| |
 |
|
| Science Forum Index » Physics Forum » Physics does not explain why astro bodies spin or rotate whi |
|
Page 3 of 7 Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 Next |
|
| Author |
Message |
| a_plutonium |
 Posted: Fri Nov 10, 2006 6:14 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
a_plutonium wrote:
(all else snipped except for this poorly written paragraph)
[quote:3a4652c8c4]
I agree, I would not want anything to do with people who are not
anything short of "scientific and logical". I usually quote sources
that are connected with science such as a edu address. There were some
Google hits of Harvard with magnetic field but noone tabulated into a
table form all the latest magnetic moments of the planets. Anyone have
a good website????
[/quote:3a4652c8c4]
I usually do not like making a post just to correct some of my grammar.
But the above is egregious for it shows that I post without reading
what I am typing. I post what is directly on my mind without proof
reading. The error I speak of is in that first sentence of "not
anything short of ". The error is of logic and that is worse than a
grammar or spelling error. I should have deleted the "not" for the
meaning I wanted to convey is that is "anything short of science and
logic".
But I want to also add something about my character of writing, in that
I knew instinctively of a habit of mine which is a good habit and which
others can profit from. Whenever I write something and which has a
possibility of misinterpretation, I so often, and this is automatic,
that I state what I am trying to convey in various forms or emphasis.
So that although someone reading the above post with its grammar error
of "not" when it should have been deleted, the reader could not fail to
understand that the direction and overall meaning of my post.
So what I am trying to say is that whenever you write about something,
try not to make the writing too short and too brief because if the
important message is too short and too brief that a reader would not
understand due to a grammar error.
In most of my writings, I tend to do a lot of repeating and alot of
picture drawing in different angles, and that is because I do want the
reader to grab a hold of the basic substance and not get caught up in
superficial sideshow or grammar or errors of writing.
This is a bigger trouble in science journal writings, in that so much
of what is printed-- the important things are said only once and not
highlighted, and the rest of the message is more likely distractions.
So even though I had a "not" where it should not have been, any reader
of my above post could not escape my meaning of what I wanted to
convey.
When I write to sci. newsgroups, I try to elaborate and emphasize in
various angles of my main message, and this is a good habit in all
writing.
Archimedes Plutonium
www.iw.net/~a_plutonium
whole entire Universe is just one big atom
where dots of the electron-dot-cloud are galaxies |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| a_plutonium |
| Posted: Fri Nov 10, 2006 11:47 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Now if this new Faraday Law is true with its u i Gravity Displacement
term where Space is the ocean of positrons and gravity is a EM
attraction for mass and matter, then the warping of space around the
planet Jupiter would demand that its satellites have the largest
Magnetic Moments as compared to other planetary satellites of near
equal mass.
Just as Mercury is 5 times greater Magnetic field compared to Venus or
Mars is because of the Space warping nearby the Sun.
So I hope someone can locate a table listing of the most recent revised
Magnetic Moments of not only the planets but of their satellites also.
And I have been looking around to find out the situation concerning
comets and asteroids as to magnetic fields on those bodies.
So the summary is this: a astro body has a Magnetic Field due to at
least two major sources (1) internal dynamo of a liquid (2) the
intrinsic magnetic field due to the fact the body possesses a specific
gravitational mass and the gravity of nearby mass, and call this the
Gravity Displacement of the Faraday-Plutonium Law of the Maxwell
Equations the u i term in Integral E dot ds= (ue) -dB/dt + u i
Every astro body has a Gravity Displacement and thus a magnetic field,
however, a body has to be large enough in mass to detect its intrinsic
magnetic field.
In short, gravity creates magnetism.
Now I need to study how the pecular and strange magnetic fields of
Uranus and Neptune is a planetary form of the Aharanov-Bohm Effect of a
phase shift.
Archimedes Plutonium
www.iw.net/~a_plutonium
whole entire Universe is just one big atom
where dots of the electron-dot-cloud are galaxies |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| a_plutonium |
| Posted: Fri Nov 10, 2006 11:47 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
a_plutonium wrote:
(much snipped)
[quote:7c2cfcf79e]
So the summary is this: a astro body has a Magnetic Field due to at
least two major sources (1) internal dynamo of a liquid (2) the
intrinsic magnetic field due to the fact the body possesses a specific
gravitational mass and the gravity of nearby mass, and call this the
Gravity Displacement of the Faraday-Plutonium Law of the Maxwell
Equations the u i term in Integral E dot ds= (ue) -dB/dt + u i
Every astro body has a Gravity Displacement and thus a magnetic field,
however, a body has to be large enough in mass to detect its intrinsic
magnetic field.
In short, gravity creates magnetism.
[/quote:7c2cfcf79e]
And here should provide a very delicate experiment to prove or deny the
assertion.
We build an apparatus of a massive object which should have no magnetic
field. But because it is so massive, that a tiny magnetic field arises
and is proportional to the displacement current u i of both the new
Faraday Law and the displacement current in the old Ampere-Maxwell Law.
This reminds me of those huge pendulums of metal at Univ Maryland by
Weber to try to detect gravity waves. Instead of that, use those metal
balls to detect a magnetic field that really should not be there under
the old Faraday Law.
Archimedes Plutonium
www.iw.net/~a_plutonium
whole entire Universe is just one big atom
where dots of the electron-dot-cloud are galaxies |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| a_plutonium |
| Posted: Sat Nov 11, 2006 4:15 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
--- quoting http://www.igpp.ucla.edu/galileo/results.html
The Galilean Moons
Passes by the moons have revealed that Ganymede has an intrinsic
magnetic field -- large enough to carve a mini-magnetosphere out of
Jupiter's magnetosphere. This surprising result has created
considerable interest among planetary scientists who are trying to
understand the source of this magnetic field as no other moon in the
solar system is known have an intrinsic magnetic field
A large magnetic perturbation was measured near Io. The magnetometer
team has concluded that it is likely, but yet uncertain, that Io also
has an intrinsic magnetic field. The ambiguity arises because strong
currents flow in the plasma near Io modifying the magnetic field.
There, then, is some possibility that plasma currents could explain
these observations.
In late 1999, Galileo will pass over Io's south pole at low altitude.
The magnetometer team believes that data from this pass will
unambiguously establish the source of the magnetic signature.
A pass by Callisto showed no intrinsic magnetic field. Europa has, at
most, a very small intrinsic magnetic field; additional passes will
probably help constrain its magnitude and its symmetry properties.
--- end quoting ---
Apparently the science literature on the magnetic fields of planets and
satellites is in need of alot of assembling into order. Someone should
have tabulated the most current numerical data of magnetic moments of
these astro bodies, but noone has. The above is mid 1990s old, and if
memory serves me that after Mars robot landings a few years back also
had some robots visiting Jupiter and its satellites. So there must be
more recent data on Jupiter satellites than the above 1990s.
But the above mentions that Ganymede has an exorbitantly high magnetic
field.
So if the Positron Space where gravity is the attraction of positron
space to ordinary matter/mass (since it is bits and pieces of the last
electrons of an Atom Totality) is correct. Then intrinsic magnetic
fields exist for every body of mass. And where the intrinsic magnetic
field is greatest is where bodies are nearby to larger mass bodies. The
planet Mercury has 5 times greater magnetic field than Venus or Mars
because of the gravity warp nearby the Sun.
So the gravity warp of Ganymede because it lies nearby the largest
planet-- Jupiter would account for Ganymede as the highest intrinsic
magnetic field of all the satellites.
It is a shame that this vital data information as to magnetic fields of
planets and their satellites is not tabulated.
Archimedes Plutonium
www.iw.net/~a_plutonium
whole entire Universe is just one big atom
where dots of the electron-dot-cloud are galaxies |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| a_plutonium |
| Posted: Mon Nov 20, 2006 6:46 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
(snipped)
[quote:78f303adf0]
So let the observational evidence come in. What is the precession of
the satellites of Jupiter and Saturn and do the agree with GR, or, if I
am correct, they agree with a Displacement Current in Faraday's Law.
Excuse me for a day or two as I search to find out what the precessions
of Europa, Ganymede, Titan.
[/quote:78f303adf0]
Apparently there are deviations and anomalies in the General Relativity
as regards to precession of satellites of Jupiter and Saturn.
I found this website:
http://dda.harvard.edu/meetings/2003/program.pdf
Archimedes Plutonium
www.iw.net/~a_plutonium
whole entire Universe is just one big atom
where dots of the electron-dot-cloud are galaxies |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Bob Kolker |
| Posted: Mon Nov 20, 2006 9:26 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
a_plutonium wrote:
[quote:162e8b161f]One can easily mount an argument that GR is proven false because the
Sun should have more of a perturbation affect on Mercury than the sum
total of the other planets. It is illogical to think the other planets
cause a 400 and the Sun causes only 50.
[/quote:162e8b161f]
If so, present a rigorous argument (show the math!) or produce a
reference to it in the vetted and refereed literature. Stop waving your
hands.
[quote:162e8b161f]
So the central idea of GR that mass bends space and other mass follows
the curvature of that bent space would raise huge doubts that GR can
ever explain the precession of Mercury.
GTR predicts it perfectly.[/quote:162e8b161f]
[quote:162e8b161f]Now Precession is a torque that changes the direction of
angular-momentum. Mercury is so close to the Sun and the Sun is so
massive compared to the other planets, that why should any physicist
consider GR as viable.
[/quote:162e8b161f]
Because
1. It predicts correctly (so far).
2. It has never been empirically falsified, at least not in a weak
gravitational field.
Bob Kolker |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| a_plutonium |
| Posted: Mon Nov 20, 2006 5:35 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Now I was just simply looking for the data on the precession of the
satellites of Jupiter and Saturn because if Displacement-Current is
correct and General Relativity is false would give different numerical
results for these satellites.
If you Google search for "deviations or anomaly or discrepancy" for the
precession of satellites, you get many hits:
http://www.seti.org/site/pp.asp?c=ktJ2J9MMIsE&b=1321327
citebase Search
Lue and Starkman derived a secular extra-perihelion \omega precession
of 5\times 10^-4 ... The discrepancy with the predictions of general
relativity is 6%. ...
www.citebase.org/search?format=RSS&submit=1&author=Iorio%2C+Lorenzo&pos=40
- 78k - Supplemental Result - Cached - Similar pages
Even Wikipedia has a entry for anomalies talking about "orbital
resonance".
So I think what the problem is concerning Precession of Mercury and of
Titan, Ganymede, Io, Europa et al, is that Displacement Current
involves "Rings" as well as satellites, whereas General Relativity is
deaf dumb and silent about Ring structure.
And there is a new term that I need to understand where some call it
"apse rotation"
So I think the trouble is that General Relativity is utterly false and
never really agreed with any data of Mercury precession since Mercury
precessed 450 arc--- and GR predicts 50 of those arc--- but GR never
included the remaining 400 arc precession. This is not support of a
theory of science but a fraud scam on the science community.
General Relativity, if correct should explain not only the Rings of
Saturn and other planets but their satellite precessions.
The anomaly and deviations from General Relativity concerning Io,
Ganymede, Europa and Titan and the fact of Saturn Rings which GR never
even entered an explanation, tells us that General Relativity is phony
baloney.
Now a DISPLACEMENT CURRENT as explanation for both Rings and precession
enters the picture.
The rings of Saturn are explained not by General Relativity but by
Maxwell Equations with an added term in the Faraday Law called a
Displacement Current. You see, Jupiter and the Sun and Saturn are
enveloped by a sea of positrons as Space. Space is an ocean of
positrons and all the matter and mass we see are electron bits and
pieces of the Atom Totality. So positrons have a magnetic attraction to
mass and bends space giving rise to what we call "gravity". Quasars
bend space so much that matter-antimatter annihilation ensues and an
outpouring of quasar energy.
In the case of the Sun, Jupiter and Saturn the bending of space is so
much greater that its satellites nearby receive an extra dose of
precession energy and thus Io, Europa and Ganymede have the strongest
precessions in our solar system. The precession of Mercury has no large
component due to the other planets but of the 450 arc-- precession is
virtually 99 percent due to the Sun. So where General Relativity
predicted 50 arc precession due to the Sun and the other 400 arc due to
the other planets was a big gaffe and joke in physics history.
Virtually all of the 450 arc precession of Mercury is due to the Sun
solo. The Magnetic pull of large astro bodies such as the Sun, Jupiter,
Saturn causes both precession and ring formation.
And another area of physics that needs revision is the prediction of
the bending of light near the Sun as given by General Relativity and as
given by Displacement Current. Both may predict the same number but
they digress or diverge.
Archimedes Plutonium
www.iw.net/~a_plutonium
whole entire Universe is just one big atom
where dots of the electron-dot-cloud are galaxies |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| a_plutonium |
| Posted: Tue Nov 21, 2006 2:46 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Bob Kolker wrote:
[quote:69983deba5]a_plutonium wrote:
One can easily mount an argument that GR is proven false because the
Sun should have more of a perturbation affect on Mercury than the sum
total of the other planets. It is illogical to think the other planets
cause a 400 and the Sun causes only 50.
If so, present a rigorous argument (show the math!) or produce a
reference to it in the vetted and refereed literature. Stop waving your
hands.
[/quote:69983deba5]
Sure, yesterday I have a new theory and you expect me to have a book
full of math tomorrow. Even before I find out what the precession of
Ganymede, Io, Titan are.
[quote:69983deba5]
So the central idea of GR that mass bends space and other mass follows
the curvature of that bent space would raise huge doubts that GR can
ever explain the precession of Mercury.
GTR predicts it perfectly.
[/quote:69983deba5]
Well here is the table by Wikipedia on the precession of Mercury.
--- quoting Wikipedia on precession of Mercury ---
The total observed precession of Mercury is 5600 arc-seconds per
century with respect to the position of the vernal equinox of the Sun.
This precession is due the following causes (the numbers quoted are the
modern values):
Sources of the precession of perihelion for Mercury Amount (arc
s/century) Cause
5025".6 Coordinate
531".4 Gravitational tugs of the other planets
< 0.1 Oblateness of the sun
42".98±0".04 General relativity
5600".0 Total
5599".7 Observed
Thus, the predictions of general relativity perfectly account for the
missing precession (the remaining discrepancy is within observational
error). All other planets experience perihelion shifts as well, but,
since they are further away from the Sun and have lower speeds, their
shifts are lower and harder to observe. For example, the perihelion
shift of Earth's orbit due to general relativity effects is about 5
seconds of arc per century.
--- end quoting Wikipedia ---
I called Bob a sucker, because anyone can see that the components are
not hard fast but tentative and speculative. The category of
"gravitational tugs" is not clearcut.
The Displacement Current theory of gravity would say that 90% to 99% of
the precession of Mercury is caused by the Sun solo and little to no
involvement by the planets.
So General Relativity never achieved a victory with the precession of
Mercury since it is a hodge podge of speculative categories.
If Bob thinks otherwise then the logical reasoning would ask him to
form a table for Ganymede or Titan:
5000" Coordinate for Ganymede or Titan
600" Gravitational tugs of the other planets and Sun
40" General relativity
5640".0 Total
5639 Observed
So Bob and other suckers of General Relativity have to explain why they
accept gravity tugs by other planets for Mercury, yet when it comes to
Ganymede and Titan they never factor in any "other planets or even
include the Sun".
Science does not work where "gravity tugs" are factored in to Mercury
but not other satellites.
[quote:69983deba5]
Now Precession is a torque that changes the direction of
angular-momentum. Mercury is so close to the Sun and the Sun is so
massive compared to the other planets, that why should any physicist
consider GR as viable.
Because
1. It predicts correctly (so far).
[/quote:69983deba5]
That is not support for General Relativity because they worked from the
"observed known precession" and then just cooked the books as to the
other components of "other planet gravity tugs".
[quote:69983deba5]2. It has never been empirically falsified, at least not in a weak
gravitational field.
Bob Kolker
[/quote:69983deba5]
The precession of Io, Ganymede, Europa, Titan falsify General
Relativity.
The precession of every other object in our Solar System should be
directly proportional to their *parent's gravity pull* and to the
magnetic field of the parent. General Relativity is not a direct
proportionality and does not include magnetism. So GR fails. The
Displacement Current in Faraday's new Law is proportional to the mass
of parent and magnetism of parent (parent is the Sun in the case of
Mercury).
As for the deflection of light near the Sun, it maybe the case where
both GR and Displacement Current predict the same math result. This
maybe the case because both GR and Displacement Current hold as true
the concept-- mass bends space and other mass follows the curvature of
that space. So it may turn out that GR and Displacement Current predict
the same deflection of light passing near the Sun. I have to check into
this.
Archimedes Plutonium
www.iw.net/~a_plutonium
whole entire Universe is just one big atom
where dots of the electron-dot-cloud are galaxies |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| a_plutonium |
| Posted: Tue Nov 21, 2006 2:54 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
a_plutonium wrote:
[quote:2f2b8d8259]
The precession of Io, Ganymede, Europa, Titan falsify General
Relativity.
The precession of every other object in our Solar System should be
directly proportional to their *parent's gravity pull* and to the
magnetic field of the parent. General Relativity is not a direct
proportionality and does not include magnetism. So GR fails. The
Displacement Current in Faraday's new Law is proportional to the mass
of parent and magnetism of parent (parent is the Sun in the case of
Mercury).
As for the deflection of light near the Sun, it maybe the case where
both GR and Displacement Current predict the same math result. This
maybe the case because both GR and Displacement Current hold as true
the concept-- mass bends space and other mass follows the curvature of
that space. So it may turn out that GR and Displacement Current predict
the same deflection of light passing near the Sun. I have to check into
this.
[/quote:2f2b8d8259]
Archimedes Plutonium
www.iw.net/~a_plutonium
whole entire Universe is just one big atom
where dots of the electron-dot-cloud are galaxies |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| a_plutonium |
| Posted: Tue Nov 21, 2006 6:56 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Another huge hole of skepticism over the observation of 4.5 cm
deflection of star light near the edge of the Sun. Is the fact that if
this is really true, why not a 3 cm deflection of a distance away from
the surface of the Sun, or a 1 cm deflection even further away. Why is
this experiment only about a 4.5 cm deflection on the edge of the Sun.
Because of that narrowness of experiment indicates to me that the
entire issue of deflection is a bogus issue and a bogus experimental
result.
And if deflection is true, then we need not be confined to the Sun but
should be able to spot a deflection of starlight from Jupiter. And as
far as I know, noone has found any deflection from Jupiter.
I do know that there was a mad rush dash to say "Einstein is right". It
was a century in which everything Einstein said was granted to be true
even before anyone built experiments to confirm.
And about the only two confirmations of General Relativity are that of
Mercury precession and Solar deflection of starlight. But both of these
are extremely difficult experiments to set up and both have alot of
"fudging room".
Archimedes Plutonium
www.iw.net/~a_plutonium
whole entire Universe is just one big atom
where dots of the electron-dot-cloud are galaxies |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Bob Kolker |
| Posted: Tue Nov 21, 2006 8:28 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
a_plutonium wrote:
[quote:6f05ef1535]
Sure, yesterday I have a new theory and you expect me to have a book
full of math tomorrow. Even before I find out what the precession of
Ganymede, Io, Titan are.
[/quote:6f05ef1535]
Put it on Archivx so that it can be reviewed. That is where almost all
the physics and math prepubs go. Stop waving your hands. Show the math.
Bob Kolker |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| a_plutonium |
| Posted: Tue Nov 21, 2006 11:45 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
The title says it mostly all. I was trying to think of a electrical or
magnetic phenomenon which simulates the endresult of what Saturn has as
its rings. Is there something in EM that can simulate or model what the
Saturn ring structure is?
Archimedes Plutonium
www.iw.net/~a_plutonium
whole entire Universe is just one big atom
where dots of the electron-dot-cloud are galaxies |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| a_plutonium |
| Posted: Wed Nov 22, 2006 5:59 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
a_plutonium wrote:
[quote:3e186628f5]The title says it mostly all. I was trying to think of a electrical or
magnetic phenomenon which simulates the endresult of what Saturn has as
its rings. Is there something in EM that can simulate or model what the
Saturn ring structure is?
[/quote:3e186628f5]
Now here is a picture of the Model that Maxwell made for his work on
Saturn's ring.
http://www-history.mcs.st-andrews.ac.uk/Miscellaneous/JCMBHouse/SaturnRings.html
Problem with that model is that it is not a electrical-magnetic device,
as far as I can tell.
Although it does remind me of the disc on an electrostatic generator.
So is the disc on a electrostatic generator, in any way shape or form,
can it be construed as a "ring structure" for the whole of the
generator?
What I need is something purely inside EM which forms a ring structure
of tiny particles. Can a magnet form a ring structure of iron filings?
Can a dynamo form a ring structure?
Archimedes Plutonium
www.iw.net/~a_plutonium
whole entire Universe is just one big atom
where dots of the electron-dot-cloud are galaxies |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Bob Kolker |
| Posted: Wed Nov 22, 2006 4:11 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
a_plutonium wrote:
[quote:8da6faf176]The title says it mostly all. I was trying to think of a electrical or
magnetic phenomenon which simulates the endresult of what Saturn has as
its rings. Is there something in EM that can simulate or model what the
Saturn ring structure is?
[/quote:8da6faf176]
No. And for the simple reason that magnets have two poles. That is what
you get from a field generated by spin 1 bosons. Gravitation if it can
be mediated by a field is mediated by spin 2 bosons. Gravitation and
Electromagnetism are not the same.
Bob Kolker |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Phineas T Puddleduck |
| Posted: Thu Nov 23, 2006 4:34 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
In article <1164253048.570220.127220@e3g2000cwe.googlegroups.com>,
"a_plutonium" <a_plutonium@hotmail.com> wrote:
[quote:15efb5af99]The theory of General Relativity had gotten only a 1/2 truth. It is
correct that "mass bends space and other mass follows the curvature of
that bent space". But GR never explains what space is. It treats space
as a physical entity but when it calculates something like Mercury
precession or starlight deflection, it treats Space as a vacuum.
[/quote:15efb5af99]
Seeing as you don't actually understand what the GR prediction for
Mercury actually was, I'll pass...
--
Thermodynamics claims another crown!
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/heacon.html
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
All times are GMT - 5 Hours
The time now is Sun Nov 08, 2009 7:03 pm
|
|