Where did our Moon come from?

[celeste]

We have used examples within our solar system to try to understand how solar systems function. But we have many examples of odd ball exo solar systems, that defy any attempt at generalizations.

Nick, I think we should start right here in the solar system, and look at three issues (perhaps there are more?) that the mainstream has totally glossed over. We have the precession of lunar orbits, that relationship between orbital eccentricity and inclination, and Bode's law.

1. We know that Earth precesses. One area where the mainstream and the mythology agree, is that Earth precesses about a point in Draco. Our best estimates are that around 13,000 years from now, our pole will be a full 47 degrees away from where it is now. The proposed mechanism, was that gravitational tugs on an oblate Earth, caused the Earth to precess. By the same token, an oblate gas giant, like Uranus, should also precess. If we want to switch to magnetic forces, like Charles proposes, we should still expect both the Earth AND Uranus to precess. It would seem to be difficult to provide a mechanism where Earth precesses, yet Uranus does not.
Why is that a problem? Well as you pointed out, Uranus has satellites that orbit in the planet's equatorial plane. What are the choices here? Either we are living in a special time, where Uranus' pole has precessed to line up with those lunar orbits? Or those lunar orbits precess too? As you pointed out, Uranus is nearly on it's side, meaning that it's pole should sweep out wide arcs in the sky (as opposed to the relatively small circle swept out by Earth's pole). Those lunar orbits ( if they remain in Uranus' equatorial plane) should then be able to flip completely over, relative to the sun?

2. We have that relationship where circular orbits lie in one plane, and more and more eccentric orbits are more and more inclined. This seems to be true of planetary orbits, where Pluto is most inclined and eccentric, of lunar orbits (like with Phoebe), and even planetary rings. I don't see a mechanism proposed by the mainstream, or even many that would acknowledge the pattern.

3. Bode's law the mainstream has blown off. An argument against Bode's law, is that Neptune is clearly in the wrong place. The law worked "coincidentally" in the other cases. It is important to point out,however, that the asteroid belt, Uranus, and Pluto, all had orbits predicted before they were found. That is quite a bit of "coincidence". May it not be instead Bode's law is the rule, and Neptune the exception that helps prove it?

[Michael Anteski]

Celeste

I subscribe to an etheric energy concept of space rather than an empty space cosmology, and in my model, an alternative theory for orbital precession which suggests itself would be that in a body's long history of orbiting it accumulates small boluses of cosmic energy which does not show up as individual "blips" but rather summates into a precessional apogee.

[CharlesChandler]

What if the Earth's precession is a consequence of the event that put the Moon into orbit around the Earth? My working hypothesis is that the Moon was the impacter, while Celeste is talking about a perfect near miss of a much larger body, which created a tidal bulge that split off to form the Moon. Either way, if the force applied to the Earth wasn't perfectly in line with the Earth's existing rotation, precession would have resulted. I like that better than my axial magnetic conflict idea for precession, because the latter doesn't explain why other planets don't precess.

[seasmith]

~
Celeste wrote:

Notice that circles in one plane, with ellipses in other planes, can all be conic sections defined by the same axis.

Celeste, Don't remember if i dredged up this old thread last time we were discussing precessions, solar system trajectories and the like, so here it is circa '09 porevu:

Toroidal path of sun due to electromagnetic forces
by james weninger » Wed Oct 07, 2009 4:14 pm

We are almost ready to prove mathematically that the sun is spiralling through space due to electromagnetic forces. How? I have already stated in this thread that precession is due to the solar system spiraling through space. In the thread "anomalous accelerations due to electromagnetic path of the sun", I am trying to show that anomalous accelerations and orbital energy changes of spacecraft are due to the solar system spiralling through space. Now we put them together. Our current rate of precession is our angular velocity around one spiral. We can also calculate our angular velocity from the anomalous acceleration-orbital energy info,since those give us solar system acceleration and velocity (we can solve for angular velocity and radius of spiral). The answers should be the same.

http://www.thunderbolts.info/forum/phpB ... 919#p26919

[celeste]

What if the Earth's precession is a consequence of the event that put the Moon into orbit around the Earth? My working hypothesis is that the Moon was the impacter, while Celeste is talking about a perfect near miss of a much larger body, which created a tidal bulge that split off to form the Moon. Either way, if the force applied to the Earth wasn't perfectly in line with the Earth's existing rotation, precession would have resulted. I like that better than my axial magnetic conflict idea for precession, because the latter doesn't explain why other planets don't precess.

Other planets don't precess relative to us (or the sun)? Or relative to other stars?
Read the last paragraph under reference frames here: http://www.binaryresearchinstitute.org/ ... ycle.shtml
Earth does not precess relative to objects in our solar system. Our whole solar system precesses.
It's stunning that an amateur astronomer figured it out (though he too had help from the mythology).
I'll add to this in my response to seasmith.

[CharlesChandler]

@seasmith, celeste: Interesting stuff! I like the electromagnetic precession better than the binary companion gravity thing, since I'd think that gravity of that magnitude would show up in a lot of other ways.

[celeste]

@seasmith, celeste: Interesting stuff! I like the electromagnetic precession better than the binary companion gravity thing, since I'd think that gravity of that magnitude would show up in a lot of other ways.

There is a lesson in Walter Cruttenden's work, that is relevant to this thread.

Cruttenden read in "The Holy Science", http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Holy_Science , that precession was caused by our motion around some star. He was open minded enough to consider that the mainstream idea of precession was wrong, and found that in fact, Earth did not precess relative to anything inside our solar system. He then tried to explain precession by the sun's gravitational, elliptical orbit around this other star. The irony was, that in "The Holy Science", not only is gravity not stated to be the cause, but we have this "The sun also has another motion by which it revolves round a grand center called Vishnu-Naabhi which is the seat of the creative power Brahma, the universal magnetism". The problem for Cruttenden wasn't that he didn't know his science, but that he knew too much mainstream science. Even after realizing the mainstream was wrong on precession, he still "knew"that stars orbited each other based on gravitational forces.

The lesson for us is this: We at Thunderbolts will of course be open to E-M, (or magnetism alone, or electrostatics),driving planetary orbits,or spins. We still want to make sure we throw enough of the mainstream ideas away.
1. We don't want to go from a model where gravity causes Earth to precess relative to the sun, to a model where E-M causes Earth to precess relative to the sun. Earth does not precess relative to the sun.
2. We don't want to go from a model where gravitational collapse leads to all planets orbiting in the same plane,to explaining those orbits by E-M. Clearly orbits don't have to lie in the same plane. The pattern is that more inclined orbits appear to be more elliptical. From this PATTERN you can see that planets can't orbit over the poles. More and more inclined orbits become more eccentric, until they become OPEN orbits. Again, no reason to explain why planets and moons orbit in a disk, when they don't orbit that way in the first place. We need to explain the eccentricity vs inclination relationship.
3. We don't want to go from a gravity only mechanism that explains Kepler's laws, to a E-M model,without remembering Bode's law. We don't just have planets orbiting according to Kepler's laws, but a discrete subset of those Keplerian orbits. The "correct" theory must explain why only that subset is stable.

To sum up: We don't want to just apply EU ideas to planetary orbits, in order to explain mainstream "observations".
Those mainstream "observations" have often been reverse engineered to fit their theories in the first place. We see what we want to see. I'm realizing myself that rather than being "too open-minded", I've still swallowed more of the mainstream pill, than I'd care to admit.

[CharlesChandler]

@celeste: This seems to be a complex enough topic, which could reveal much about the context in which our solar system exists, to deserve a thesis. As I've stated elsewhere, forums are great for exchanging ideas, but either those ideas get pumped into a paper in progress somewhere, or everybody takes them to the grave with them. So I started a paper (Axial and Orbital Rotations), and I added what (little) I've done, and I'll be working on integrating what you know about it. This is what never ceases to amaze me: you mentioned the Binary Research Institute, and Walter Cruttenden, neither of which had I heard of. Where do you go to find all the various pieces to the puzzle? There needs to be a set of review papers summarizing the various theories. So that's what I'm trying to do with my site. I'd like to suggest that we co-author a paper, or that you assume primary authorship, since you know more about this than me. We can continue to use this forum for discussions of the theories. But the ideas that surface should accumulate in a review of the topic. Then, the next guy who comes along doesn't have to read to whole thread to get all of the value -- he just has to read the review paper.

[celeste]

I'd like to suggest that we co-author a paper, or that you assume primary authorship, since you know more about this than me.

Charles, I'm not ignoring you. It will take me some time to get more from the real experts on this topic. I'm seeing my role here: I'm not a great theorist myself, but I do read everyone else's theories, and see where one person's "crazy" theory, may actually support another person's "crazy" theory. Or where one "crazy" theory, is supported by a mainstream "anomalous" observation. I think it's time for me to help you map out some more of these bridges. I'll just need some time to put a coherent flow to some seemingly unrelated ideas.

[CharlesChandler]

No worries. Don't try to pull it together too fast, or try to make it too coherent at first. If you make a mistake, it will get built into whatever you're building, and later, the mistake will be tough to spot, and perhaps even tougher to fix. Sometimes it's better to just make a list of things that you think might be related, and then slowly let the pieces sort themselves out, as you fill in more of the details. That's why I have a "More Issues to Explore" section at the end of the paper I'm working on. Anyway, you know more about this than I do, so I'll be happy just to help maintain the document.

[Michael Anteski]

My July 24 Post offered a hypothesis for precession in response to some expositing by Celeste about the possible mechanism(s) of orbital precessions. The idea I offered was that precessions involve cosmic energies accumulated during orbiting that summate into a precessional apogee.

I must add a qualifier to that hypothesis. -Mercury's precession in particular has been studied intensively, and has been shown to be due to various gravitational influences acting on Mercury during its orbit. Its precession cannot be related to the energies of solar flares from the Sun which is nearby, which are irregular, inasmuch as Mercury's precession is very regular at eleven year cycles.

[celeste]

-Mercury's precession in particular has been studied intensively, and has been shown to be due to various gravitational influences acting on Mercury during its orbit. Its precession cannot be related to the energies of solar flares from the Sun which is nearby, which are irregular, inasmuch as Mercury's precession is very regular at eleven year cycles.

The precession of Mercury's orbit is interesting. Edward Dowdye showed that light is only bent in the plasma limb of the sun. That means that light bending is not caused by the "Warping" of space as Einstein suggested. Which means space-time is not warped out at Mercury's orbit either. Yet that was the patch used by the mainstream to explain the precession of Mercury's orbit. Their gravity only model did not explain the amount of precession without this patch. So Dowdye disproving Einstein, also proves that the mainstream model of gravity only precession is wrong. I still am amazed that their wrong theory of precession, along with a wrong theory to help patch it,did lead them to such an accurate answer.
You are right about the Sun not being a major cause of precession. That was the point made by Walter Cruttenden, that if our whole solar system precesses, it must be due to outside forces. Also, a point made by James Weninger: Ancient cultures tell us we've had precession around that point in Draco, both before AND after we've had catastrophic changes within our solar system. Again, that points to precession being caused by outside forces uninterrupted by any changes going on within our solar system. As Charles Chandler says,it could be galactic scale magnetic fields causing precession. In that case, clearly no small scale changes here in our solar system,are going to lead to a change in our precessional axis.

[CharlesChandler]

I still am amazed that their wrong theory of precession, along with a wrong theory to help patch it, did lead them to such an accurate answer.

You're assuming that GR predicted Mercury's orbital precession. This is what they claim, but I'm not convinced that it wasn't a heavily doctored postdiction. In other words, they wanted to prove GR, and they had an anomaly in the Newtonian model, and they had a non-physical model of time-space. If they doctored the interpretation of the time-space-warped masses, velocities, etc., to get the numbers they wanted, how would we be able to tell? If the substrate is non-physical, there isn't any specific instance of cheating, because there isn't any absolute standard.

Every time I start asking questions about exactly how one of these proofs of GR was developed, I find that the proponents don't even know. That speaks volumes about the nature of work they're doing. In rigorous physics, a conclusion is defined by the method used to arrive at it, and if you don't know the entire reasoning, you don't understand the terms of the proof. But in GR, a conclusion is something that could be true, and if the quicksand substrate can be warped to suit the conclusion, you call that proof.

So I wouldn't be surprised if this "prediction" of GR turned out to be just a specious as all of the rest of them.

[rory88]

http://www.teslauniverse.com/nikola-tes ... -illusions

[601L1n9FR09]

The Bible mentions "greater" and "lesser lights'" in the beginning. The word moon is conspicuously absent until Joseph dreams. I found that interesting, you know ancient accounts-wise and all.