the absurd implied density of moons kills gravity

[meemoe_uk]

Hi all,

Don't know how many of you have already had the thoughts I've been having recently. But these thoughts have culminated in a major conclusion.

Gravity theory is wrong.

Many of us here suspected before that gravity was just electro-static attraction of a body with an ionized core and a negatively charged surface.

But now I'm much more sure of it.
Why?

I've just realised that NASA's gravity calculations that assert many of the moons and planets in the solar system have below or around the density of water is just... well... telling that gravity theory is wrong.

Now that we know comets are made of rock, this has dealt a heavy blow to the idea that ice is a major component to make up the bulk of a moon. We've been stuck with the idea that apparently low density moons that look to be made of rock but according to gravity calculations are in fact made of ice.
Well I'm discarding that idea.
I refuse to believe that so-called rocky moons, that look rocky, are mostly made of ice and other volatiles that are even lighter.
I think they are made of rock. Basalt, feldspar, olivine, quartz, mica, the usual stuff.

I refuse to believe rocky moons are only 6% rock at most, and over 94% ice and light volatiles!

Tethys is what it appears to be : A big ball of rock!
But NASA says its mean density is 0.983g/cm^3. They're wrong.

Ontop of that, we've got the electric universe planetary science assertion that says the gas giants aren't actually gas giants. They have solid surfaces close beneath the top of their opaque atmospheres. And yet here again, NASA says the gas giants have very low densities. NASA says Saturn has a lower density than water. This would make sense if they were gas giants, but it makes no sense if they are mostly rock by volume.

So if rocky moons have density of rock ( about 5g/cm^3 ) how does this affect our calculations and understanding of the dynamics of orbital motion?

NASA calculate the density of a moon by 1st calculating its assumed mass via orbital mechanics based on newton's gravity law. i.e. they look at tiny perturbations, wobbles and interaction between moons and planets. If the mass of a planet is assumed, then any planet or moon that interacts with the known mass planet can have it's mass estimated. Of course in practice , to work out the mass of a moon of saturn, we might use the mass of Saturn, which in turn needed the mass of the sun to be known, which in turn needed the mass of the Earth to be known etc.
Now we've pulled away one of the assumptions of gravity, the whole load of mass calculations for moons based on mass calculations for other planets based on mass calculations for the sun and Earth falls apart.

Instead, we put in place the ion core and negative charged surface planet \ moon theory.
Planets and moons are in mutually attractive orbits due to electro-magnetic attraction. This electro magnetic attraction can vary independently of the mass of the planet.

It's not a co-incidence that Io is the most electrically active moon in the solar system AND is considered to have the highest density of any moon in the solar system!...

... because the high electrical activity of Io is directly responsible for its strong electric attraction to Jupiter and apparent high density if gravity calculations are ( wrongly ) assumed correct.

This explains too much, too easily for it to be wrong. Occam's razor puts it as the best theory.
The reason why most moons and planets seem to have implausibly low density is because Earth is the base for all our solar system mass calculation, but Earth is one of the most highly electrically active, even perhaps the most active, at least relative to its size, planets in the solar system. So if we use Earth to calibrate gravity constants, all other bodies be calculated to have lower mass than expected and have implausibly low densities.
Hence NASA concludes most solar system bodies to have implausibly low density.

Right, hope you understand this, and how important it is.
Gravity is dead. Completely. Long live ionic core moons and planets theory.

At college we all saw the equations of electro-static attraction and gravity to be identical in algebra, only the scalar quantities are different, and we all wondered. All that wondering has finally come to something, for me at least.

[meemoe_uk]

Here's the wiki list of solar system bodies. You can order them by density with a mouse click on the table.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_So ... ts_by_size

Earth is ranked #1 densest object in the solar system by our conventional science authorities, followed closely by mercury, the planet that gets ionized due to proximity with sun more than any other. Io is ranked 5th.

I notice that the Galilean moons have matching orders of density and orbital distance. Also, I would say I'd say electrical activity is fits with this order, with Io being the most active and Callisto being the least.
An unlikely and awkward pattern under the gravity model. But under electro-magnetic attraction, it wiil have explanation. Moon density is a free fudge factor to star-system gravity based orbital mechanics like dark matter is to gravity based galactic rotation mechanics.

[Xuxalina Rihhia]

Since Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus and Neptune were once stars, then stars should have solide surfaces underneath their very hot atmospheres as well.

Also, wouldn't the gravity of the satellites of our planets as well as small planets like Pluto, Eris, Mars and Mercury have much higher gravities than claimed by NASA? Some say that the Moon's real gravity is 2/3rds that of Earths--partially because it spins so slowly and the rest its intrinsic electrogravitic field. Io, Europa, Ganymede and Callisto as well as Titan and Triton will most likely have much higher gravities. Perhaps the airless worlds have some atmosphere after all due to the higher gravity.

[meemoe_uk]

Apart from noting that the giant planets are a long distance from the sun, I haven't looked at idea that they are captured and deactivated stars.

>Also, wouldn't the gravity of the satellites of our planets as well as small planets like Pluto, Eris, Mars and Mercury have much higher gravities than claimed by NASA?

The conventional calculated gravity of moons and planets is correct. It's the inferred mass and density that is wrong.

Gravity of moons\planets is electrostatic attraction. This varies with the amount of ionization in the core of the planet, and not directly from the mass or density.

[Ozelo]

The conventional calculated gravity of moons and planets is correct. It's the inferred mass and density that is wrong.

I agree with this statement. Actually all that we observed about gravitation is how it behave, not what causes it to exist in the first place (at least, not experimentally).

Now talking some "heresy" here, since when I first heard that protons and electrons have the same charge but very different mass relative to each other I started to suspect that such thing also apply to subatomic particles. Even suspected that a true neutral particle (in a way that it had no charge nor mass) couldn't possibly exist unless you assume that the vacuum it self are made of a substrate with such similar properties of that "true neutral" particle concept.

I'm saying it in analogy to steel spheres, which alone does not attract each other than a pretty small "gravitation". But it the presence of some magnetic field it does attract each other in a way that someone could say that "its mass was changed due to the field, thus it has now a stronger "gravitational" attraction than before."

In other words, it is like to say that in order for a body to move, the "vacuum" must flow through its interstices. The more massive is the body, the more difficult it is to flow through. It looks similarly like that effect when you drop a neodymium magnet inside a vertical copper tube: It slowly fall with a constant velocity like "the air inside the tube were of such very high viscosity fluid".

Does it make any sense for you?

[Sparky]

meemoe:

Gravity theory is wrong.

Which theory...
Newton's algebra works, doesn't it?
Miles Mathis claims that Newton's equations include "charge", but he uses G as a non-constant.

Planets and moons are in mutually attractive orbits due to electro-magnetic attraction. This electro magnetic attraction can vary independently of the mass of the planet.

Again, Miles claims that the only consideration for gravity i radius.
I don't know the math, but if you do, could you check these things out at Mathis' site?

Gravity is dead.

errrrr, it's okay to theorize as such, but keep in mind that F=ma, and it's that sudden resistance to acceleration that is dangerous....


(((((((((*****************************

Xux--:

Since Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus and Neptune were once stars, --

Jeffrey, is that you?

EU suggests that they came from stars, in an act of fissioning , to relieve electrical stress. Is that what you mean?

**********************************
Ozleo:

when I first heard that protons and electrons have the same charge but very different mass relative to each other ---------the "vacuum" must flow through its interstices.

The electron's apparent negative charge is about equal to the proton's positive, though the proton is 18?? times as big....

By vacuum , do you imply an aether?

I'm saying it in analogy to steel spheres, which alone does not attract each other than a pretty small "gravitation". But it the presence of some magnetic field it does attract each other in a way that someone could say that "its mass was changed due to the field, thus it has now a stronger "gravitational" attraction than before."

I would say no.... the mass of steel balls does not change, as far as I know.

The magnetic field is on the order of 39 times gravity, so a small magnetic field will overcome gravity in that instance. It has to do with the magic of magnetism.

As for magnet down a copper tube, I think that has something to do with induced magnetic eddy currents in the copper. Then you get a magnet magnet effect...

[meemoe_uk]

>Newton's algebra works, doesn't it?

It works like dark matter theory works for galaxy rotation. By using a fudge factor. An elephant in the room when using Newtonian gravity to model the solar system is that we have no way of knowing the internal composition of planets or moons. Even the Earth's internal composition is guessed. Therefore, without knowing the composition we can't know the mass or density of a planet.

At the root of assumptions for gravity is the determination of big G. But if you've ever followed the latest on big G research, you know there's serious problems.
e.g.
http://www.scientificamerican.com/artic ... slide-show

Even accounting for its very weak strength, good experiments are finding it harder than expected to determine it accurately. It seems to wander in strength too much, and different types of experiments give unexpected different answers.
The key thing is, when the original big G experiment was made with lead balls, there was little understanding of electro-magnetic or quantum forces that might result in micro attraction between them.
The result is, that the base constant of gravity doesn't behave like a constant when we try and measure it, is another sign that gravity is broken. It hides behind the fact that gravity is weak.

So when it comes to using big G in the solar system, the free parameter - planet\moon density was used just like a fudge factor to make newton's gravity formula and big G work. The result is planets and moons less dense than water. Since then our community has decided the giant planets aren't gas giants and comets aren't made of ice. So it seems unreasonable that giant planets are as low density as newtonian gravity asserts.
Where does this leave the moons of Saturn? A crucial evidence we need is a chemical sample of their surfaces. I don't think chemical composition of solids can be measured from orbit, we need a surface lander. If the surface is ice, then I'm wrong. But I think there's a good chance its light coloured rock, in which case it's a heavy blow against gravity.

[Ozelo]

Ozleo:

when I first heard that protons and electrons have the same charge but very different mass relative to each other ---------the "vacuum" must flow through its interstices.

The electron's apparent negative charge is about equal to the proton's positive, though the proton is 18?? times as big....

I'm Ozelo, pleased to meet you. They say that the proton has ~1842 times the mass of an electron.

By vacuum , do you imply an aether?

Not really but kinda. In this case, I thought about considering the "vacuum" as a "continuous matter" and the "matter" as a "granular interstices" or "loopholes" inside the vacuum.

I'm saying it in analogy to steel spheres, which alone does not attract each other than a pretty small "gravitation". But it the presence of some magnetic field it does attract each other in a way that someone could say that "its mass was changed due to the field, thus it has now a stronger "gravitational" attraction than before."

I would say no.... the mass of steel balls does not change, as far as I know.

I know that steel spheres does not change mass as far as we know and it was not a good analogy to be used for meemoe_uk, sorry.

The magnetic field is on the order of 39 times gravity, so a small magnetic field will overcome gravity in that instance. It has to do with the magic of magnetism.

As for magnet down a copper tube, I think that has something to do with induced magnetic eddy currents in the copper. Then you get a magnet magnet effect...

[/quote]

10^39 times, yes, looks like that. It seems that I should use "unknown words" in order to better express "relations to what is actually unknown", right?

But now that you mention, I'm intended to make a plasma particles computer simulation. I stopped my self facing some "mind loop" when considering zero initial velocities for all particles. Seems my problem was that the system need some "intrinsic power" in order to exist motion.

Frankly speaking and apart of all the stuff that we know already, I still don't believe (not convinced tho) on "intrinsic properties of matter". I still do not understand why packed spheres (please do not consider shape shifting spheres here like it was on the Newton kissing problem) of the same size allow only three distinct packages in which all twelve spheres touch the central one. I even made a program to check if initially random position spheres spontaneously create these packages when simply applying some inverse square law to the system.

Have you heard about it?

[Sparky]

ozelo:

Have you heard about it?

no... ...well, I don't know if I have..

meemo:

It works like dark matter theory works for galaxy rotation. By using a fudge factor. An elephant in the room when using Newtonian gravity to model the solar system is that we have no way of knowing the internal composition of planets or moons. Even the Earth's internal composition is guessed. Therefore, without knowing the composition we can't know the mass or density of a planet.

I think that mass and density are two different things. To know composition we need density and other data. Mass is a compound.....Ireallydonno...mass has always confused me.

But, G: Milesmathis.com is using G as a non constant equivalence. G acts as a transform between the two fields, between the foundational E/M field and the gravitational field.

[Aardwolf]

The vast majority of meteorites and recovered non-terrestrial rocks have been around the same density as the Earth's crust. There's every reason to believe that planets, moons asteroids etc. are all of a very similar density. As meemoe_uk states, density figures are adjusted simply to substantiate gravity formula. It's far more likely that orbits are electromagnetic in nature.

[meemoe_uk]

thanks for the vote of confidence aardwolf. But I think your point of meteorites is flawed. It could be that lots of ice meteors enter Earth's atmosphere, but they would melt long b4 the ground, and , even if they got to the ground, they'd melt most of the time b4 we recovered them.


I'd like to know if this gravity is wrong theory is a common view in the EU community. I only realised it recently, but others have been in EU longer so should have figured it out long ago.

So why haven't we had a youTube vid on it yet?

[Aardwolf]

thanks for the vote of confidence aardwolf. But I think your point of meteorites is flawed. It could be that lots of ice meteors enter Earth's atmosphere, but they would melt long b4 the ground, and , even if they got to the ground, they'd melt most of the time b4 we recovered them.


I'd like to know if this gravity is wrong theory is a common view in the EU community. I only realised it recently, but others have been in EU longer so should have figured it out long ago.

So why haven't we had a youTube vid on it yet?

I am only refering to rock meteorites that have been recovered. Not sure that I buy that ice meteors even exist. If ice is exposed to basically zero atmosphere I would expect it to sublimate to vapour long before it hits Earth.

I think that the EU position is that gravity is present, it just isnt the only force in play. Personally I would argue it's all the same.

[Sparky]

hey, meemo

We don't know what gravity is. but the equations work well enough, so someday we will figure it out...

Same for electricity...

[meemoe_uk]

hey sparky, we dont know what dark matter\energy is. dark matter and dark energy work well enough. If your happy using as many fudge factors as your theory is weak, then you'll have an easy time with theory.

I've set myself a tricky goal. zero fudge factors. Makes theory a bit harder but the reward is you get a predictive theory, rather than a excuse \ postdicitve theory.

btw I'm not sure you've read anything in my posts. Any chance you can do a little school work exercise and repeat back to me in your own words the key points in my previous posts?

[meemoe_uk]

I think that the EU position is that gravity is present, it just isnt the only force in play. Personally I would argue it's all the same.

I don't think gravity, as an independent force from electro-magnetism, exists. It's an electro-magnetic effect, a very small one.