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: Orbits of Planets and Comets

Unread postby Lloyd » Mon Mar 11, 2013 1:27 pm

I'll say the same thing here.
Essential reading for helping understand comets: http://milesmathis.com/comet.pdf.
Other Mathis papers also help explain the planets.
Lloyd
 
Posts: 4095
Joined: Fri Apr 04, 2008 2:54 pm

Re: Orbits of Planets and Comets

Unread postby Lloyd » Tue Mar 12, 2013 8:16 am

Mathis has some very interesting new papers. Below is part of his new Comet paper from http://milesmathis.com/comet.pdf. His Enceladus papers are also very relevant to this thread. They're at http://milesmathis.com/encel.pdf and http://milesmathis.com/encel2.pdf. I hope to post some of the highlights from those, if I get time soon.

Excerpts from The Cometary Antitail by Miles Mathis
[2 New Comets]
Comet ISON is already generating excitement, since it is predicted to be one of the brightest ever seen in our lifetimes. It is scheduled to pass beginning November 28. The comet PANSTARRS is currently being seen in the south and will soon be seen here as well.

[Comets have Dust Tails, Ion Tails and sometimes Antitails]
http://www.optcorp.com/images2/articles/full-cometail.jpg
Image
[The Dust Tail Curves]
... The Astroprof ... shows us that not only the ion tail but the dust tail initially moves off directly away from the Sun in all positions [along a comet's travel]. Tosar has diagrammed the dust tail at nearly a tangent [in the wrong portion of the comet's travel], but it wouldn't be at a tangent [except] ... when the comet was approaching the Sun.

... this [is] a bigger problem ... (b)ecause it shows us that it is not only the ions that are reacting to the Solar wind ..., it is the dust as well. The Astroprof explains it like this: ... the dust tail is a bit more complicated. It is pushed outward by light pressure... Most people don’t realize it, but light can actually push on things. [Mathis says that's because photons have small mass, and I agree.] So, the light from the Sun is able to push the tiny dust grains outward. But, these dust grains are still orbiting the Sun. So, a push outward causes them to be pushed into farther orbits. The farther an orbit is from the Sun, the slower it moves. So, these dust grains lag ever so slightly behind the nucleus of the comet. The farther they are pushed, the more they lag, so the tail gently sweeps backward, though still largely pointing away from the Sun.

[Photoelectric Effect]
That answer is pretty clear, and part of it is actually close to correct. Problem is, it conflicts with current theory. That is why you won't see it at Wikipedia. Notice that the Astroprof is careful not to give the motion of the dust tail to the Solar Wind. He switches to light pressure. Why? Because the Solar Wind effect is currently given to the E/M field. The ion tail is moved by the Solar Wind precisely because it is ionic. It is charged. So the ion tail is explained as an E/M field effect. But the dust tail can't be explained that way, since the dust is not charged. It isn't ionic. It is also thought to be too heavy to be moved so forcibly by something as tenuous as the Solar Wind. It is not thought that [such weak] ion bombardment can so forcibly redirect relatively large particles like dust. If it could, the dust tail would also be given to the Solar Wind. So the Astroprof switches to light pressure, which is NOT thought to be an E/M field effect. Why not? Because photons are not thought to be charged. According to the mainstream, “photons have no electrical charge nor are they influenced by magnetic fields.” They also have no mass. They also have no radius.

The Astroprof is using an extension of the photoelectric effect here to explain the dust tail, but the mainstream doesn't like to do that so explicitly since it puts their dirty laundry out in the front yard. It begs a whole passel of questions, starting with, 1) If light pressure can explain the motion of dust, why can't it explain the motion of ions? Surely it is easier to push little ions than to push larger dust particles? 2) Why should light pressure be a stronger force than the Solar Wind? If the Solar Wind is ions and the light is just photons, shouldn't the larger ions impart a greater force than the smaller photons? In the comet tail theories, it seems like the bigger particles are being pushed by the smaller field. Ions are pushed by ions, but dust is pushed by photons? 3) I will be told that the ion field interaction is not a simple push or bombardment. It is an E/M field effect. But if that is so, and if the photon pressure is NOT an E/M field effect, then how do the p[h]otons create pressure? If they have no mass and no radius, the field must also not be a bombarding field. If it is neither a bombarding field nor an E/M field, how is the force transferred to the dust? Yes, photons have energy, but if they have no mass or radius, how do they transfer that energy to the dust?

... we have just seen on the Astroprof's page that in most positions, the dust tail doesn't follow an orbital trajectory or look like a normal exhaust plume. The dust follows the same initial trajectory as the ions and then curves. ... If space is empty, what is driving the dust back in a curve? Why doesn't the dust travel back in a straight line like the ions? Both the light pressure and the Solar Wind are still blowing straight out on a radial line, all the way out to Pluto. Why should the dust curve back?

[Magnetic Force Curves Dust Tails]
[Mathis shows why conventional explanations fail, then says this.] ... my unified field has answers to almost all the questions that come up in cases like this. In the unified field, we don't need to separate photon pressure from “E/M field effects,” because all E/M field effects are ultimately caused by photons. The Solar Wind itself travels in the charge field [photons], and is directed by it, so there is no real separation of Solar Wind from charge or photons. All the ions that come out of the Sun — whether these ions are an outcome of charge or fusion — must travel on pre-established charge field lines. This is because the E/M field is based on charge, and charge is photons. Charge itself is light pressure. The E/M field IS light pressure, not just visible Sunlight, but the entire spectrum. The photons drive the ions, and then the ions create the larger E/M field effects we see. But the photons drive the ions by real bombardment (including spin interactions). [Elsewhere he suggests that photons clump into electrons and clumps of electrons clump into protons etc. And photons have real spin, which causes the right angle effects of magnetic fields. When a lot of spinning photons, mostly spinning in the same direction, hit a dust grain, the grain is deflected at a right angle and so are the photons but in the opposite direction, like two colliding spinning ping-pong balls.]

The photons are not massless and they are not point particles. Photons do have a real radius. They also have real spins. The summed photon field will have a single spin value, but locally and individually the photons can have multiple spins and competing spins. Once we make the charge field photons real and mechanical (and stop separating charge ... from light photons), a lot of mysteries simply evaporate. For instance, we can now understand why the ion tail doesn't curve while the dust tail does.

The Solar charge field is made up of charge photons. It is the charge photons that set the field lines in the first instance. These field lines don't curve back at all relative to the Sun, since there is no reason for them to. They can't curve back relative to the center of the system, from which they are released. Most of the charge in the system comes from the Sun, and the Sun is at the center of the system. The center doesn't move relative to its own system, therefore the charge photons could not curve back relative to that unmoving center.

[Solar Wind Follows Photons]
The Solar Wind must follow this charge field as well. The charge field lines are pre-existing and much stronger than most understand. They are fully capable of channeling the ions in the Solar Wind, which are electrons or protons or other very small ions. When the Solar Wind hits the comet, the ions of the comet are also small enough to be fully channeled by the existing charge channels. This channeling is straight bombardment and is really no different than light pressure. The ion effect on the comet is initially electrical, not magnetic, and we can tell that just from the direction of the tail. Electrical effects like this match the motions we would expect from a bombarding field, and that is what we see.

The Solar Wind is moving out, as a matter of the particles, and so is the ion tail. That is bombardment, and it is also what we call electrical. The same applies to the dust. The initial motion could be called either electrical or photon pressure, since at the fundamental level they are the same thing (at least in this case). When the photons and the larger particles are moving in the same direction, we have an electrical effect. But when the larger particles are moving as a result of the photon spin, we have a magnetic effect. Therefore, the curvature of the dust indicates a magnetic effect .

Follow me closely here, because this is the kernel of the new argument. The ion tail doesn't curve back because the magnetic field of the comet matches the ambient magnetic field. The ions coming out of the comet aren't given any extra spin by the field, therefore they do not create any extra curve. In other words, the ions in and around the comet are already spinning to the left (say), so a left spinning photon field will not be able to spin them anymore than they are already spinning. Their trajectory, whatever it is, will not change. That is the definition of a straight trajectory.

[Magnetism is Photon Spin]
But the dust, being relatively magnetic-neutral, will not already be spun. This means the ambient photon field will be able to impart spin to it. As the dust moves off from the comet, it remains in the ambient field. So the dust gains spin from the field as time passes. This causes the curve. The dust, which is not initially ionized when it is still stuck in the comet head, is capable of becoming ionized once it is blown into small enough free particles. With the curve, we are watching the process of ionization. We are watching the dust particles being given more and more spin by the charge field [photons].

[Planetary Orbits]
If you extend this analysis, you can see that it is possible to explain the planetary orbit itself by such a magnetic effect, which is what I have done in previous papers . With the magnetic effect like this, you no longer need to explain the sideways motion of a planet as due to an “innate motion,” as Newton did.The “sideways” motion of orbiters is a magnetic response to the Sun's charge field. That is why they all orbit in the same direction. In order for a planet to orbit retrograde, the Sun's charge field would have to change its summed spin, and it simply cannot do that. The summed spin is pre-determined by the spin of the galaxy, and is simply recycled by the Sun. Even the Sun can only respond to larger fields.

Magnetic Forces Burn up Some Bodies
This is why 93% of known short-period comets orbit prograde. The charge field nearer the Sun is simply too strong — and therefore too polarized — to allow retrograde comets (except in very specific circumstances, see below). This also explains the various torques in Solar System dynamics, which cannot be explained mechanically by the gravity field. These torques work at field tangents, and gravity cannot act at a right angle to the field. Only the magnetic field can work at a right angle or tangent to the gravity field. Every torque in celestial mechanics is an indication of the magnetic field, and therefore of the unified field.

[He goes on to explain the brightness of Halley's comet by the magnetic field resistance etc.]
Lloyd
 
Posts: 4095
Joined: Fri Apr 04, 2008 2:54 pm

The Nice Model

Unread postby CosmicLettuce » Fri May 09, 2014 6:22 pm

The subject of this paper is interesting enough, but what caught my attention was the "Nice model" which is briefly mentioned but also referenced. Yehaw!

I've never heard of the Nice model so I'm sharing it with y'all. I'm also sorta kinda blown away by the statement in the Introduction that says: "It is currently well accepted that the outer planets radially migrated in the past". I've been an astronomer my entire life and I guess I've been ignorant of this. Certainly it never came up in classes or discussions with collegues (I was in astrophysics not planetary science, so maybe that's why).

Anyhow, I'm intrigued.

http://arxiv.org/abs/1405.1880

Peace, CL
"Nothing is rich but the inexhaustible wealth of nature. She shows us only surfaces, but she is a million fathoms deep" - Emerson

http://astroandmusic.blogspot.com/
User avatar
CosmicLettuce
 
Posts: 83
Joined: Wed Jan 29, 2014 8:09 am

Re: The Nice Model

Unread postby Metryq » Sat May 10, 2014 9:24 am

"Nice model"? "Jumping Jupiter"? "Ice giant"?

I am going to have a hard time keeping a straight face while I read this.

"Girl's a mind-reading genius, can't even figure out how to eat ice planet."
—Jayne Cobb, FIREFLY
User avatar
Metryq
 
Posts: 425
Joined: Mon Dec 03, 2012 3:31 am

Re: The Nice Model

Unread postby Bomb20 » Thu May 15, 2014 9:58 am

Hello CL,

I don´t understand the last post and think you found an interesting paper. I had never heard about any Nice model before but I heard that some scientists think about planet migration in the early ages of our solar system. So, it seems to me that a dogma was broken. However, I think one needs earlier and other accopanying publications as well to understand the paper. And "well accepted" is probably overclaiming.

Anyhow, I would like to know more.
User avatar
Bomb20
 
Posts: 173
Joined: Sun Sep 01, 2013 7:16 pm
Location: Germany

Fluctuations in the length of day.

Unread postby JouniJokela » Wed Jan 04, 2017 11:01 am

Inspired by the lates "TPOD", I post this issue here to be talked. As this is not directly the topic provided in TPOD, I open a new here where it belongs.

The rotational kinetic energy of Earth changes more than can be explained by the Earths internal aspects. This is another prove about how everything is connected to the sun. I've worked a full scale post here;
http://physics.stackexchange.com/questi ... rgy-change
So I dont repeat it. pls. look also my own answer to the question, this;
http://physics.stackexchange.com/questi ... 763#214763
And maybe even this Mercury stuff, which i admit, is not quite up to date.
http://physics.stackexchange.com/questi ... modynamics

Wikipedia provides also very good background info;
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Day_length_fluctuations
Last edited by nick c on Tue Jan 24, 2017 6:56 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Reason: spelling correction to thread title
JouniJokela
 
Posts: 92
Joined: Mon Mar 28, 2016 6:34 pm
Location: Swiss

Re: Fluctuations in the lenght of day.

Unread postby webolife » Sat Jan 07, 2017 9:09 pm

Very interesting post and articles.
It is not difficult to envision and attribute the micro-second fluctuations of LOD to internal interactions within the core[s], mantle and crust, and the tidal effect on atmosphere/surface friction due to gravitation wrt the moon and sun. Also the annual and semiannual "tweeks" in these fluctuations are recognizable effects of the earth's elliptical orbit, ie. the earth's changing angular momentum as it revolves around the sun translates, or rather transforms somewhat [due to conservation of AM] to a rotational fluctuation "tweek"... I would think that winter days then, due to the earth's nearness to perihelion and higher orbital velocity, would lose some rotational AM...ie. the days could be slightly longer. The summer days would thus be slightly shorter, approaching aphelion. Of course, the sun's angular relative displacement variance, as seen from the earth, ie. it's changing position in the ecliptic, is very noticeable to an astronomer, but these minor rotational fluctuations will go unnoticed by pretty much everyone (except maybe you and me!!! :lol: )
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: 2380
Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2008 2:01 pm
Location: Seattle

Re: Fluctuations in the lenght of day.

Unread postby JouniJokela » Sun Jan 08, 2017 5:46 am

webolife wrote:I would think that winter days then, due to the earth's nearness to perihelion and higher orbital velocity, would lose some rotational AM...ie. the days could be slightly longer. The summer days would thus be slightly shorter, approaching aphelion.


Interesting aspect. This actually seems to have a causality too. You obviously noted that the diagram was;
Note that this is not calendar Year, it starts on Equinox; 20/21 March.

And the similar Rotation can be seen in Mercury.

Anyhow, the yearly fluctuations are one thing, but the point above this is;
Another example can be made through long term changes. The slowest rotation speed ever was measured 18.3.1973; 86400.0041340 seconds, the fastest so far was measured at 5.7.2005; 86399.9989263 seconds. This difference means that 25.6 x10^21 J of Kinetic energy was stored for 32 years.


And I can't see anything in our solar system which could have been responsible for such a long cycle and scale.
JouniJokela
 
Posts: 92
Joined: Mon Mar 28, 2016 6:34 pm
Location: Swiss

Re: Fluctuations in the lenght of day.

Unread postby webolife » Sun Jan 08, 2017 9:41 pm

Kinetic energy "stored" sounds like an oxymoron to me.
I wonder if there is a different way to describe this differential?
Or is there a 64-year cycle that is affecting the Earth's AM budget?? A "true" Jupiter effect perhaps, involving the orbital synchronicities of Jove and Saturn, or electromagnetic field fluxes?
Or is the 32 year flux purely a random variance in a generally and virtually stable momentum equilibrium/conservation fundament...
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: 2380
Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2008 2:01 pm
Location: Seattle

Re: Fluctuations in the lenght of day.

Unread postby JouniJokela » Fri Jan 20, 2017 11:26 am

webolife wrote:Kinetic energy "stored" sounds like an oxymoron to me.
I wonder if there is a different way to describe this differential?


It was a purposely phrased Oxymoron, to show that "This cant be".
I mean, if you don't notice any problem in the current model, with Gravity and all, then the model must be correct.

So if "This cant be", then it's another notion in the direction, that the Gravity, as we expect it to be, with all that "Dark Matter" -nonsense etc, must be WRONG.

If your theory doesn't fit with the observation, ITS WRONG.
Thus, If you observe an increase in rotational Kinetic energy, there must be an energy input, as -indeed- it can't be stored in these scales.
JouniJokela
 
Posts: 92
Joined: Mon Mar 28, 2016 6:34 pm
Location: Swiss

Re: Fluctuations in the length of day.

Unread postby nick c » Tue Jan 24, 2017 7:14 pm

ON THE CONVECTION OF ELECTRIC CHARGE BY THE ROTATING EARTH
by Ralph Juergens
http://saturniancosmology.org/files/jue ... 2convc.txt

Electric Convection and the Earth's Rotational Glitches

In 1960 Danjon reported a sudden deceleration of the Earth's rotation
following a solar flare of record intensity.(8) According to his
observations, the length of the day increased by 0.85 millisecond and
thereafter began to decrease at a rate of 3.7 microseconds per day.
Eventually the rate of spin stabilized near its pre-flare value.

This announcement raised quite a few eyebrows. Quite impossible, said
the experts. One skeptic pointed out that the phenomenon implied an
increase in the Earth's polar moment of inertia of such magnitude as
might only be produced, for example, by instantly lifting the entire
Himalayan massif to a considerable height. Danjon, anticipating such
objections, argued that "it is very likely electromagnetism alone that
will furnish the explanation for these variations . . ." But his claim
was generally disregarded.

Then in 1972 it happened again, even more impressively. Danjon was
gone (deceased 1967), but Plagemann and Gribbin were on the watch.
They found that on August 7-8, following a week of frenzied solar
activity, the length of the day suddenly increased by more than 10
milliseconds. And again there was a gradual return to normal.(9)

Borrowing a term from pulsar astrophysicists, Plagemann and Gribbin
called the sudden deceleration of the Earth a "glitch."
User avatar
nick c
Moderator
 
Posts: 2234
Joined: Sun Mar 16, 2008 8:12 pm
Location: connecticut

Re: Fluctuations in the length of day.

Unread postby willendure » Thu Jan 26, 2017 3:27 am

nick c wrote:ON THE CONVECTION OF ELECTRIC CHARGE BY THE ROTATING EARTH
by Ralph Juergens
http://saturniancosmology.org/files/jue ... 2convc.txt

Electric Convection and the Earth's Rotational Glitches

In 1960 Danjon reported a sudden deceleration of the Earth's rotation
following a solar flare of record intensity.(8) According to his
observations, the length of the day increased by 0.85 millisecond and
thereafter began to decrease at a rate of 3.7 microseconds per day.
Eventually the rate of spin stabilized near its pre-flare value.

This announcement raised quite a few eyebrows. Quite impossible, said
the experts. One skeptic pointed out that the phenomenon implied an
increase in the Earth's polar moment of inertia of such magnitude as
might only be produced, for example, by instantly lifting the entire
Himalayan massif to a considerable height. Danjon, anticipating such
objections, argued that "it is very likely electromagnetism alone that
will furnish the explanation for these variations . . ." But his claim
was generally disregarded.

Then in 1972 it happened again, even more impressively. Danjon was
gone (deceased 1967), but Plagemann and Gribbin were on the watch.
They found that on August 7-8, following a week of frenzied solar
activity, the length of the day suddenly increased by more than 10
milliseconds. And again there was a gradual return to normal.(9)

Borrowing a term from pulsar astrophysicists, Plagemann and Gribbin
called the sudden deceleration of the Earth a "glitch."


Never heard of this until now. How fascinating. :-)
willendure
 
Posts: 531
Joined: Fri Nov 28, 2014 8:29 am

Re: Fluctuations in the length of day.

Unread postby willendure » Thu Jan 26, 2017 4:22 am

ON THE CONVECTION OF ELECTRIC CHARGE BY THE ROTATING EARTH

...

Booker, in a straightforward work on the fundamentals of electrical
science, stresses the fact that electric charge placed on a rotating
flywheel increases its polar moment of inertia.(6) The presumption, of
course, is that the charge is convected as the flywheel rotates and
thus constitutes an electric current.


Has anyone a diagram showing what convected charge in a spinning flywheel looks like? I mean why does it 'convect' and what path does the current flow along?
willendure
 
Posts: 531
Joined: Fri Nov 28, 2014 8:29 am

Re: Fluctuations in the length of day.

Unread postby seasmith » Thu Jan 26, 2017 9:34 am

image:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Model_of_the_global_magnetospheric_electric_convection_field.jpg
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnetosp ... tion_field


The inertial effect of the quantity LQ^2 -- an apparent increase in
mass for the flywheel rim -- is due to electromagnetic induction as
the charge rotates with the rim, creating an electric current.

Suppose we adapt this to the problem of terrestrial rotation by
assuming that any suddenly emplaced (excess) electric charge becomes
distributed over the entire globe
in a time that is negligibly short.
-Juergens


convection = distribution ?
seasmith
 
Posts: 2588
Joined: Thu Mar 27, 2008 6:59 pm

Re: Fluctuations in the length of day.

Unread postby seasmith » Thu Jan 26, 2017 11:34 am

Will,
Juergens original article, with illustrations, is available here (Ian Tresman):

https://www.catastrophism.com/cdrom/pub ... /index.htm
seasmith
 
Posts: 2588
Joined: Thu Mar 27, 2008 6:59 pm

PreviousNext

Return to Electric Universe - Planetary Science

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests