Planetary orbits and spins

Historic planetary instability and catastrophe. Evidence for electrical scarring on planets and moons. Electrical events in today's solar system. Electric Earth.

Moderators: MGmirkin, bboyer

Frequencies and Rotation

Unread postby Nano » Tue Oct 13, 2009 4:48 pm

Questions from a planetary science buff to the experts...please be "technically gentle" with your replies. ;) If any of my basics leading to my question are incorrect, please set me straight...I am truly in learning mode here.

Basics:
The earth is moving through space, both around the sun and along with the sun as IT moves through space.
The earth's electromagnetic field helps keep its rotation stable.

Questions:
Are there bands of differing frequencies in the space through which the earth is moving?
If so, how do we know there are? If not, how would we know there aren't?
If the earth was exposed to high frequency EM fields in space, could it potentially cause a disruption in the rotational behavior of the earth?

Please educate me. Thanks.
User avatar
Nano
 
Posts: 3
Joined: Tue Oct 13, 2009 4:23 pm
Location: Virginia, USA

Re: Frequencies and Rotation

Unread postby moses » Wed Oct 14, 2009 12:03 am

The earth's electromagnetic field helps keep its rotation stable.
Nano

Not as far as I know. It is the gyroscopic effect that stabilises.

Are there bands of differing frequencies in the space through which the earth is moving? Nano
I assume you are refering to bands outside the Solar System.
The supposed 'proton bands' come to mind.

If the earth was exposed to high frequency EM fields in space, could it potentially cause a disruption in the rotational behavior of the earth? Nano
The Earth is shielded from galactic EM fields by the double
layer around the Solar System. However bands of EM fields
could be bands of plasma - as in plasma cells with borders
of double layers. If the Solar System entered such a double
layer various effects on the planets and the Sun are likely.
Mo
moses
 
Posts: 1026
Joined: Wed Mar 19, 2008 3:18 pm
Location: Adelaide

Re: Frequencies and Rotation

Unread postby Nano » Wed Oct 14, 2009 6:30 am

Thanks, Moses. Your answers bring forth refined follow up questions...

Is there a relationship between the centrifugal force supported by the gyroscopic effect and the earth's EM field?

Would a change in strength, shape, or distribution of the Earth's EM fields disrupt the rotational force the gyroscopic effect provides?

If so, what could possibly cause such a change in the EM fields?

Are there bands of differing frequencies in the space through which the earth is moving? (Still interested in this answer...)
If so, how do we know there are? If not, how do we know there aren't?

Best,
Nano
User avatar
Nano
 
Posts: 3
Joined: Tue Oct 13, 2009 4:23 pm
Location: Virginia, USA

Re: Frequencies and Rotation

Unread postby moses » Wed Oct 14, 2009 3:09 pm

Would a change in strength, shape, or distribution of the Earth's EM fields disrupt the rotational force the gyroscopic effect provides?
Nano

The magnetic field of the Earth has changed over the years. But I feel
that you are interested in a large change. Considerations of such a
large change belong in the NIMI section. As stated before, the Solar
System, and the Earth are shielded from galactic magnetic fields by
double layers. There would be 'bands of different frequencies in space'
in the sense that space is a plasma and plasma hangs around in cells.

If you want to discuss some new idea please do so in the NIMI section.
Mo
moses
 
Posts: 1026
Joined: Wed Mar 19, 2008 3:18 pm
Location: Adelaide

Re: Frequencies and Rotation

Unread postby Nano » Wed Oct 14, 2009 6:12 pm

Thanks again, Moses.

I didn't realize I was in the wrong place for my questions...Sorry about that. I read "planetary instability" in the forum description, and thought my questions best fit that descriptor. Not sure I have a new idea or even a mad one...just questions, but I'll head over to NIMI as you suggest.

In the meantime, I'm curious about what you mean by "double layers"...double layers of what? I apologize if the question is a naive one, but hey, I'm new, in the presence of experts, and love to learn.

Best,
Nano
User avatar
Nano
 
Posts: 3
Joined: Tue Oct 13, 2009 4:23 pm
Location: Virginia, USA

Re: Frequencies and Rotation

Unread postby junglelord » Wed Oct 14, 2009 8:26 pm

A double layer is a structure in a plasma and consists of two parallel layers with opposite electrical charge. The sheets of charge cause a strong electric field and a correspondingly sharp change in voltage (electrical potential) across the double layer. Ions and electrons which enter the double layer are accelerated, decelerated, or reflected by the electric field. In general, double layers (which may be curved rather than flat) separate regions of plasma with quite different characteristics. Double layers are found in a wide variety of plasmas, from discharge tubes to space plasmas to the Birkeland currents supplying the Earth's aurora, and are especially common in current-carrying plasmas. Compared to the sizes of the plasmas which contain them, double layers are very thin (typically ten Debye lengths), with widths ranging from a few millimeters for laboratory plasmas to thousands of kilometres for astrophysical plasmas.

Other names for a double layer are electrostatic double layer, electric double layer, plasma double layers, electrostatic shock (a type of double layer which is oriented at an oblique angle to the magnetic field in such a way that the perpendicular electric field is much stronger than the parallel electric field),[6] space charge layer.[7] In laser physics, a double layer is sometimes called an ambipolar electric field.[8] Double layers are conceptually related to the concept of a 'sheath' (see Debye sheath).

The adopted electrical symbol for a double layer, when represented in an electrical circuit is ────DL────. If there is a net current present, then the DL is oriented so that the base of the L is in line with direction of current.[9]


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double_layer_(plasma)


The Debye sheath (also electrostatic sheath) is a layer in a plasma which has a greater density of positive ions, and hence an overall excess positive charge, that balances an opposite negative charge on the surface of a material with which it is in contact. The thickness of such a layer is several Debye lengths thick, a value whose size depends on various characteristics of plasma (eg. temperature, density, etc).

A Debye sheath arises in a plasma because the electrons usually have a temperature on the order of or greater than that of the ions and are much lighter. Consequently they are faster than the ions by at least a factor of . At the interface to a material surface, therefore, the electrons will fly out of the plasma, charging the surface negative relative to the bulk plasma. Due to Debye shielding, the scale length of the transition region will be the Debye length λD. As the potential increases, more and more electrons are reflected by the sheath potential. An equilibrium is finally reached when the potential difference is a few times the electron temperature.

The Debye sheath is the transition from a plasma to a solid surface. Similar physics is involved between two plasma regions that have different characteristics; the transition between these regions is known as a double layer, and features one positive, and one negative layer.
If you only knew the magnificence of the 3, 6 and 9, then you would have a key to the universe.
— Nikola Tesla
Casting Out the Nines from PHI into Indigs reveals the Cosmic Harmonic Code.
— Junglelord.
Knowledge is Structured in Consciouness. Structure and Function Cannot Be Seperated.
— Junglelord
User avatar
junglelord
 
Posts: 3693
Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2008 5:39 am
Location: Canada

Flat Solar System - Why?

Unread postby suzdorr » Sat Jan 02, 2010 1:49 pm

What explains the fact that planets orbit the sun roughly along a plane?

I found this answer on a Nasa website, one obviously targeted to young students: "The fact the orbital planes of all planets and of most of their moons are so close to each other (though not exactly the same) suggests that they all were created from the same swirling cloud of dust, gas and flying rocks of assorted sizes. Different theories exist about how it happened, but I believe astronomers have observed such clouds, which one day may become planetary systems." (http://www-istp.gsfc.nasa.gov/stargaze/StarFAQ3.htm#q49)

Umm, OK, I'd ask the author, why would a swirling cloud of gas be planar in nature?

Seems to my unschooled faculties that the phenomenon must have something to do with the magnetic fields of the bodies involved.

Does the Electric Universe provide an answer?
suzdorr
 
Posts: 2
Joined: Wed Oct 28, 2009 4:00 pm
Location: Spring Creek, Nevada

Re: Flat Solar System - Why?

Unread postby jjohnson » Sun Jan 03, 2010 5:28 pm

My first response would be to question the initial condition of a "swirling cloud of dust...etc", if the NASA astronomer means that it is more or less randomly swirling around in many directions. Of course, if it is swirling around with most of the particles' velocity vectors co-planar, he has half his answer right there. But a roundish volume of gases and chunks in random motion seems unlikely to collapse into a neatly ordered plane of many elliptical to circular orbits under the sole influence of gravity.

My interpretation of what I've read in EU and plasma cosmology so far (I'm fairly new here, too) is that stars are formed in the pinching conditions when two parallel Birkeland currents are brought into close proximity by attractive electromagnetic forces, and begin to wind around each other, but maintain their separation because of their insulating double sheaths. You can read more on this in better detail in The Electric Universe and The Electric Sky. Like a butter churn, the forces at work tend to separate out lighter from heavier bodies radially, so at the center a lot of lightweight hydrogen and helium tend to gather, and fine dust and larger grit and chunks spin out a little wider, in a plane perpendicular to the long axis of the rotating currents. That in a nutshell is the direct answer I think EU would support. Experiments by Anthony Peratt with high energy plasma currents show photographically how such filamentary pinching occurs and the shapes in the particulates that result from this phenomenon. Your hunch that non-gravity forces may be at work is likely correct.

As these currents pinch, they compress, and their radii, becoming smaller and smaller, pinch the moving electrons that constitute their current, into smaller areas of space. This devolves into a very hot process at huge amperages (current flows) and ionizes the centrally trapped gases, at least in part. With sufficient density and heat the current density causes the star's plasma surface to radiate at higher and higher energy, passing from 'dark current' mode into 'glow' mode and thence into 'arc discharge' mode, which is essentially like continuous lightning discharge over the surface of the entire star.

The twisting and pinching, meanwhile, causes the separated elements and dust to rotate around the central area between the two pinching currents. This creates an extended gaseous halo or ring of material moving equatorially around the new star, more or less in-plane, so there you have your circular disk in an approximately ecliptic plane normal to the two current filaments. This is messy and semi-chaotic, and I suspect that it takes a long history for the E/M (electromagnet or charge) forces to eventually smooth things out, and local gravity forces as well as electrostatic forces of orbiting bodies to sweep up most of the smaller dust grains and deposit them on larger bodies. Even in the case of our solar system not all the planets move entirely in the ecliptic, and a few orbits are misaligned more than the others.

Where do the large gas giants come from? One part of the hypothesis says that if there is more current incident upon the star than it can radiate away or eject, it undergoes stress. It has a built-in diode action which tries to relieve the stress by forcing the star to bulge outward and increase its radiating area, but that has a feedback loop, too, so it can only work within a certain range of stress relief. In extreme conditions then, a star may fission apart into two bodies, which expand so that they can each take on part of the current and reradiate it in a less stressed condition (low enough amps per square meter of surface).

Depending on circumstances I don't pretend to know anything about, the result of fissioning may be either a binary star system, or a star with a large, hot gas giant (sort of a super-cooled star) with which to absorb the incident current flow. In EU theory, there is a continuum of possible bodies ranging down from a star through dwarf stars to hot gas planets to cool gas planets. It may be that as electric stress decreases over time, a nearby hot gas giant planet will be moved out into a wider orbit through whatever forces are at work. I do not know if we have any strong models or hypotheses as to how that may happen, and might be very interesting to think about. Some other threads and resources on Thunderblogs are devoted to evidence as to what myths and petroglyphs and other handed-down evidence might mean in terms of the possibility of planets' having moved or migrated in relatively recent historic or prehistoric times.

I hope some of the more experienced participants here will chime in and elaborate and correct this beginning.
jjohnson
 
Posts: 1147
Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2009 11:24 am
Location: Thurston County WA

Orbital Distances Problem

Unread postby Komorikid » Mon Jan 04, 2010 6:14 am

Can someone help me with an problem I have been trying to solve.
Given the current state of the Solar System if the mass of a planet - say Mercury were to be increased or decreased would it still orbit at the same distance from the Sun or would more or less mass move it to a greater or lesser orbital distance?
Fiction can't be proven. Fact can't be denied - Paul M
User avatar
Komorikid
 
Posts: 66
Joined: Sun Mar 23, 2008 11:45 pm
Location: Sydney, Australia

Re: Orbital Distances Problem

Unread postby mharratsc » Mon Jan 04, 2010 1:00 pm

Wal Thornhill was saying in one of his articles that if two planets got close enough to electrically connect (i.e.- Venus plasmatail brushed up against Earth's plasmasphere), that Venus would transfer energy to Earth, decrease her mass and her orbit would correspondingly shrink. Meanwhile Earth would gain mass, and her orbit would correspondingly increase.

http://www.holoscience.com/news.php?article=q1q6sz2s

He says it much better'n I do... ;)


Mike H.
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: Orbital Distances Problem

Unread postby jjohnson » Tue Jan 05, 2010 11:56 pm

Miles Mathis's theory would ask, first, if the mass increased but not the radius - i.e., is the density increased, or does it stay the same and the planet just gets larger, like shoveling more basalt on top of Mercury's surface? His thesis is that the gravity portion of the Unified Field is proportional to the radius, while the E/M repulsive force opposing the gravity is proportional to the density, but falls off more quickly than gravity with increasing distance. This seems to say that if mercury got bigger but kept the same density, it would move to a different "balance" or equipotential point, with respect to the Sun, in a wider orbit, but if it weighed more but did not change radius (this is eines Gendankenexperiment, nicht?) it would be better balanced in a tighter orbit because its repulsive force would be stronger.
At least that's what I think Miles says! :roll:
jjohnson
 
Posts: 1147
Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2009 11:24 am
Location: Thurston County WA

Re: Orbital Distances Problem

Unread postby Trouserman » Fri Jan 08, 2010 3:59 pm

It depends on the momentum of the mass added.
Trouserman
 
Posts: 23
Joined: Thu Dec 10, 2009 9:20 am

Re: Orbital Distances Problem

Unread postby webolife » Tue Jan 12, 2010 4:01 pm

Jjohnson...
Are you sure about that? It seems just the opposite of EU that less surface area to mass ratio would create more repulsion... Can someone smarter in EU than I enlighten me on this?
I think I agree with Touserman that the angular momentum combo determines or situates the orbit.
Truth extends beyond the border of self-limiting science. Free discourse among opposing viewpoints draws the open-minded away from the darkness of inevitable bias and nearer to the light of universal reality.
User avatar
webolife
 
Posts: 2397
Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2008 2:01 pm
Location: Seattle

Re: Orbital Distances Problem

Unread postby nick c » Tue Jan 12, 2010 6:45 pm

Given the current state of the Solar System if the mass of a planet - say Mercury were to be increased or decreased would it still orbit at the same distance from the Sun or would more or less mass move it to a greater or lesser orbital distance?
Okay, I am nothing more than an amateur astronomer. Here is my understanding of the above question. If this is wrong or oversimplified let me know...I am sure someone will do just that :o

For a revolving or rotating system with no outside force applied...
Angular Momemtum= mass X velocity X radial distance from the center
This must be conserved, that is the product of m times v times r must remain constant...
example 1. when a spinning skater compresses herself by withdrawing her arms and crouching she is decreasing the radius of the system, since her mass remains the same, her velocity must increase...so she spins faster
example 2. likewise when a sportscar enters a turn, the driver presses on the gas pedal accelerating the vehicle, since mass is the same, the radial distance from the center must decrease...so the car tightens the curve

Now for the Mercury question, assuming no outside (electrical or otherwise?) force is applied, if Mercury gained mass then conservation of angular momemtum would demand that it's orbital velocity and distance from the Sun (or some combination thereof) decrease, that is move into a smaller orbit.
If Mercury lost mass- some combination of increases in orbital velocity and distance from the Sun would be required, but...
A complication however, Keplers Laws of Planetary Motion would require that planets on inner orbits have a greater orbital velocity than planets on orbits that are further out. So if Mercury increased mass and moved into a smaller orbit then it's orbital velocity must increase accordingly, so an increase in mass could only result in a smaller orbit (not a decrease in orbital velocity), and vice versa for a decrease in mass.
So,
mass - increase, then distance from the Sun - decrease.
mass - decrease, then distance from the Sun - increase.
Again, I am strict amateur, corrections anyone?

Nick
User avatar
nick c
Moderator
 
Posts: 2241
Joined: Sun Mar 16, 2008 8:12 pm
Location: connecticut

Re: Orbital Distances Problem

Unread postby junglelord » Wed Jan 13, 2010 6:30 am

No outside force, is a closed system.
The universe and everything in it, operates from an open system.
At least thats my take on this whole thing.

Theoretical closed system equations shed little if any light on the solution.
If you only knew the magnificence of the 3, 6 and 9, then you would have a key to the universe.
— Nikola Tesla
Casting Out the Nines from PHI into Indigs reveals the Cosmic Harmonic Code.
— Junglelord.
Knowledge is Structured in Consciouness. Structure and Function Cannot Be Seperated.
— Junglelord
User avatar
junglelord
 
Posts: 3693
Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2008 5:39 am
Location: Canada

PreviousNext

Return to Electric Universe - Planetary Science

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest