of our instruments.

I do not give a wit what Newton thought. He was brilliant, thanks a mil, Ike... but we'll take over from here.

OilIsMastery said...

If you don't believe in God then why do you believe in gravity?

The theory of gravity requires the existence of God (See Newton, Principia, Book III, General Scholium).

What experiment are you referring to that falsifies Kepler and Leibniz?

Anaconda said...

@ Jeffery Keown:

You state: "I'm just as right in my mind as you are in yours."

No. There is a reality. This is not politics where both sides can turn away from the discussion and think to themselves, "I'm right."

This is about matching theory to reality. And as I stated at the top of this comment, there is a "reality."

Jeff, I'd be interested in what aspects of Plasma Cosmology you subscribe to.

Also, if there are similarities in the style of debate, here, on scientific questions and the "creationists versus evolutionists" debate, that's as far as it goes: Style of debate.

I think an honest appraisal will show both sides in any debate on any subject engage in the tactics you describe. The tactics regrettably are rhetorical devices to "win" regardless of reality.

That's a major weakness of website debate on scientific questions -- political style debating tactics.

Any argument invoking faith can't be proved or refuted.

Objective scientific observers can "work through" scientific questions to get to logical results based on compulsion.

But it takes more discipline and respect for you interlocutor than most commenters have experience exercising.

Scientific compulsion rests on the idea that there is a "reality" that can be proven with a chain of observed and measured phenomenon.

So that both sides to a scientific question will end up saying, "X must be so, because Y and Z are so."

But the problem is that the skills of scientific debate are breaking down and being replaced with "rhetorical" skills derived from the political arena.

Or, frankly, most internet commenters never developed the skill of scientific debate in the first place.

Yet, they "think" they know what scientific "debate" is.

But this is not new, that's part of the crisis in astronomy, today, and, indeed, across many disciplines of science.

The problem is that the so-called scientfic conclusions were not developed in regard to verified scientific principles, but rather have moved out onto "thin branches" of belief, which leaves them with no room to admit anything that contradicts that belief lest the entire "branch" breaks and everybody in the discipline falls to disrepute.

That type of situation drives group-think.

This leaves those people in a very uncomfortable place.

Our certainty in not making errors in the face of most certain error has retarded Man's scientific advancement.

Jeffery Keown said...

Monads, anyone?

You can take Kepler's Astrology and faith-based "Astronomy" to Starbucks and walk away thirsty.

Jeffery Keown said...

On the positive side of things, Magnetars are an accepted phenomenon that fits into your Plasma Cosmology like fingers in a glove.

OilIsMastery said...

Monads are Leibniz not Kepler.

They are commonly called atoms today although the atom was split...=)

And Newton was the faith-based astrologer, alchemist, and magician.

Jeffery Keown said...

Monads were Liebnitz, I didn't specify.

And dig a little deeper into ol' Johny Kepler, please.

Seth said...

Newton wrote more texts about demonology, just one of his more bizarre interests, than about physics or math.

Anaconda said...

@ Jeffery Keown:

Jeff states: "Magnetars are an accepted phenomenon that fits into your Plasma Cosmology like fingers in a glove."

Where do you get your information from? Magnetars are NOT well accepted phenomenon, they are another 'exotic' conjured up by astronomers to provide magnetism and still deny electromagnetism.

Plasma Cosmology doesn't accept them because it doesn't need to.

That's one of the strongest points going for Plasma Cosmology, it doesn't rely on 'exotics' where the physical laws of Nature are changed to admit the 'exotic' so as to save the gravitational model.

Another name, besides 'exotic' is 'ad hoc' add on to theory, also known as a 'patch'.

Magnetars are a direct result of this effort to save the gravitational model.

The irony in all this is that conventional astronomy has all kinds of 'exotics' that require setting aside established physical laws of Nature, whereas, Plasma Cosmology doesn't require setting aside ANY physical laws of Nature.

Go figure.

Louis Hissink said...

Planetary movement around their suns, as a first approximation, can be described by a homopolar motor mechanism using the equations of Maxwell and Lorentz.

Highly eccentric orbits seem much like cometary ones - could be a connection?