RS2--daniel

So turns out that there are more rogue planets found than "normal" planets orbitting stars.

I'd love to understand more about this in the light that what we thought were galaxies are actually just solar systems and how these babies fit into the bigger picture.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pAsACBDi_sk

I mean considering the pull-push forces of normal solar systems, the only thing that makes sense to me is that these "rogue planets" are actually a different kind of "star" instead of viewing them as stellar fragments from how we understand solar systems (incl normal planets) are formed.

Thoughts?

They might be arks if they choose to build them in planet sizes also.

If you scale it down, these rogue planets aren't thousands of light years away (not that we'd have ANY instruments that can actually detect something that small, faint and distant... but that seems to be ignored by astronomers). Scale down by 10, and they end up being asteroids; part of the debris field that surrounds our solar system as a "star field."

Look at supernova explosions... you get a large, spherical distribution of rocks and dust (dust, because of gravitation and the CMBR, will make rocks, rocks will get larger, etc). The intermediate speed products, like the planets and rings, will form planar orbits nearer to the center of the explosion. The typical "solar system" looks much like a gyroscope, with the outer rings that hold the scope forming a sphere of debris, and the planets and belts spinning inside it.

If you look at the ancient texts, almost every one shows the solar system surrounded by a debris field of "Lords" (lights in the sky)--they did not assume they were stars. I have to wonder if THEY had the right perspective, and modern astronomy, known for it's outrageous claims, is what is wrong.

Arks move fairly quickly; take the LM "Great Ark," for example, which is about the size of Mars. It's been spotted over the centuries crossing the disc of the sun--and assumed to be the planet Vulcan. Of course, Vulcan never seems to repeat an orbit... that's because the LMs are out exploring the Universe, not hanging around a star. (I suspect that near approaches to the sun by Arks are some kind of "refueling," though the technical details currently escape me.)

daniel wrote:Arks move fairly quickly; take the LM "Great Ark," for example, which is about the size of Mars. It's been spotted over the centuries crossing the disc of the sun--and assumed to be the planet Vulcan. Of course, Vulcan never seems to repeat an orbit... that's because the LMs are out exploring the Universe, not hanging around a star. (I suspect that near approaches to the sun by Arks are some kind of "refueling," though the technical details currently escape me.)

Like this...?

Unidentified Object Captured Next to SUN
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O4s3ma4x8YQ

Djchrismac wrote:

daniel wrote:Arks move fairly quickly; take the LM "Great Ark," for example, which is about the size of Mars. It's been spotted over the centuries crossing the disc of the sun--and assumed to be the planet Vulcan. Of course, Vulcan never seems to repeat an orbit... that's because the LMs are out exploring the Universe, not hanging around a star. (I suspect that near approaches to the sun by Arks are some kind of "refueling," though the technical details currently escape me.)

Like this...?

Unidentified Object Captured Next to SUN
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O4s3ma4x8YQ

Yeah, I just hope its not the opposite, SM tech obstructing/diverting the Sun's CME energy sent to us...

daniel wrote:(I suspect that near approaches to the sun by Arks are some kind of "refueling," though the technical details currently escape me.)

So its like the "Destiny" in Stargate Universe series.

Wait those pictures just make me ask the question on why the sun in them isn't blindingly bright. I mean do they use filters or something to make it look like that or what's going on here I'm a bit naive when it comes to observation tech.

Djchrismac wrote:

daniel wrote:Arks move fairly quickly; take the LM "Great Ark," for example, which is about the size of Mars. It's been spotted over the centuries crossing the disc of the sun--and assumed to be the planet Vulcan. Of course, Vulcan never seems to repeat an orbit... that's because the LMs are out exploring the Universe, not hanging around a star. (I suspect that near approaches to the sun by Arks are some kind of "refueling," though the technical details currently escape me.)

Like this...?

No, that's a CPC (Coronal Prominence Cavity); astronomers have known about them for decades. Basically, you're looking at the prominence arch, which is like a half-toroid, down the long axis so you are seeing the circumference of the flare. Since the arch is a result of comagnetism (see Nehru's paper on sunspots), it has an inverse temperature gradient at its center, making it black--just like the "Coronal holes".

Ilkka wrote:So its like the "Destiny" in Stargate Universe series.

From what I got from Bruce's RS2 description, the Arks work by controlling the balance between their gravity at the surface, and the ultra-high speed motion of the central sun (a push-pull drive). I would assume that getting near the sun would greatly increase the magnetic ionization level and "recharge" the ultra-high speed motion of the core sun, which will normally diminish over time causing the Ark to "die." (SG-U was capturing hydrogen/plasma from a scrape with the sun.)

infinity wrote:Wait those pictures just make me ask the question on why the sun in them isn't blindingly bright. I mean do they use filters or something to make it look like that or what's going on here I'm a bit naive when it comes to observation tech.

The video said they were using two filters and the type indicates thermal imaging (false color to indicate the intensity of heat, black being cool and bright red being hot). All the satellite images of the sun are in false color, because the visible spectrum would just be a white ball.

daniel wrote:

Ilkka wrote:So its like the "Destiny" in Stargate Universe series.

From what I got from Bruce's RS2 description, the Arks work by controlling the balance between their gravity at the surface, and the ultra-high speed motion of the central sun (a push-pull drive). I would assume that getting near the sun would greatly increase the magnetic ionization level and "recharge" the ultra-high speed motion of the core sun, which will normally diminish over time causing the Ark to "die." (SG-U was capturing hydrogen/plasma from a scrape with the sun.)

"Same same, but different". It seems I forgot to use "almost", still very intriguing subject in the terms of propulsion, so simple pull and push.

Is the "magnetic ionization" term used only in RS or is there any valid info of it in the common science?

Ilkka wrote:Is the "magnetic ionization" term used only in RS or is there any valid info of it in the common science?

At the time of Larson's books, magnetic ionization was not known by conventional science--isotopic mass was just a mystery. Since the concept has been around for more than half a century, so I assume someone has stolen the idea from Larson by now and presented it under a different label. I know that's been the case with Larson's "natural units" of space and time.