Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

NASA's Van Allen Probes Spot an Impenetrable Barrier in Space

nasa.gov

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 40 posts

Re: NASA's Van Allen Probes Spot an Impenetrable Barrier in Space

#21

Post by NeverEnough »

blueprint wrote: post #17
pjungwir wrote: post #3

It's amazing how much they look like electron orbitals. . . . Sometimes its seems like the reason we see nature reuse the same patterns is not from any physical mechanism but simply because math only has so many "shapes." I am perpetually in awe at this mysterious order to our universe. Also: if these belts block high-energy electrons, can they teach us to build a force field that does the same? And can that solve th…

I wonder if I'll be attacked for saying this. Here goes. We always find these kinds of shapes because they are the shapes that appear through fluid mechanics. Space is a fluid, too. In a fluid, we have vortices (in the form of whirlpools, tornados, etc) because they allow material and energy to be moved much more efficiently than any of the other structures we don't tend to see in stable systems.

would you disagree with the idea that there are a lot of good ways of describing something, that are true for many cases but very wrong for others?

Re: NASA's Van Allen Probes Spot an Impenetrable Barrier in Space

#23

Post by ajcarpy2005 »

ajcarpy2005 wrote: post #20
pjungwir wrote: post #3

It's amazing how much they look like electron orbitals. . . . Sometimes its seems like the reason we see nature reuse the same patterns is not from any physical mechanism but simply because math only has so many "shapes." I am perpetually in awe at this mysterious order to our universe. Also: if these belts block high-energy electrons, can they teach us to build a force field that does the same? And can that solve th…

Well there is actually a very electrical and magnetic basis for many of the features and configurations we see in space and in star systems. There is a whole memmetic category heading known as Electric Universe, which although unfortunately contributed to by many crackpots, a very interesting and rational framework for understanding on at least a very basic level the 'why' and 'how' of what we observe in space. (why…

If you downvoted I'm not angry but I would appreciate transparency about what you think about the role of electricity and magnetism in the Universe at large. I tried to distinguish my comment from naive ideology by cautioning that I am not comfortable with the level of scientific rigor used under the 'umbrella' of Electric Universe studies but that I find the cognitive paths they use to be on a track that probably leads to rigorous scientific experiments and provable/disprovable theories. I find it a good philosophical framework, far better than, say, Greek Astrology...

Re: NASA's Van Allen Probes Spot an Impenetrable Barrier in Space

#24

Post by blueprint »

NeverEnough wrote: post #21
blueprint wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I wonder if I'll be attacked for saying this. Here goes. We always find these kinds of shapes because they are the shapes that appear through fluid mechanics. Space is a fluid, too. In a fluid, we have vortices (in the form of whirlpools, tornados, etc) because they allow material and energy to be moved much more efficiently than any of the other structures we don't tend to see in stable systems.

would you disagree with the idea that there are a lot of good ways of describing something, that are true for many cases but very wrong for others?

I don't know what you have in mind. In order for me, or anyone else who bases his/her judgement on fact, to give you an answer which you'll be able to recognize as right, you'll need to point out a concrete problem or question that contains facts that can be independently verified, rather than something abstract and hypothetical.

Re: NASA's Van Allen Probes Spot an Impenetrable Barrier in Space

#25

Post by michaelsbradley »

ajcarpy2005 wrote: post #23
ajcarpy2005 wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well there is actually a very electrical and magnetic basis for many of the features and configurations we see in space and in star systems. There is a whole memmetic category heading known as Electric Universe, which although unfortunately contributed to by many crackpots, a very interesting and rational framework for understanding on at least a very basic level the 'why' and 'how' of what we observe in space. (why…

If you downvoted I'm not angry but I would appreciate transparency about what you think about the role of electricity and magnetism in the Universe at large. I tried to distinguish my comment from naive ideology by cautioning that I am not comfortable with the level of scientific rigor used under the 'umbrella' of Electric Universe studies but that I find the cognitive paths they use to be on a track that probably le…

There is a website associated with the Los Alamos National Laboratory which offers a tour of the more solidly grounded Plasma Universe ideas:

http://plasmauniverse.info

On the books and journals page are shamelessly listed at least two titles which would be considered heretical by most mainstream space scientists: Eric Lerner's The Big Bang Never Happened and Don Scott's Electric Sky. The former critiques (still) problematical aspects of Lambda-CDM physical cosmology, while the latter explores such ideas as phenomenon like pulsars being essentially electrical in nature (not gravitational) and stars being powered by external electric currents rather than internal nuclear reactions.

Will such "crazy" theories ever make it into mainstream research institutions? Maybe... maybe not... but I'm glad that some serious-minded scientists are willing to buck orthodoxy and risk ridicule in order to explore interesting alternative theories.

Re: NASA's Van Allen Probes Spot an Impenetrable Barrier in Space

#26

Post by anigbrowl »

twic wrote: post #19
pbhjpbhj wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> build a planet-sized spacecraft // We have one of those already, just need to work on the propulsion and life-support systems.

And we're back to the stories of Liu Cixin again: http://www.pornokitsch.com/2012/07/underground-reading-the-w...

Hmm, that sounds very similar to this 2006 sci-fi novel: http://www.amazon.com/Cusp-Robert-A-Metzger/dp/0441013015

It reads like William Gibson reimagined by Michael Bay but I ended being entertained despite myself.

Re: NASA's Van Allen Probes Spot an Impenetrable Barrier in Space

#29

Post by davidw »

mturmon wrote: post #6
pjungwir wrote: post #3

It's amazing how much they look like electron orbitals. . . . Sometimes its seems like the reason we see nature reuse the same patterns is not from any physical mechanism but simply because math only has so many "shapes." I am perpetually in awe at this mysterious order to our universe. Also: if these belts block high-energy electrons, can they teach us to build a force field that does the same? And can that solve th…

You may already know this, but in your observation about "math having only so many shapes" has been explored in some depth. There is a wikipedia page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patterns_in_nature but I first learned about it from the book, "Patterns in Nature", by Peter S. Stevens ( http://www.amazon.com/Patterns-Nature-Peter-S-Stevens/dp/031... ), which was recommended to me by a noted poet.

I'm glad that page linked to this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Romanesco_broccoli

The first time I saw it in a store here in Italy I got all excited and started staring at it up close.

Re: NASA's Van Allen Probes Spot an Impenetrable Barrier in Space

#30

Post by hereonbusiness »

lifeisstillgood wrote: post #9

I find that the more we know about this planet that keeps us safe, a large moon to keep asteroids away and tectonics hot, a mass just enough to keep an atmosphere around us and a spinning iron core to provide "impenetrable barriers", the more I learn of this the less I think Fermi found a paradox and just that it's hard for life to stay alive in this universe.

Well there's Venus and Mars, both planets could have been much like Earth except both somehow ended up without that impenetrable barrier they probably had billions of years ago.

Three possibly habitable planets in one solar system, 1 out of 3 still habitable even after 4+ billion years, that's not bad.

Post reply on HN