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

Re: Why Are Planetary Orbits So Stable?

Unread postby edcrater » Sat Dec 13, 2008 6:55 am

I don't know whether htert2020 has seen this link:
http://kronia.com/thoth/ThoIII11.txt
where Wal Thornhill gives an electrical explanation.
User avatar
edcrater
 
Posts: 81
Joined: Wed Sep 03, 2008 1:57 am
Location: Limerick, Ire.

Re: Why Are Planetary Orbits So Stable?

Unread postby Tzunamii » Sat Dec 13, 2008 11:51 am

My understanding is that the catastrophic events of our past were charged bodies (planets) in an electrical environment working toward an equalization, that we enjoy now.
I'm wondering what would have to change in the environment to disrupt this calm, & make those bodies have to do so again.
Would we be able to detect changes in the Galactic environment, or even further up the causality tree, necessary to invoke a change in our Suns electrical environment? (radio telescopes perhaps)
If it happened before, whats to stop it from happening again?
User avatar
Tzunamii
 
Posts: 113
Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2008 12:46 pm

Re: Why Are Planetary Orbits So Stable?

Unread postby redeye » Sun Dec 14, 2008 2:26 pm

Venus has one and it's been shown to be larger than expected. I would suspect the magnetosphere of the earth would deflect this more so as opposed to earth's moon or mars due to the lack thereof.


Venus doesn't have a magnetosphere. It's atmosphere gets stretched out by the Solar wind (heliospheric current sheet) into something aproximating a cometary tail which can reach back all the way to Earth.

It's interesting that mainstream science goes to such lengths to link Venus and Earth as "sister planets" and completely ignores the differences i.e. Venus is in orbital resonance with the Sun and has the most circular orbit of all the planets (least eccentricity) and Earth is not in orbital resonance with the sun (thanks to the Moon I think) and has an eccentric orbit. Venus=no magnetosphere Earth=significant magnetosphere.

Venus is the Earths doppelganger, not it's "twin sister"

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: Why Are Planetary Orbits So Stable?

Unread postby Total Science » Mon Dec 15, 2008 8:09 am

Planetary stability only occurs in between plasma events.

"If an atom is built as a microcosmical model of a solar system, elements arriving from interatomic space, also travelling from one atom to another must be in existence. Contacts between elements, increase in numbers of electrons, polarities, change of orbits, all must take place. Change of orbits and emitting of energy at these moments were supposed by Bohr." -- Immanuel Velikovsky, cosmologist, November 1942

In the classical Newtonian model it's God's Divine Providence and infinite wisdom that keeps the planetary orbits stable and allows orbits at all.

http://hss.fullerton.edu/philosophy/GeneralScholium.htm

lest the systems of the fixed stars should, by their gravity, fall on each other, he hath placed those systems at immense distances from one another.

This Being governs all things, not as the soul of the world, but as Lord over all; and on account of his dominion he is wont to be called Lord God ..., Or Universal Ruler; for God is a relative word, and has a respect to servants; and Deity is the dominion of God not over his own body, as those imagine who fancy God to be the soul of the world, but over servants. The Supreme God is a Being eternal, infinite, absolutely perfect; but a being, however perfect, without dominion, cannot be said to be Lord God; for we say, my God, your God, the God of Israel, the God of Gods, and Lord of Lords; but we do not say, my Eternal, your Eternal, the Eternal of Israel, the Eternal of Gods; we do not say, my Infinite, or my Perfect: these are titles which have no respect to servants. The word God* usually signifies Lord; but every lord is not a God. It is the dominion of a spiritual being which constitutes a God: a true, supreme, or imaginary dominion makes a true, supreme, or imaginary God. And from his true dominion it follows that the true God is a living, intelligent, and powerful Being; and from his other perfections, that he is supreme, or most perfect. He is eternal and infinite, omnipotent and omniscient; that is, his duration reaches from eternity to eternity; his presence from infinity to infinity; he governs all things, and knows all things that are or can be done. He is not eternity and infinity, but eternal and infinite; he is not duration or space, but he endures and is present. He endures forever, and is everywhere present; and, by existing always and everywhere, he constitutes duration and space. Since every particle of space is always, and every indivisible moment of duration is everywhere, certainly the Maker and Lord of all things cannot be never and nowhere. Every soul that has perception is, though in different times and in different organs of sense and motion, still the same indivisible person. There are given successive parts in duration, coexistent parts in space, but neither the one nor the other in the person of a man, or his thinking principle; and much less can they be found in the thinking substance of God. Every man, so far as he is a thing that has perception, is one and the same man during his whole life, in all and each of his organs of sense. God is the same God, always and everywhere. He is omnipresent not virtually only, but also substantially; for virtue cannot subsist without substance. In him** are all things contained and moved; yet neither affects the other: God suffers nothing from the motion of bodies; bodies find no resistance from the omnipresence of God. It is allowed by all that the Supreme God exists necessarily; and by the same necessity he exists always and everywhere. Whence also he is all similar, all eye, all ear, all brain, all arm, all power to perceive, to understand, and to act; but in a manner not at all human, in a manner not at all corporeal, in a manner utterly unknown to us. As a blind man has no idea of colors, so have we no idea of the manner by which the all-wise God perceives and understands all things. He is utterly void of all body and bodily figure, and can therefore neither be seen, nor heard, nor touched; nor ought he to be worshiped under the representation of any corporeal thing. We have ideas of his attributes, but what the real substance of anything is we know not. In bodies, we see only their figures and colors, we hear only the sounds, we touch only their outward surfaces, we smell only the smells, and taste the savors; but their inward substances are not to be known either by our senses, or by any reflex act of our minds: much less, then, have we any idea of the substance of God. We know him only by his most wise and excellent contrivances of things, and final causes; we admire him for his perfections; but we reverence and adore him on account of his dominion: for we adore him as his servants; and a god without dominion, providence, and final causes, is nothing else but Fate and Nature. Blind metaphysical necessity, which is certainly the same always and everywhere, could produce no variety of things. All that diversity of natural things which we find suited to different times and places could arise from nothing but the ideas and will of a Being necessarily existing. But, by way of allegory, God is said to see, to speak, to laugh, to love, to hate, to desire, to give, to receive, to rejoice, to be angry, to fight, to frame, to work, to build; for all our notions of God are taken from the ways of mankind by a certain similitude, which, though not perfect, has some likeness, however. And thus much concerning God; to discourse of whom from the appearances of things, does certainly belong to Natural Philosophy.
"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: Why Are Planetary Orbits So Stable?

Unread postby nick c » Tue Dec 16, 2008 3:25 pm

Can orbital stability in the solar system be achieved in a relative short period of time?
Can orbital stability ever be achieved in a gravity only model?
See the [url2=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/N-body_problem]the n body problem[/url2].
Perhaps it is time to look at the solar system from more than a simple gravitational model. It is stable, now and within the timespan of most observations, however there is evidence that this stability is recent. If so, there must be a mechanism that can stabilize the system in a relative short period of time, to my knowledge no such mechanism has been proposed. But does gravitational theory by itself meet the requirements?
http://www.holoscience.com/views/view_plasma.htm
Comets have been observed to have their orbits altered as they come under the influence of other bodies, as well as due to [url2=http://adsabs.harvard.edu/full/1969AJ.....74..720M]non-gravitational forces[/url2]. Although, the 'non gravitational forces' are thought to be [url2=http://www.lpi.usra.edu/books/CometsII/7009.pdf]outgassing[/url2], which supposedly acts like a jet (?) altering the comets' orbit. Yet, the EU has demonstrated that "outgassing" is not what is taking place...
http://www.thunderbolts.info/tpod/2005/ ... rrelly.htm


redeye wrote:Venus doesn't have a magnetosphere. It's atmosphere gets stretched out by the Solar wind (heliospheric current sheet) into something aproximating a cometary tail which can reach back all the way to Earth.

True, and very interesting! Venus has a massive atmosphere, some 90 to 100 times denser than Earth's. Yet we are told that due to its' lack of a magnetic field, its' atmosphere is being stripped away by the Solar Wind!
Planets with a weak or non-existent magnetosphere are subject to atmospheric stripping by the solar wind.

Venus, the nearest planet to Earth, has an atmosphere 100 times denser than our own. Modern space probes have discovered a comet-like tail that stretches back to the orbit of the Earth.[28]

Mars is larger than Mercury and four times farther from the sun, and yet even here it is thought that the solar wind has stripped away up to a third of its original atmosphere, leaving a layer 100 times less dense than the Earth's. It is believed the mechanism for this atmospheric stripping is gas being caught in bubbles of magnetic field, which are ripped off by solar winds.[29]
highlights added
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_wind

This raises some interesting questions!
-how long has Venus' atmosphere been subjected to this stripping process?
-how could it have been continually stripped for billions of years and yet still possess this massive atmosphere?
-is Venus' atmosphere (along with its' anomalous temperature) not in equilibrium?
-is this not consistent with the proposition that Venus is a new member of the solar system?

http://www.holoscience.com/news.php?article=9aqt6cz5

nick c
User avatar
nick c
Moderator
 
Posts: 2268
Joined: Sun Mar 16, 2008 8:12 pm
Location: connecticut

Re: Why Are Planetary Orbits So Stable?

Unread postby GaryN » Tue Dec 16, 2008 9:20 pm

It would be easier for me to accept a rapid repositioning of the planets if they were to be considered hollow, metallic spheres. Their mass would be a lot less than we now believe, and surface charge alone would probably make them scoot around like ping-pong balls, if a substantial change in the solar system electrical fields were to occur.

nick c posted:

-is this not consistent with the proposition that Venus is a new member of the solar system?


Or an existing, recently repositioned one? A previous moon of Saturn or Jupiter?
In order to change an existing paradigm you do not struggle to try and change the problematic model. You create a new model and make the old one obsolete. -Buckminster Fuller
User avatar
GaryN
 
Posts: 2556
Joined: Tue Apr 01, 2008 8:18 pm
Location: Sooke, BC, Canada

Re: Why Are Planetary Orbits So Stable?

Unread postby redeye » Wed Dec 17, 2008 11:03 am

The orbital relationship between the inner planets is bizarre, there seems to be resonance between all four.

Venus.

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: Why Are Planetary Orbits So Stable?

Unread postby redeye » Wed Dec 17, 2008 2:02 pm

Cont....

Mars

Can't find a similar model for the Earth or Mercury.

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: Why Are Planetary Orbits So Stable?

Unread postby flyingcloud » Wed Dec 17, 2008 2:39 pm

Thanks redeye regarding the Venus magnetosphere, my bad.

I'm not sure you'd find one with earth, the perspective of opposition requires the earth as the central location, I think...
flyingcloud
 
Posts: 488
Joined: Fri Nov 07, 2008 2:07 am
Location: Honey Brook

Re: Why Are Planetary Orbits So Stable?

Unread postby flyingcloud » Wed Dec 17, 2008 2:39 pm

Thanks redeye regarding the Venus magnetosphere, my bad.

I'm not sure you'd find one with earth, the perspective of opposition requires the earth as the central location, I think...
flyingcloud
 
Posts: 488
Joined: Fri Nov 07, 2008 2:07 am
Location: Honey Brook

Re: Why Are Planetary Orbits So Stable?

Unread postby redeye » Thu Dec 18, 2008 1:02 pm

Thanks redeye regarding the Venus magnetosphere, my bad.


I actually meant to correct myself - Venus does have a magnetic field, but it's a small one like Mercury and the standard line is that this is induced through the interaction between Venus' atmosphere and the "solar Wind".

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: Why Are Planetary Orbits So Stable?

Unread postby redeye » Thu Dec 18, 2008 2:04 pm

Mercury, from wiki:

Spin–orbit resonance
For many years it was thought that Mercury was synchronously tidally locked with the Sun, rotating once for each orbit and keeping the same face directed towards the Sun at all times, in the same way that the same side of the Moon always faces the Earth. However, radar observations in 1965 proved that the planet has a 3:2 spin–orbit resonance, rotating three times for every two revolutions around the Sun; the eccentricity of Mercury’s orbit makes this resonance stable—at perihelion, when the solar tide is strongest, the Sun is nearly still in Mercury’s sky.[65]

The original reason astronomers thought it was synchronously locked was that whenever Mercury was best placed for observation, it was always nearly at the same point in its 3:2 resonance, hence showing the same face. This is because, coincidentally, Mercury's rotation period is almost exactly half of its synodic period with respect to Earth. Due to Mercury’s 3:2 spin–orbit resonance, a solar day (the length between two meridian transits of the Sun) lasts about 176 Earth days.[12] A sidereal day (the period of rotation) lasts about 58.7 Earth days.[12]

Orbital simulations indicate that the eccentricity of Mercury’s orbit varies chaotically from 0 (circular) to a very high 0.47 over millions of years.[12] This is thought to explain Mercury’s 3:2 spin-orbit resonance (rather than the more usual 1:1), since this state is more likely to arise during a period of high eccentricity.[66]


I think this points to an orbital resonance between the Earth and Mercury....but I've been wrong before.

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: Why Are Planetary Orbits So Stable?

Unread postby david barclay » Sun Dec 21, 2008 12:29 am

Orbital stability runs in cycles, as it is a differential in energy existing between the planets and the sun that determines the orbits.

The electrical factor is an effect and not a cause. Until we recognize the existence of an underlying force of energy accounting for both the form and function of all physical structure we are not going to understand what makes the universe tick.

For example; we presently equate mass with energy where the greater mass has the greater energy, but we fail to consider the possibility that the ratio of energy per unit of mass is different for each material.

If energy was in fact provided by an underlying force and focused to the core of each atom we would find the greater energy at the core, whereby the smaller mass of a similar material would have the higher ratio of energy per unit of mass.

So planetary orbits involve a factor of resistance in relation to a differential in energy existing between, for example, the earth and the sun, which is focused to the core of each.

And in a dynamic universe nothing remains stable forever, change is the only constant.
david barclay
 
Posts: 47
Joined: Mon Jun 23, 2008 8:59 pm
Location: Canada

Re: Why Are Planetary Orbits So Stable?

Unread postby NamuNamuNamu » Mon Dec 22, 2008 9:13 am

Hoy hoy, today I found this article and youtube video about a helical model for solar system by dr. Bhat... wow is this true?

I thought about starting a new thread but this one seems ok,, is good too ;)

Link to discussion and video : http://www.godlikeproductions.com/forum1/message684587/pg1

Link to video : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ub-Wg6s-_TM

--- Sketch of model ---
Image

Mmmmm so we are in a d.n.a.-like ROCKET shooting faster than speeding bullet with our Sun at the top! :P
NamuNamuNamu
Guest
 

Re: Titius-Bode law?

Unread postby FinalNotice » Sun Jan 11, 2009 12:22 am

The Pluto/Neptune anomaly of the Titius-Bode progression is predicted in the Initial Mass Displacements.
http://www.FrankHatchiii.com
Although the total Ceres mass includes an asteroid belt (2.8 AU), the total Pluto mass is unique.
Excluding Neptune, a variety of objects between 48.8 AU and 28.8 AU had a total mass of 10 Earth Masses (i.e.,Pluto Initial Mass).
FrankHatchiii.com
FinalNotice
 
Posts: 3
Joined: Sat Jan 10, 2009 11:38 pm

PreviousNext

Return to Electric Universe - Planetary Science

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests