Newton's Electric Clockwork Solar System

New threads (topics) in the Thunderblogs/Multimedia forum are only to be initiated by Forum Administrators. This is the place for users to comment on or discuss aspects of any individual Thunderblog or Thunderbolts multimedia post.

Moderators: MGmirkin, bboyer

Re: Newton's Electric Clockwork Solar System

Unread postby nick c » Sun May 03, 2009 10:55 am

hi StevenO,

StevenO wrote:G has recently been measured with a smaller uncertainty(0.0014%) than ever before (I listed this especially for nick c): Best measurement of graviational constant

This is not proof of a gravitational constant. Nobody has proven that G is a constant. The linked source demonstrates an increased degree of accuracy for the measurement of G at the time and place that the measurement was made. One can assume, as you and mainstream do, that this is a universal (applicable to all locations under any and all conditions throughout the universe) constant, but that is still nevertheless, an assumption. All the measurements that have been made involve a very short timespan in a specific location (Earth) under similar conditions. If we conducted the same experiment during the Jurassic period (in the past) or on the surface of the planet Mercury (another location) we may obtain an entirely different result.
Assumptions are necessary to any model. But dismissing a (Thornhills') model on the grounds that it violates the constant G assumption of yours, mainstreams, or any other model is not a valid means of refutation. Thornhills model should be dismissed if it is falsified by valid scientific testing. Certainly such tests can be devised.

nick c
User avatar
nick c
Moderator
 
Posts: 2243
Joined: Sun Mar 16, 2008 8:12 pm
Location: connecticut

Re: Newton's Electric Clockwork Solar System

Unread postby StevenO » Sun May 03, 2009 2:33 pm

Hi Nick,
nick c wrote:This is not proof of a gravitational constant. Nobody has proven that G is a constant. The linked source demonstrates an increased degree of accuracy for the measurement of G at the time and place that the measurement was made. One can assume, as you and mainstream do, that this is a universal (applicable to all locations under any and all conditions throughout the universe) constant, but that is still nevertheless, an assumption. All the measurements that have been made involve a very short timespan in a specific location (Earth) under similar conditions. If we conducted the same experiment during the Jurassic period (in the past) or on the surface of the planet Mercury (another location) we may obtain an entirely different result.

With the same line of reasoning you could argue that nobody can prove that the sun will come up tomorrow. Still, most modern people are not afraid of that...There is no reason to assume mass is different on another location or time. It is one of the basics of physics that the measurement of fundamental physical properties is independent of the observers frame of reference.

nick c wrote:Assumptions are necessary to any model. But dismissing a (Thornhills') model on the grounds that it violates the constant G assumption of yours, mainstreams, or any other model is not a valid means of refutation. Thornhills model should be dismissed if it is falsified by valid scientific testing. Certainly such tests can be devised.

nick c

The dismissal of Thornhills model was on the basis that I see no evidence of electrical forces at play that could replace gravitational and inertial forces on a planetary level. Measurements are what seperates the good theories from the bad.
Measurements of G have been done for a longer time than measurements of electrical forces.
First, God decided he was lonely. Then it got out of hand. Now we have this mess called life...
The past is out of date. Start living your future. Align with your dreams. Now execute.
User avatar
StevenO
 
Posts: 894
Joined: Tue Apr 01, 2008 11:08 pm

Re: Newton's Electric Clockwork Solar System

Unread postby nick c » Sun May 03, 2009 6:25 pm

hi StevenO,

I'll stand by the statement that Constant G is but an assumption.
Your post does not refute anything, despite some strawman arguments:
With the same line of reasoning you could argue that nobody can prove that the sun will come up tomorrow. Still, most modern people are not afraid of that...There is no reason to assume mass is different on another location or time.

As I read what Thornhill has written, there is plenty of observation, measurements, and other evidences to give reasonable consideration to a variable gravitational constant or that mass and matter are not the same thing. It is part of a valid theory that can be tested. The assumptions of your preferred model or mainstream's model do not constitute falsification of that theory. Your analogy to the question of the sun rising is a strawman argument and not applicable.
The dismissal of Thornhills' model was on the basis that I see no evidence of electrical forces at play that could replace gravitational and inertial forces on a planetary level.

You are free to dismiss the model for whatever reason you choose.
Obviously you do not accept (I assume you have read) the literature pertaining to the EU model, since plenty of evidence of the failure of gravity only models are presented.
for example:
-planets revolve in the same plane and in alignment with the Sun's magnetic field
-planets are spaced so that there is a least action interaction between their magnetospheres
-interplanetary space is a plasma, planets are charged bodies moving within the Sun's plasmasphere, which extends beyond the orbit of Pluto
-evidence that the surfaces of all terrestial type bodies have been shaped by electric discharges on a scale not presently observed. This requires planet sized bodies to encroach upon each others plasmaspheres
-anomalies in the precession of Mercury
-the [url2=http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/print/20123]Pioneer anomaly[/url2]..."Pioneer 10 and Pioneer 11 are following trajectories that cannot be explained by conventional physics."
-just about anything to do with comets
-the behavior of solar prominences and CME's
-polar jets on various stars, including brown dwarves
-size of animals from past geological ages
-the N body problem
-The Sun is spherical, it should display flattening at the poles due to its 26 day rotation and 1,400,000 km diameter
-gravity needs to act instantaneously
-Newton gave a description of something not an explanation of how gravity actually operates

All of the above and others are the result of observations and measurements which have produced anomalies to "gravitational and inertial forces on a planetary level," indicating an electromagnetic factor.

On galactic levels gravity models completely break down, and are near useless, creating the need for dark matter, dark energy, and black holes. This alone should be a tip off that the accepted understanding of G as presented by the scientific cognoscenti is at least open to questioning. Alternate theories should not be dismissed just because they dare to violate a cherished assumption which has become accepted as unassailable fact.

nick c
User avatar
nick c
Moderator
 
Posts: 2243
Joined: Sun Mar 16, 2008 8:12 pm
Location: connecticut

Re: Newton's Electric Clockwork Solar System

Unread postby StevenO » Mon May 04, 2009 2:19 pm

Hi Nick,
nick c wrote:hi StevenO,

I'll stand by the statement that Constant G is but an assumption.
Your post does not refute anything, despite some strawman arguments:
With the same line of reasoning you could argue that nobody can prove that the sun will come up tomorrow. Still, most modern people are not afraid of that...There is no reason to assume mass is different on another location or time.

As I read what Thornhill has written, there is plenty of observation, measurements, and other evidences to give reasonable consideration to a variable gravitational constant or that mass and matter are not the same thing. It is part of a valid theory that can be tested. The assumptions of your preferred model or mainstream's model do not constitute falsification of that theory. Your analogy to the question of the sun rising is a strawman argument and not applicable.

My rising sun is not a strawman of the theory of gravity, but of your theory that 350 years of measurements are nothing but an assumption. Maybe I should turn the argument around: what evidence in the form of measurements (not assumptions) do you have for a non-constant G?

The dismissal of Thornhills' model was on the basis that I see no evidence of electrical forces at play that could replace gravitational and inertial forces on a planetary level.

You are free to dismiss the model for whatever reason you choose.
Obviously you do not accept (I assume you have read) the literature pertaining to the EU model, since plenty of evidence of the failure of gravity only models are presented.

I do not doubt the existence of electric and magnetic effects in space, but the estimation of the influence of the effects should be done properly.
for example:
-planets revolve in the same plane and in alignment with the Sun's magnetic field

Since the polarity of the Sun's and planet's magnetic fields regularly flip, this cannot be a major alignment effect. There are plenty of other good explanations, like conservation of angular momentum since the creation of the solar system.
-planets are spaced so that there is a least action interaction between their magnetospheres

The planets are spaced and sized according to the Titius-Bode law, which is not a coincidence but can be explained from quantisation of motion as done by Dewey Larson. (Unfortunately I do not have a good reference for the complete explanation).
-interplanetary space is a plasma, planets are charged bodies moving within the Sun's plasmasphere, which extends beyond the orbit of Pluto

Sure, but this plasma has a very low density and planets are not charged to very high potentials, so you are never talking about major forces, even in comparison with gravity.
-evidence that the surfaces of all terrestial type bodies have been shaped by electric discharges on a scale not presently observed. This requires planet sized bodies to encroach upon each others plasmaspheres

We do have observation of regular meteorite impacts but not of major electric discharges on planets. Planets approaching eachother is a major assumption for which there is no more than some mythical evidence.
-anomalies in the precession of Mercury

This can be easily explained by non-electrical phenomena, like GR or Dewey Larsons Reciprocal System Theory.
-the [url2=http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/print/20123]Pioneer anomaly[/url2]..."Pioneer 10 and Pioneer 11 are following trajectories that cannot be explained by conventional physics."

Though measurable, the effect is very minor (10 billion times weaker than Earth's gravity). Why would this point to an EU effect?
-just about anything to do with comets

I assume for comets EU effects play a major role.
-the behavior of solar prominences and CME's

They are assumed to have a magnetic origin by most theories.
-polar jets on various stars, including brown dwarves

Is there any evidence that a jet is an electrical effect?
-size of animals from past geological ages

I have pointed you earlier to a website that explains that it is biologically quite feasible to have land animals weighing 100 tons or more.
-the N body problem

An N-body problem does not become mathematically easier by making it electrical...
-The Sun is spherical, it should display flattening at the poles due to its 26 day rotation and 1,400,000 km diameter

We do not know enough about the composition of the sun to assume that. The internal pressure could be much larger than the flattening force due to the sun's rotation.
-gravity needs to act instantaneously
-Newton gave a description of something not an explanation of how gravity actually operates

Newton was correct in its observations. Dewey Larson explains how gravity operates and why it acts instantaneously:
Beyond Newton
All of the above and others are the result of observations and measurements which have produced anomalies to "gravitational and inertial forces on a planetary level," indicating an electromagnetic factor.

Your indication is really just a big assumption. There are perfectly valid not electrical explanations available too.
On galactic levels gravity models completely break down, and are near useless, creating the need for dark matter, dark energy, and black holes. This alone should be a tip off that the accepted understanding of G as presented by the scientific cognoscenti is at least open to questioning. Alternate theories should not be dismissed just because they dare to violate a cherished assumption which has become accepted as unassailable fact.

nick c

I'm certainly not dismissing alternate theories, just making a rational selection of the best explanations.

E.g. an explanation why at a galactic level gravity breaks down is:
- gravity has a restricted reach (individual stars in a galaxy do not attract eachother for instance)
- this is due to gravity being offset at a certain distance by the 'expansion' of the universe (or "space-time progression")
- e.g. the gravitional reach of our Sun is estimated to be about 3.77 lightyears and the nearest star is about 4.37 lightyears away.
This is elegantly explained by DL Reciprocal System Theory, as discussed in the "Time For A New Theory Of Gravitation Thread":

StevenO wrote:The RST explanations for these observations are:
1) The basic motion of the universe is an outward "expansion" of space and time at lightspeed
2) The gravitational motion of matter is an inward motion that counters this expansion
3) As such gravity has a limited reach (until the expansion motion is faster than the gravitational motion)
4) Stars and galaxies reside in their own gravitational "cell". Collisions between galaxies are not possible, but heavier galaxies with larger gravitional reach will eventually absorb smaller galaxies in their vicinity.
5) These satellite galaxies or globular clusters are the first stage of star and galaxy forming from interstellar matter. Small sperical galaxies can merge into small elliptical galaxies and into larger spiral galaxies.

sathearn wrote:So does Newton's law need to be revised? Here's my own preliminary take, also based on reading Larson and a bit about the problems that have given rise to the dark matter hypothesis. StevenO said some of it already; I will add a few points for clarity regarding just how Larson's principles affect the problem.

The basic issue is that the outer stars in rotating galaxies have orbital speeds around the galaxies' centers-of-gravity (if we were to judge that center of gravity by the visible mass) that are comparable to those of the stars closer in toward the core. This is certainly not provided for by Newton's inverse square law, whereby in stable orbital systems the objects that are farther out have slower orbital velocities, since much lower speeds are required to balance the much attenuated gravitational force.

I think the key insight from Larson here is that we should not expect this relation to hold at the level of the structure of galaxies. The gravitational effects which Newton observed and based his law on, are actually a net effect of two opposing motions - the outward progression of space-time and the inward gravitational motion. The two forces (motions) do not respond to distance in the same way. The outward progression is constant everywhere, while the inward motion is distributed three dimensionally from its points of origin - it therefore becomes less effective with distance. For any given mass, there is a finite distance at which the two motions are equal - for present purposes, we may label this point the "gravitational limit." As one moves still farther out, objects recede from one another. As gravitation attenuates still further, the objects actually accelerate away from one another, toward the limiting speed of the progression.

We may note parenthetically that in Larson's system, gravity is not a force of one mass on another, but a motion toward all other locations within the gravitational limits, motion which becomes observable in the presence of other masses.

The upshot is that Newton's law holds absolutely within the gravitational limits of an aggregate of matter.

1. The planets are within the gravitational limit of the sun. Their stable orbits are determined by the inverse-square law.
2. At the level of clusters of galaxies, relatively stable orbits are less probable, the basic trend being toward aggregation of the whole Local Group into one supergalaxy. But given the random motions of the individual components, it is possible that some dwarf galaxies will find themselves in orbit around, say, the Milky Way. Since such satellites will be within the gravitational limit of the galaxy, their orbital velocities will also follow Newton's law.
3. At the level of galactic structure, Newton's law is not applicable. The stars (or multiple star systems) that make up a galaxy are necessarily outside the gravitational limits of one another, hence tending to move apart. However, the gravitational motion of the larger aggregate of which they are a part (the galaxy) toward each of its constituent stars (or multiple star systems), "holds" the stars in place. This kind of equilibrium accounts for the stability of these structures. It also explains why they tend to rotate as coherent bodies - outer stars at similar velocities to those of the ones farther in. And it also explains the stability of aggregates such as globular clusters, many of which have little rotation. No "dark matter" needed.
First, God decided he was lonely. Then it got out of hand. Now we have this mess called life...
The past is out of date. Start living your future. Align with your dreams. Now execute.
User avatar
StevenO
 
Posts: 894
Joined: Tue Apr 01, 2008 11:08 pm

Re: Newton's Electric Clockwork Solar System

Unread postby Total Science » Mon May 04, 2009 11:47 pm

StevenO wrote:
Total Science wrote:
StevenO wrote:F = G x M1 x M2 / r2

That occult 17th century formula doesn't describe anything in the universe.

The moon falls away from the Earth at 3.8 cm per year.

Application of this "occult" formula has allowed NASA to put men on the moon, have thousands of satellites in orbits around earth and launch hundreds of missions within and even outside our solar system.

The theory of gravitation said putting a man on the moon was impossible.

"Heavier than air flying machines are impossible." -- Lord Kelvin, gravitational physicist, 1895

G has recently been measured with a smaller uncertainty(0.0014%) than ever before (I listed this especially for nick c): Best measurement of graviational constant

Every measurement of G is different and none have been done in a Faraday Cage.

"Which experiment would you [Velikovsky] like to have performed now? I know which experiment you would like now—the Cavendish experiment in a Faraday Cage." -- Albert Einstein, mathematician, 1955

The moon moves away from the earth by a minor exchange of momentum through tidal locking. You can find the explanation on many astronomy websites or wikipedia.

"Currently, the moon is moving away from the Earth at such a great rate, that if you extrapolate back in time — the moon would have been so close to the Earth 1.4 billion years ago that it would have been torn apart by tidal forces (Slichter, 1963)." — Dennis D. McCarthy, geoscientist, 2003

"The implications of employing the present rate of tidal energy dissipation on a geological timescale are catastrophic. Around 1500 Ma the Moon would have been close to the Earth, with the consequence that the much larger tidal forces would have disrupted the Moon or caused the total melting of Earth's mantle and of the moon." -- George E. Williams, geologist/geophysicist, 2000

"Newton’s gravitational theory is regarded as proved by the action of the tides. But studying the tides, Newton came to the conclusion that the moon has a mass equal to one fortieth of the earth. Modern calculations, based on the theory of gravitation (but not on the action of the tides), ascribe to the moon a mass equal to 1/81 of the earth’s mass." -- Immanuel Velikovsky, cosmologist, 1946

"…it does not seem likely that it will ever be possible to evaluate the effective rigidity of the earth's mass by means of tidal observations." — George H. Darwin, physicist, 1907

"…in the course of our experiments, we were led away from the primary object of the Committee, namely, the measurement of the Lunar Disturbance of Gravity…." — George H. Darwin, physicist, 1882

"Among the great men who have philosophized about [the action of the tides], the one who surprised me most is Kepler. He was a person of independent genius, [but he] became interested in the action of the moon on the water, and in other occult phenomena, and similar childishness." — Galileo Galilei, physicist, 1632
"The ancients possessed a plasma cosmology and physics themselves, and from laboratory experiments, were well familiar with the patterns exhibited by Peratt's petroglyphs." -- Joseph P. Farrell, author, 2007
Total Science
 
Posts: 188
Joined: Thu Nov 20, 2008 10:10 am

Re: Newton's Electric Clockwork Solar System

Unread postby StevenO » Tue May 05, 2009 1:49 pm

Total Science wrote:The theory of gravitation said putting a man on the moon was impossible.

"Heavier than air flying machines are impossible." -- Lord Kelvin, gravitational physicist, 1895

Apparently the facts have surpassed the opinions...

Total Science wrote:
G has recently been measured with a smaller uncertainty(0.0014%) than ever before (I listed this especially for nick c): Best measurement of graviational constant

Every measurement of G is different and none have been done in a Faraday Cage.

"Which experiment would you [Velikovsky] like to have performed now? I know which experiment you would like now—the Cavendish experiment in a Faraday Cage." -- Albert Einstein, mathematician, 1955

The inherent uncertainty in the measurement of G is due to the fact that gravity is a feeble force. Which observations do you have that would suggest that weight changes in a Faraday cage?

Total Science wrote:Currently, the moon is moving away from the Earth at such a great rate, that if you extrapolate back in time — the moon would have been so close to the Earth 1.4 billion years ago that it would have been torn apart by tidal forces (Slichter, 1963)." — Dennis D. McCarthy, geoscientist, 2003
<snip>

You should check your quotes: 3.8cm/year * 1.4 billion years = 53.200 km or about 13.8% closer to earth than now. That would mean about a 30% larger gravitational attraction. Hardly a value that would tear the moon apart I think...The rest of the quotes is not even worth commenting on.
Last edited by StevenO on Tue May 05, 2009 2:10 pm, edited 1 time in total.
First, God decided he was lonely. Then it got out of hand. Now we have this mess called life...
The past is out of date. Start living your future. Align with your dreams. Now execute.
User avatar
StevenO
 
Posts: 894
Joined: Tue Apr 01, 2008 11:08 pm

Re: Newton's Electric Clockwork Solar System

Unread postby nick c » Tue May 05, 2009 2:10 pm

hello StevenO,
StevenO wrote:My rising sun is not a strawman of the theory of gravity,
Indeed it is a strawman. You equated Thornhills postulation of variable gravity (which is inferred from his interpretations of observations and measurements) with questioning the reliability of the Sun rising. You set up and then knocked down a strawman. The implication being that since the Sun will inevitably rise tomorrow we don't have to give serious consideration to Thornhill's arguments. That, my friend is a classic strawman argument. But that's okay we all do that once in a while.
As a sidenote, there will inevitably come a day at some point in the Earth's future when the Sun will not appear to rise as scheduled, :o so the strawman is not even applicable.

StevenO wrote:but of your theory that 350 years of measurements are nothing but an assumption.
I never presented a theory that "350 years of measurements are nothing but an assumption." Actually the opposite, I acknowledged the measurements and even posted a link with a discussion concerning the problems researchers faced in obtaining those measurements.
Nowhere did I say that those measurements were an assumption!
My challenge was to the conclusion that those measurements proved that G is an universal constant. They do not. The history of measurements of G are in line and acknowleded and discussed in Thornhill's writings. Measurements of G have only been made in a very limited context and hardly under conditions necessary to be used as a test of Thornhill's hypothesis, any variations of G taken in measurements made in the present state of the Earthly environment are probably within the margin of error for the instrumentation:
Thornhill wrote:It may be that the change in G is down in the noise of the experimental
determinations.
http://www.kronia.com/thoth/thoth17.txt

Even so, these 350 years of measurements have yielded some enigmatic results causing more than one researcher to question the gravitational constant and scramble for answers.
see:
--[url2=http://www.space-time.info/gravianom/Saxl.html]Saxls Pendulum Experiments[/url2] which measured anomalies during a 1970 eclipse.
--Maurice F. C. Allais. Should the laws of gravity be reconsidered? Part I { Abnormalities in the motion of a paraconical pendulum on an anisotropic support. Aero/Space Engineering, pages 46-52, September 1959.
--[url2=http://science.nasa.gov/newhome/headlines/ast06aug99_1.htm]Does a solar eclipse somehow affect a Foucault pendulum[/url2]
--[url2=http://home.t01.itscom.net/allais/blackprior/jeverdan/bibast.pdf]variation of G during a solar eclipse[/url2]
--[url2=http://adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/nph-bib_query?bibcode=1977PrTGE...8..201K&db_key=AST&high=37692492d311715]effect of solar rotation on a pendulum[/url2]


StevenO wrote:
nick c wrote:-planets revolve in the same plane and in alignment with the Sun's magnetic field
Since the polarity of the Sun's and planet's magnetic fields regularly flip, this cannot be a major alignment effect. There are plenty of other good explanations, like conservation of angular momentum since the creation of the solar system.
The flipping of the Sun's magnetic field is irrelevent. It does not matter whether north is at the top or bottom. The point is the planets revolve in the same plane. Your explanation assumes the solar system was formed according to the nebular hypothesis. That has been refuted within many EU webpages. In a gravity only model planets should have no preference for any particular plane, they could just as easily be orbiting around the Sun's poles or any angle to the ecliptic. The observation that the planets orbit in the same plane stands out like a sore thumb once it is realized that the nebular hypothesis is woefully inadequate. Furthermore, Uranus and its' satellites are near perpendicular to the ecliptic, their orbits aligned with Uranus' equator. Giving the impression that the planet was tipped over and took its' satellites with it, as they remained aligned to the Uranian magnetic field.

StevenO wrote:The planets are spaced and sized according to the Titius-Bode law, which is not a coincidence but can be explained from quantisation of motion as done by Dewey Larson.

Titius-Bode is not a law, but rather a formula that yields approximate distances of planetary orbits, it predicts some orbits more accurately than others. The EU model has a simple explanation:
Thornhill wrote:Planets which orbit too closely to one another will suffer charge exchange
via the plasma sheath of the inner planet (magnetotail in old-speak) once
each synodic period which, by transfer of positive charge from the inner
planet to the outer planet, will tend to push the orbits apart. Bode's law
presumably results from this electro-gravitic form of the least-interaction
principle.


StevenO wrote:
nick c wrote:-the Pioneer anomaly..."Pioneer 10 and Pioneer 11 are following trajectories that cannot be explained by conventional physics."
Though measurable, the effect is very minor (10 billion times weaker than Earth's gravity). Why would this point to an EU effect?

It pertains because the Pioneer are not obeying the "laws" of gravity, yet their behavior is consistent with and explainable by EU theory:
[url2=http://www.holoscience.com/news/mystery_solved.html]A Mystery Solved Welcome to the Electric Universe[/url2]


StevenO wrote:An N-body problem does not become mathematically easier by making it electrical...

The N body problem does not involve electricity, it is gravity only mathematical modeling. Perhaps electrical forces are the stabilizing factor in the real solar sytem:
Thornhill wrote:Yes, in my view we owe the stability of our n-body system to the
hypothesized link between charge on a planet and the planet's gravity. It
gets around the old problem of how can electrical forces between planets
play any part in modifying their orbits when the solar plasma shields from
such forces.



StevenO wrote:
nick c wrote:the behavior of solar prominences and CME's
They are assumed to have a magnetic origin by most theories.
Magnetic fields are created by electric currents, electric currents form circuits. That is what is taking place in the plasma of space.




StevenO wrote:I'm certainly not dismissing alternate theories, just making a rational selection of the best explanations.
Apparently each of our rational examinations are coming up with differing opinions of the what is the best explanations :)
I find that the Electric Universe is cohesive and simple, using known behaviors of plasmas and electromagnetism that can be demonstrated in a laboratory, are scalable, and can be used to explain observations and measurements made of various celestial objects and phenomena, as well as explaining many enigmatic reports and stories related to us by our ancestors.

As the topic of this thread is Thornhill's blog "Newton's Electric Clockwork...," I would suggest that we not derail it by discussing Dewey Larson's theories. Here is a [url2=http://www.thunderbolts.info/forum/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=1694&p=20368&hilit=dewey+larson#p20368]Dewey Larson thread[/url2]. Any discussions of his theory and how it pertains to the EU should take place there.

nick c
User avatar
nick c
Moderator
 
Posts: 2243
Joined: Sun Mar 16, 2008 8:12 pm
Location: connecticut

Re: Newton's Electric Clockwork Solar System

Unread postby Total Science » Tue May 05, 2009 8:56 pm

StevenO wrote:Apparently the facts have surpassed the opinions...

Not if you still believe in 17th century occult alchemy, gravitation, and witchcraft.

Total Science wrote:The inherent uncertainty in the measurement of G is due to the fact that gravity is a feeble force.

So feeble that it has literally no effect in the universe.

Which observations do you have that would suggest that weight changes in a Faraday cage?

See above.

You should check your quotes: 3.8cm/year * 1.4 billion years = 53.200 km or about 13.8% closer to earth than now. That would mean about a 30% larger gravitational attraction.

Even more catastrophic.

Hardly a value that would tear the moon apart I think...The rest of the quotes is not even worth commenting on.

LOL. Do you know what the so-called "Roche Limit" is?
"The ancients possessed a plasma cosmology and physics themselves, and from laboratory experiments, were well familiar with the patterns exhibited by Peratt's petroglyphs." -- Joseph P. Farrell, author, 2007
Total Science
 
Posts: 188
Joined: Thu Nov 20, 2008 10:10 am

Re: Newton's Electric Clockwork Solar System

Unread postby StevenO » Wed May 06, 2009 2:45 am

Total Science wrote:
Hardly a value that would tear the moon apart I think...The rest of the quotes is not even worth commenting on.

LOL. Do you know what the so-called "Roche Limit" is?

Have you ever used a calculator? The Roche limit for our moon is about 9500km...so, moving it 13.8% closer to earth would still have it a factor 35x away from this limit.

How much longer should I take your comments seriously?
First, God decided he was lonely. Then it got out of hand. Now we have this mess called life...
The past is out of date. Start living your future. Align with your dreams. Now execute.
User avatar
StevenO
 
Posts: 894
Joined: Tue Apr 01, 2008 11:08 pm

Re: Newton's Electric Clockwork Solar System

Unread postby StevenO » Wed May 06, 2009 1:31 pm

nick c wrote:
Thornhill wrote:It may be that the change in G is down in the noise of the experimental
determinations.
http://www.kronia.com/thoth/thoth17.txt

Even so, these 350 years of measurements have yielded some enigmatic results causing more than one researcher to question the gravitational constant and scramble for answers.
<...>

That's interesting, but what does it prove about gravity being electrical?
nick c wrote:
StevenO wrote:
nick c wrote:-planets revolve in the same plane and in alignment with the Sun's magnetic field
Since the polarity of the Sun's and planet's magnetic fields regularly flip, this cannot be a major alignment effect. There are plenty of other good explanations, like conservation of angular momentum since the creation of the solar system.
The flipping of the Sun's magnetic field is irrelevent. It does not matter whether north is at the top or bottom. The point is the planets revolve in the same plane. Your explanation assumes the solar system was formed according to the nebular hypothesis. That has been refuted within many EU webpages. In a gravity only model planets should have no preference for any particular plane, they could just as easily be orbiting around the Sun's poles or any angle to the ecliptic. The observation that the planets orbit in the same plane stands out like a sore thumb once it is realized that the nebular hypothesis is woefully inadequate. Furthermore, Uranus and its' satellites are near perpendicular to the ecliptic, their orbits aligned with Uranus' equator. Giving the impression that the planet was tipped over and took its' satellites with it, as they remained aligned to the Uranian magnetic field.

Where is your proof that the flipping is irrelevant? The Sun's magnetic field flips every 11 years. If it had been responsible for alignment of the orbits over a long period of time the force would have averaged to 0.
( I think the mutual gravitational attraction of the planets could also have them align in a plane.)

I do not support the mainstream 'nebular hypothesis' but a variant: planets are formed from remnants of a white dwarf destroyed by a Supernova explosion in a binary star system consisting of a white dwarf and main sequence star. The exploded star forms a nebula that reaggregates into a star again, while the debris of the white dwarf form the planetary cores that get covered with matter. By conservation of momentum, the new system revolves around the centers of mass of the original binary system.
nick c wrote:
StevenO wrote:The planets are spaced and sized according to the Titius-Bode law, which is not a coincidence but can be explained from quantisation of motion as done by Dewey Larson.

Titius-Bode is not a law, but rather a formula that yields approximate distances of planetary orbits, it predicts some orbits more accurately than others. The EU model has a simple explanation:
Thornhill wrote:Planets which orbit too closely to one another will suffer charge exchange
via the plasma sheath of the inner planet (magnetotail in old-speak) once
each synodic period which, by transfer of positive charge from the inner
planet to the outer planet, will tend to push the orbits apart. Bode's law
presumably results from this electro-gravitic form of the least-interaction
principle.

Please provide some numbers to give some credence to the statement. How much charge exchange would happen and are the forces and energies involved large enough to push planets out of course? How would an equilibrium be reached and momentum be preserved? How does that lead to the TB law orbits?
nick c wrote:
StevenO wrote:
nick c wrote:-the Pioneer anomaly..."Pioneer 10 and Pioneer 11 are following trajectories that cannot be explained by conventional physics."
Though measurable, the effect is very minor (10 billion times weaker than Earth's gravity). Why would this point to an EU effect?

It pertains because the Pioneer are not obeying the "laws" of gravity, yet their behavior is consistent with and explainable by EU theory:
[url2=http://www.holoscience.com/news/mystery_solved.html]A Mystery Solved Welcome to the Electric Universe[/url2]

I have a little trouble that on the one hand the EU effects here are claimed to be constant and <10 billion times Earth's gravity (without providing any calculation) and on the other hand the same EU effects are claimed large enough to push planets out of their orbits and replace gravity and making it variable (also without providing any calculation). Do you have any article that provides a calculation of the forces that are involved?
nick c wrote:
StevenO wrote:An N-body problem does not become mathematically easier by making it electrical...

The N body problem does not involve electricity, it is gravity only mathematical modeling. Perhaps electrical forces are the stabilizing factor in the real solar sytem:
Thornhill wrote:Yes, in my view we owe the stability of our n-body system to the
hypothesized link between charge on a planet and the planet's gravity. It
gets around the old problem of how can electrical forces between planets
play any part in modifying their orbits when the solar plasma shields from
such forces.

I think there are other mechanisms at play that provided the stability based on the white dwarf origin of the planets cores.
nick c wrote:
StevenO wrote:
nick c wrote:the behavior of solar prominences and CME's
They are assumed to have a magnetic origin by most theories.
Magnetic fields are created by electric currents, electric currents form circuits. That is what is taking place in the plasma of space.

I thought we were discussing the sun here? There can be high temperature mechanisms that create magnetic fields without currents. (Larson provides an explanation, but we should'nt discuss that here).
nick c wrote:
StevenO wrote:I'm certainly not dismissing alternate theories, just making a rational selection of the best explanations.
Apparently each of our rational examinations are coming up with differing opinions of the what is the best explanations :)
I find that the Electric Universe is cohesive and simple, using known behaviors of plasmas and electromagnetism that can be demonstrated in a laboratory, are scalable, and can be used to explain observations and measurements made of various celestial objects and phenomena, as well as explaining many enigmatic reports and stories related to us by our ancestors.

I don't deny the existence of plasma's in space but I just think the forces created by it are not large enough to explain cosmological phenomena.
nick c wrote:As the topic of this thread is Thornhill's blog "Newton's Electric Clockwork...," I would suggest that we not derail it by discussing Dewey Larson's theories. Here is a [url2=http://www.thunderbolts.info/forum/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=1694&p=20368&hilit=dewey+larson#p20368]Dewey Larson thread[/url2]. Any discussions of his theory and how it pertains to the EU should take place there.

nick c

For me, Dewey Larson provides the best explanation of gravity and the cosmological cycle (in another book), that's why I often reference to it. But I would agree to leave it out of the discussion.
First, God decided he was lonely. Then it got out of hand. Now we have this mess called life...
The past is out of date. Start living your future. Align with your dreams. Now execute.
User avatar
StevenO
 
Posts: 894
Joined: Tue Apr 01, 2008 11:08 pm

Re: Newton's Electric Clockwork Solar System

Unread postby M5k » Sun May 10, 2009 8:20 am

This is a very interesting discussion. I'm not familiar enough with the topic to chime in on either side, but I'd like to remind people that even a single observation that contradicts a theory is enough to force a re-evaluation. Thus, not every item on StevenO's list needs to be valid, it's enough if a single one is.

However, I also want to contribute some material that I found a while ago. It seems very similar to Thornhill's theory, and I'm not sure if there are differences, or if one influenced the other.
http://www.electrogravityphysics.com

In any case, the linked site treats the subject in some detail, and even has some formulas for the more mathematically inclined people.
M5k
 
Posts: 14
Joined: Sun Mar 23, 2008 11:15 am

Re: Newton's Electric Clockwork Solar System

Unread postby mharratsc » Mon May 11, 2009 1:17 pm

@ Steve- seems to me that you came in here looking for an argument, and you certainly got yourself one.

However, it's my belief that not too many people in here give a rat's arse about mathematical formulae. That's where you're going to run into trouble saying "Show me the math!" Look how long people have been quoting a bad formula and allowing the notion of 'black holes' to actually make it into textbooks... and the formula isn't even correct for cryin out loud...

As for your consideration that extraterrestrial plasma and electricity "aren't strong enough to do anything"... there are MANY articles on the thunderbolts.info site that argue to the contrary... however, you may not give them any credence since they refer to observable effects rather than mathematical formula.

You also cited an expanding universe, but I think Hamilton Arp has done a distinguished job of proving that redshift is intrinsic... again by visible proof rather than mathematical esoterica.

I'm just a layman, so I'm waaaaay more inclined to believe what I can see over someone trying to get me to 'visualize these variables as real objects in our Universe.'



I'm sorry, but most of mainstream Cosmology and the new mathematical circus that has grown up around it seems more like a bunch of college kids sitting around playing pen-and-paper Dungeons & Dragons with rules governing a fictitious universe than anything that relates to reality to me :\

However, I will agree with you that Mr. Thornhill may be out on a limb with his 'electric gravity' ideas. I'm sure he doesn't have any more proof regarding it than the guys who believe that they will "someday!" find the Higgs-Boson. Also, it's entirely your right to believe that the EU theory of gravity having an electromagnetic source is incorrect, but... until some argument is proven correct, I find his explanation much more palatable than the standard one.

Shall I explain why?

I think I shall. You see- by basing the presumption that gravity is electromagnetic, we're basing an assumption regarding an observation on known physics. The alternative is to make radical conjectures regarding hypothetical waves of energy and other notions that are completely conjectural.

I'm a 'linear' thinker- I do straight lines. Start with what you know and go from there. I know that electromagnetism is both attractive and repulsive- gravity is attractive, also. There is a conjecture afoot that they may be related. And so...

I will stick with following that line of thought until I see it proven otherwise, before I move on to conjectural particles, energy waves, etc (however plausible the argument for them).

Occam's Razor, and all that.
Mike H.

"I have no fear to shout out my ignorance and let the Wise correct me, for every instance of such narrows the gulf between them and me." -- Michael A. Harrington
mharratsc
 
Posts: 1402
Joined: Mon Jan 26, 2009 7:37 am
Location: Maplewood, MN

Re: Newton's Electric Clockwork Solar System

Unread postby StevenO » Tue May 12, 2009 4:55 am

mharratsc wrote:However, it's my belief that not too many people in here give a rat's arse about mathematical formulae. That's where you're going to run into trouble saying "Show me the math!" Look how long people have been quoting a bad formula and allowing the notion of 'black holes' to actually make it into textbooks... and the formula isn't even correct for cryin out loud...

If a theory cannot predict any numbers then it is just philosophy, not physics or science.
mharratsc wrote:As for your consideration that extraterrestrial plasma and electricity "aren't strong enough to do anything"... there are MANY articles on the thunderbolts.info site that argue to the contrary... however, you may not give them any credence since they refer to observable effects rather than mathematical formula.

The articles you refer to just make suggestions: "mainstream has no explanation, it must be EU" and do not put forward any numbers. This is a common strategy deployed by pseudo-scientific articles. I have tried to put in some numbers to validate the electric gravity hypothesis and they just do not add up at the surface of our planet.
mharratsc wrote:You also cited an expanding universe, but I think Hamilton Arp has done a distinguished job of proving that redshift is intrinsic... again by visible proof rather than mathematical esoterica.

I'm just a layman, so I'm waaaaay more inclined to believe what I can see over someone trying to get me to 'visualize these variables as real objects in our Universe.'

Harold Arps theory is related to an intrinsic redshift of quasars as an additional redshift mechanism next to the traditional redshift mechanisms. His theory of redshift quantization has been disproven by more extensive recent measurements that show no quantization in the redshift distribution. I actually do support his intrinsic redshift theory and his objections against the BB, but his theory that redshift is not a measure of the distance of astronomical objects has been disproven.
mharratsc wrote:I'm sorry, but most of mainstream Cosmology and the new mathematical circus that has grown up around it seems more like a bunch of college kids sitting around playing pen-and-paper Dungeons & Dragons with rules governing a fictitious universe than anything that relates to reality to me :\

But that does'nt prove that an Electric Universe is less fictitious. Cosmology is an intrinsically inexact science since we cannot rebuild it in a laboratory.
mharratsc wrote:However, I will agree with you that Mr. Thornhill may be out on a limb with his 'electric gravity' ideas. I'm sure he doesn't have any more proof regarding it than the guys who believe that they will "someday!" find the Higgs-Boson. Also, it's entirely your right to believe that the EU theory of gravity having an electromagnetic source is incorrect, but... until some argument is proven correct, I find his explanation much more palatable than the standard one.

So, you do actually agree with me ;) ?

mharratsc wrote:Shall I explain why?

I think I shall. You see- by basing the presumption that gravity is electromagnetic, we're basing an assumption regarding an observation on known physics. The alternative is to make radical conjectures regarding hypothetical waves of energy and other notions that are completely conjectural.

Newton's law of gravity is known physics, why replace it with something for which there is no proof or even conjecture?

mharratsc wrote:I'm a 'linear' thinker- I do straight lines. Start with what you know and go from there. I know that electromagnetism is both attractive and repulsive- gravity is attractive, also. There is a conjecture afoot that they may be related. And so...

I will stick with following that line of thought until I see it proven otherwise, before I move on to conjectural particles, energy waves, etc (however plausible the argument for them).

Occam's Razor, and all that.

So, if gravity would be EM, then why is it not attractive and repulsive too? That's no straight line for me...
First, God decided he was lonely. Then it got out of hand. Now we have this mess called life...
The past is out of date. Start living your future. Align with your dreams. Now execute.
User avatar
StevenO
 
Posts: 894
Joined: Tue Apr 01, 2008 11:08 pm

Re: Newton's Electric Clockwork Solar System

Unread postby redeye » Tue May 12, 2009 5:40 am

Newton's law of gravity is known physics, why replace it with something for which there is no proof or even conjecture?


Newton's "law" of gravity states:

This is the parameters within which gravity seems to operate in our Solar system...God only knows why!

If you think you understand something, then come across anomalies, you're wrong. Not, a wee bit wrong...just wrong. The best way I can explain it is with a soduko puzzle: If you realise you've made a mistake it is practically impossible to work back and find the error, it's actually quicker to start again.

There are countless anomalies concerning the "Laws" of gravity. One of the problems is this "Law" business. Some scientist crystalises behaviour by writing a law and then they get all upset when the Universe doesn't adhere to it. Hawkins, Chandrasekhar, Einstein and the rest, play with their mathematical theories and then try to tell the Universe how it works. And when they find anomalies, they state that the Universe is wrong, not the formula, i.e. Singularities...if the laws of physics breakdown, the Universe breaks down!

Cheers!
"Emancipate yourself from mental slavery, none but ourselves can free our mind."
Bob Marley
User avatar
redeye
 
Posts: 394
Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2008 4:56 am
Location: Dunfermline

Re: Newton's Electric Clockwork Solar System

Unread postby StevenO » Tue May 12, 2009 7:42 am

redeye wrote:Newton's "law" of gravity states:

This is the parameters within which gravity seems to operate in our Solar system...God only knows why!

The same statement can be made about any physical law, also the EM laws, so what does it say?
redeye wrote:If you think you understand something, then come across anomalies, you're wrong. Not, a wee bit wrong...just wrong. The best way I can explain it is with a soduko puzzle: If you realise you've made a mistake it is practically impossible to work back and find the error, it's actually quicker to start again.

There are countless anomalies concerning the "Laws" of gravity. One of the problems is this "Law" business. Some scientist crystalises behaviour by writing a law and then they get all upset when the Universe doesn't adhere to it. Hawkins, Chandrasekhar, Einstein and the rest, play with their mathematical theories and then try to tell the Universe how it works. And when they find anomalies, they state that the Universe is wrong, not the formula, i.e. Singularities...if the laws of physics breakdown, the Universe breaks down!

Cheers!

1. The anomalies you refer to are interesting enough to study, but are really just a small disturbance
2. If the Earth, Moon and Sun line up an effect could be generated, e.g. a tidal force
3. The universe always follows it's laws otherwise it would not be that regular, it is up to us to discover them and their range of validity
First, God decided he was lonely. Then it got out of hand. Now we have this mess called life...
The past is out of date. Start living your future. Align with your dreams. Now execute.
User avatar
StevenO
 
Posts: 894
Joined: Tue Apr 01, 2008 11:08 pm

PreviousNext

Return to Thunderblogs/Multimedia

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest