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: Polar Configuration Observed?

Unread postby Aardwolf » Wed Jul 05, 2017 8:24 am

nick c wrote:hi celeste,
It is obvious that Newtonian mechanics has failed miserably hence the need for Dark Matter. Newtonian mechanics does not even explain our own solar system as perturbations should accumulate over millions of years to render planetary positions unpredictable.
I am not saying that there is no such force as 'gravity.' However, gravity (whatever that is) does not seem to be key to understanding the cosmos.
One day they will come to realise that stable orbits are only possible if there is attraction and repulsion present. The key failure to all n-body solutions >2 is because the forces are all in one direction. Once this is realised we can confine to the trash can all variants of dark mathematics, as theories will no longer require these absurd place holders, and science can truly advance.
Aardwolf
 
Posts: 1244
Joined: Tue Jul 28, 2009 7:56 am

Re: Polar Configuration Observed?

Unread postby Higgsy » Fri Jul 07, 2017 12:45 am

Aardwolf wrote:One day they will come to realise that stable orbits are only possible if there is attraction and repulsion present. The key failure to all n-body solutions >2 is because the forces are all in one direction. Once this is realised we can confine to the trash can all variants of dark mathematics, as theories will no longer require these absurd place holders, and science can truly advance.

Excellent. So where do I find the general analytical solution to the orbits of, say, three bodies under the influence attraction and repulsion?
Higgsy
 
Posts: 196
Joined: Wed Mar 08, 2017 3:32 pm

Re: Polar Configuration Observed?

Unread postby Aardwolf » Mon Jul 10, 2017 9:47 am

Higgsy wrote:
Aardwolf wrote:One day they will come to realise that stable orbits are only possible if there is attraction and repulsion present. The key failure to all n-body solutions >2 is because the forces are all in one direction. Once this is realised we can confine to the trash can all variants of dark mathematics, as theories will no longer require these absurd place holders, and science can truly advance.

Excellent. So where do I find the general analytical solution to the orbits of, say, three bodies under the influence attraction and repulsion?
You're not because to propose such a theory in the current climate is a prompt and one-way journey to ridicule, defunding and accusations of pseudoscience. Unfortunately mainstream astrophysical science is going to have to stumble along on their misguided blind alley looking for ever more complex reasons why their mathemagics will one day work.
Aardwolf
 
Posts: 1244
Joined: Tue Jul 28, 2009 7:56 am

Re: Planetary orbits and spins

Unread postby allynh » Tue Jul 11, 2017 9:57 am

This article reminded me of the "Allais effect" and I went looking for the classic thread to post this on and found that it was consolidated with many other threads. The "Allais effect" stuff starts here. I'm still reading through this whole thread to see how things are related.

This article has some links that are broken, but I posted them at the end. The Wiki page has some interesting comments about how this is related to Aether, so that intrigues me. I suspect that the various experiments that give ambiguous results are because they did not use a "Foucault pendulum". The whole point of "replicating" an experiment is that they need to actually use the same basic set up, not completely different equipment. HA!

The Eclipse Mystery: Pendulum Anomaly During Solar Eclipses Could Rewrite the Laws of Science
http://www.dailygrail.com/Fresh-Science ... ewrite-the
Eclipse

Next month, on August 21, a total solar eclipse will take place across the United States, viewable from locations sitting on a 100km wide path that will stretch from coast to coast. And while most people will take in the awe-inspiring spectacle by looking at the sky, a small group of scientists will likely spend their time watching a pendulum, seeking an anomaly that could turn physics upside down.

In 1954 French polymath Maurice Allais performed an experiment in which he release a Foucault pendulum every 14 minutes for an entire month. (A Foucault pendulum is one that, at its hinge point, is free to move in any direction. French physicist Léon Foucault used the device in 1851 to demonstrate the rotation of the Earth: because it can move in any direction, as the Earth rotates the pendulum's motion slowly shifts relative to the Earth beneath it. )

Maurice Allais' 30 day experiment happened to coincide with the 1954 solar eclipse, and he was shocked to find that during the eclipse, the pendulum's angular motion suddenly changed. There was no physical law which would suggest this effect, so Allais was baffled. Allais repeated the experiment in during another solar eclipse in 1959 to check his result, but again recorded an anomalous movement. This change in the motion of the pendulum during an eclipse came to be known as the Allais effect, or Allais anomaly. Suggestions for the cause have ranged from dark matter through to gravitational anomalies.

As with most other scientific anomalies, orthodox science has largely dismissed the Allais effect as likely being due to poor experimental set-up. Results by other experimenters have been inconclusive, with some finding positive results, others finding nothing, adding to the mainstream view that the Allais effect is bogus:
Variations of the experiment have been done with a torsion pendulum (basically a horizontal bar suspended on a wire), and some verified the result and others didn’t. In 1991 a precise torsion experiment was done, and found no effect. Because of this the common view is that the effect isn’t real, but there are still experiments that claim to confirm the Allais effect. Since the effect requires a total eclipse, you can’t do the experiment very often, and you need to have a setup portable enough to do on site. So getting good, consistent results is difficult at best.

The debate over the Allais effect still lingers. Some argue that it isn’t a real effect, some argue that it’s a real effect, but is due to external factors such atmospheric changes of temperature, pressure and humidity which can occur during a total eclipse. Others argue that it’s a real effect, and is due to “new physics.” This latter view has become popular among supporters of alternative gravity models. Allais himself claimed that the effect was the result of new physics, though never proposed a clear mechanism. As a result, the experiment has become “tainted” by fringe science to the point that mainstream scientists don’t really do the experiment any more. The 1991 result is pretty clear, and Allais’ results are likely due to experimental error.

Ironically, while many supporters believed Allais would eventually win a Nobel Prize in Physics for his discovery of this anomaly - with implications that could rewrite the laws of science - he actually went on to win the 1998 Nobel Prize in Economics for completely unrelated work.

Sadly, in recent years internet discussion of the Allais effect seems to have been hijacked somewhat by Flat-Earth proponents (yes, they still exist), who see the anomaly as a possibly way of disputing that pesky Foucault pendulum experiment that showed the Earth was a rotating globe. But hopefully there's some good science done during the upcoming eclipse, and we see honest discussion of any anomalous results that might be recorded.


The Pendulum of Truth
https://briankoberlein.com/2015/03/22/t ... -of-truth/

Gravity’s Shadow
https://briankoberlein.com/2014/04/21/gravitys-shadow/

Allais effect
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allais_effect
allynh
 
Posts: 858
Joined: Fri Aug 22, 2008 5:51 pm

Question concerning the validity of the Sunrise equation

Unread postby 6pije3 186pije3 18 » Wed Feb 07, 2018 1:51 pm

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sunrise_equation

https://www.timeanddate.com/sun/croatia/zagreb?month=1&year=2000

I have done calculations for sunrise and sunset Jan 2st, 2000 Zagreb.

Here is what I gotten:

n=1

Jx=0.9556

M=358.4709396

C=-0.049

λ=641.359

Jt=2451545.503

siny=-0.3822

y=-22.47

cos(wo)=0.4029

wo=66.24

From which it follows that:

Jset=2451545,503+66.24/360°

Jrise=2451545,503-66.24/360°

Jrise= 24*(0,503-0.184)=7.656h=7h and 39.36min

Jset= 24*(0,503+0.184)=16.488h=16h and 29.28min

But this does not correspond with the data for Jan 2st, 2000 Zagreb when it says that the Sunrise occurred at 07:37 and Sunset occurred at 16:22

Did i make a mistake somewhere in the calculations, or is the equation flawed?
6pije3 186pije3 18
 
Posts: 1
Joined: Wed Feb 07, 2018 8:38 am

Re: Planetary orbits and spins

Unread postby NT4MaximusD » Tue Feb 13, 2018 5:04 pm

I am sure this question has been answered somewhere in these voluminous forums, but I can't find it. I have watched all of the Symbols of an Alien sky and I have some questions about the planetary alignment. As I understand the theory, at least Jupiter, Saturn, Venus, Mars, and Earth were aligned in that order rotating on a common axis. Where was the central sun? The series only addresses this in passing that it was out of sight behind Jupiter. This means that Earth would be in the constant shadow of Saturn and Jupiter. Then how did the earth receive any sunlight? If the sun was in the polar configuration alignment as well then that would mean that at best only half of the earth would ever be in sunlight. Which would mean that the other half of the earth would be in perpetual night. I don't think that was the case but could someone help me figure this one out or point me to an animation that better displays how the polar collinear configuration worked.

Thanks
NT4MaximusD
 
Posts: 1
Joined: Mon Feb 12, 2018 8:44 am

Re: Planetary orbits and spins

Unread postby ja7tdo » Thu Feb 22, 2018 4:33 pm

allynh wrote:The Eclipse Mystery: Pendulum Anomaly During Solar Eclipses Could Rewrite the Laws of Science
http://www.dailygrail.com/Fresh-Science ... ewrite-the


hi,
I think about Foucault pendulum. it is not force de Coriolis.

The power to move Foucault pendulum is current
from my blog
https://translate.google.co.jp/translat ... edit-text=

Foucault's pendulum is said to have proved the rotation of the earth. In 1851 Foucault proved its rotation on experiment. Foucault's pendulum is thought to rotate little by little because the apparent force generated by rotation on the pendulum pendulum and the Coriolis force work.

Coriolis' force is explained by a rotating disk. When the ball on the disk moves, it seems to rotate as seen from the disk. The Coriolis force is thought to work in the direction of the whirlpool formed when a typhoon swirls, water that flows, flows.

Image
From wikipedia

But, it is somewhat strange if you think so. An object on the earth has an inertial force at the speed of its rotation. I do not feel spinning because the surrounding air also rotates with me. The air around the pendulum also receives the inertia of rotation. Does it rotate if a bar with weights on both ends is wired in the center and is hung in parallel? If Coriolis 'force is caused by inertial force, Coriolis' force will work on still objects as well. However, this rod does not rotate.

So, I thought about it in the intracerebral simulator. When I was a child, I imaged the solid in the brain, spun round and playing. I could do things like what I do with the current CG with brain image. I have also found a straight line that divides the cube into three equal parts. Taking the age, the performance of the intracerebral simulator has declined, but still works a little.

Well, before considering Fuuko's pendulum, I was thinking about the typhoon's rotational movement. Typhoons are reversed in direction in the northern hemisphere and the southern hemisphere. Foucault's pendulum also rotates in reverse. Both are thought to determine the direction of rotation by the Coriolis force. But, as I pointed out at the beginning, there is something strange about Coriolis' power.

At that time, it was the Earth's magnetic field that I noticed. The earth's magnetic field has a tilt and a dip angle. It is the gradient of magnetic field lines. In the equator, the almost horizontal dip angle increases as the latitude increases.

Regarding typhoons, I have something to do with pressure, so I will write in another article. We will explain Foucault's pendulum here. At first I thought that the metal ball of the pendulum was affected by the magnetic field. However, an eddy current is generated inside the metallic ball, and although it may become a resistance of the pendulum, a rotating lateral force does not occur. What I noticed there is a long wire hanging metal balls.

Since there are electrons inside the wire traversing the magnetic field, an electric field is generated and electrons move. Current flows. Since the pendulum reciprocates, a current is generated every cycle. Lateral force is applied to the wire through which current flows, but it does not rotate as it is. The magnetic field lines of the earth's magnetic field traversed by the wire have a slope. As the angle between the wire and the magnetic force line increases, the current becomes stronger, so the force on one side (from the equator) works strongly. It rotates.
ja7tdo
 
Posts: 55
Joined: Thu Jul 20, 2017 7:36 am
Location: Japan

Previous

Return to Electric Universe - Planetary Science

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests