Gravity and the Solar System

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

Moderators: bboyer, MGmirkin

Sparky
Posts: 3517
Joined: Tue Jul 20, 2010 2:20 pm

Re: Quantizations of Surface Gravity on planets

Unread post by Sparky » Mon Jun 09, 2014 5:50 am

So you mean comparable to pressure of a gas against a vacuum volume?
Matter requires energy to maintain it's activity. The sub-aether field supplies that energy. As aether is distorted by matter, it supplies the matter with energy. Virtual particles or whatever one calls them. The sub-aether particles may locally act as a bombardment gravity, but the distortion of the aether takes on the appearance of an attraction at a distance. The aether field is the overlay of the sub-aether, or vacuum energy. There is no vacuum, only the distortion of the aether field.

Why there are anomalies, I have no idea. It may have to do with local electrical charge.
Matter density should have more of a distortion on the aether field, supplying more energy to the matter.

Does this make any sense? :? :?
"It is dangerous to be right in matters where established men are wrong."
"Doubt is not an agreeable condition, but certainty is an absurd one."
"Those who can make you believe absurdities, can make you commit atrocities." Voltaire

Aardwolf
Posts: 1330
Joined: Tue Jul 28, 2009 7:56 am

Re: Quantizations of Surface Gravity on planets

Unread post by Aardwolf » Mon Jun 09, 2014 7:48 am

Holger Isenberg wrote:But the differentiation between Saturn with gravity 1 and Jupiter with 2.5 is not good yet, I need to find some more obvious difference.
Bear in mind that for the gas planets the "surface" gravity is not the surface. The figures quoted are for the top of the atmosphere not the rocky core, so you're not analysing like for like.

Holger Isenberg
Posts: 19
Joined: Sat Oct 22, 2011 11:10 am
Location: Earth
Contact:

Re: Quantizations of Surface Gravity on planets

Unread post by Holger Isenberg » Sun Jun 22, 2014 1:28 pm

Aardwolf wrote:Bear in mind that for the gas planets the "surface" gravity is not the surface. The figures quoted are for the top of the atmosphere not the rocky core, so you're not analysing like for like.
Yes, that's known and there might be some errors with the gaseous planets with that. Though if you compare the Sun with the gaseous planets, we now know by observation (see Robitaille) that the Sun indeed has a surface which correlates with its visible optical size.

With the gaseous planets, we can define their "surface" with the visible cloud top, as that is a very sharp optical border separating the planet from space. Independently from that, maybe we will find hints for the gaseous planets even having a very similar surface as the sun...

jtb
Posts: 566
Joined: Thu Jun 21, 2012 12:36 am

Circular Planetary Orbits

Unread post by jtb » Mon Dec 22, 2014 3:14 am

Why did ancient astronomers believe planetary orbits were perfectly circular? Why are there 360 degrees in a circle: why not 365 ¼ or 400 degrees?

According to Dr. Emmanuel (God with us) Velikovsky in “Worlds in Collision”, ancient civilizations had calendar years of exactly 360 days and exactly twelve, 30-day months.

Months of exactly 30 days and years of exactly 360 days would require perfectly circular 360 degree orbits. Each season would be exactly 90 days. Since monthly and yearly orbits were perfectly circular, it was probably assumed, and may have actually been, that all planetary orbits were perfect circles.

Something happened throughout the universe in recent ancient history (probably around 700 BC) that caused civilizations to add 5 ¼ days to their yearly calendars and to adjust the number of days in a month. Orbits became elliptical but astronomers still clingged to the old math of perfectly circular orbits for hundreds of years to come.

Cubit32
Posts: 16
Joined: Fri Nov 28, 2014 1:40 pm

Re: Circular Planetary Orbits

Unread post by Cubit32 » Mon Dec 22, 2014 1:29 pm

I've been looking into numbers a bit in the past. A lot revolves around 360 and the 12 hours of the clock in relationship with the cubit. If you take the earth radius to be 10^7 units (called cubits) the Great Pyramid at Giza is 360 cubits wide. 2520 such cubits fit in a mile. Multiply 2520 by Pi you have 7920, which is the radius of the earth in miles. The moons an earth radii are 1080 and 3960 Miles respectively, added up they equal 5040 (which is 2520*2).

432 (=36*12) ^ 2 is very closely the speed of light in miles per second and this is fitting because our source of light is a glowing orb that is ~432,000 Miles in radius.

If you were to 252 on a clock of 4320 degrees, 2520 would be at the 7 O'clock position, and this happens to be what the sphinx represents, being both cat and man. I'm aware of a few more numbers, but these ones I think pertain most to what you're talking about.

The ancients worshiped numbers and I think they had good reasons that are still valid today.

User avatar
Metryq
Posts: 513
Joined: Mon Dec 03, 2012 3:31 am

Re: Circular Planetary Orbits

Unread post by Metryq » Mon Dec 22, 2014 3:14 pm

Cubit32 wrote:The ancients worshiped numbers
There are physicists today who still worship numbers. While I'm on board with the significance of ancient writings as actual accounts (rather than mere fairytales), I try not to get too carried away. Perfectly circular orbits do not necessarily mean they meshed concisely into whole numbered days. The rotation of a planet could easily throw that off.

Have the orbits of the planets changed, perhaps even radically? That's a central concept in catastrophism. Altered orbits could easily add or subtract days from a planet's calendar—but then so could changes in rotational rate.

Stay focused. (Plasma focused.)

JHL
Posts: 158
Joined: Wed Dec 10, 2014 3:11 pm

Obsessions with marking celestial location

Unread post by JHL » Tue Dec 23, 2014 7:47 am

Perhaps related to the topic of the thread, were ancients obsessed with marking celestial location as their social, psychological reaction to a recent planetary realignment? Think Newgrange, Stonehenge, the pyramids, more.

I've always wondered why aligning earth with the heavens was so important. It certainly would have been an expected reaction if the ancient solar system changed.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newgrange

jtb
Posts: 566
Joined: Thu Jun 21, 2012 12:36 am

Re: Circular Planetary Orbits

Unread post by jtb » Thu Jan 08, 2015 6:56 am

JHL wrote:I've always wondered why aligning earth with the heavens was so important.
Aligning Earth with the heavens is important because time depends on the motion of heavenly bodies. A day is based on the motion of the sun from sunup to sunup. A month is based on the duration of the orbit of the moon. A century is based on the number of the sun's orbits around Earth. Hours, minutes, and seconds are based on the duration of the motion of the hands on a clock, or whatever motion powers an led clock.

Time began as a result of whatever caused motion in the universe; time ceases when the motion of heavenly bodies cease. Time had a beginning and time will have an end.

JHL
Posts: 158
Joined: Wed Dec 10, 2014 3:11 pm

Re: Circular Planetary Orbits

Unread post by JHL » Thu Jan 08, 2015 7:20 am

What I asked was if, since there had been a globally-witnessed, major planetary realignment ala the EU Saturn narrative, would civilizations adopt such cataclysm as central to their thinking and then install shrines, observatories, and markers to worship, measure, and commemorate such events.

I'd imagine the first thing the more conscious ancient minds would have done in reaction to finding themselves in a whole new climate under an entirely different sun would be to anchor their new solar placement in mind against such events happening again in the future. Bingo: Erect references to keep things in at least mental order.

jtb
Posts: 566
Joined: Thu Jun 21, 2012 12:36 am

Re: Circular Planetary Orbits

Unread post by jtb » Sat Jan 10, 2015 5:23 am

JHL wrote:if, since there had been a globally-witnessed, major planetary realignment ala the EU Saturn narrative, would civilizations adopt such cataclysm as central to their thinking and then install shrines, observatories, and markers to worship, measure, and commemorate such events.
Good question. Why are all the ancient structures oriented on the movement of the sun: north, south, east, west, day, year, solstice, equinox? If Saturn was the main sun, why weren't structures oriented on Saturn. Maybe they were but we don't know the ancient position of Saturn. Also, maybe the sun wasn't the main star, but its movements were consistent in the heavens and consistent motion is needed to determine the time to plant and harvest crops and to schedule meetings etc....

Why are all the ancient structures oriented on the movement of the sun; why not something else?

JHL
Posts: 158
Joined: Wed Dec 10, 2014 3:11 pm

Re: Circular Planetary Orbits

Unread post by JHL » Sat Jan 10, 2015 7:52 am

jtb wrote:Why are all the ancient structures oriented on the movement of the sun; why not something else?
I think if I'd been ancient peoples and suddenly the whole heavenly paradigm shifted, I'd be quite inclined to mark the new system for reference.

User avatar
Max Photon
Posts: 76
Joined: Tue Oct 08, 2013 8:02 am
Location: Spacetime
Contact:

Can You Create a Stable Planetary System? Play God here!

Unread post by Max Photon » Mon Jan 12, 2015 9:35 am

NASA's Astronomy Picture of the Day has an interesting game in which one can build his or her own planetary system and see whether it is gravitationally stable.

http://apod.nasa.gov/apod/ap150112.html

(Caution: drinking and creating the universe is against the law.)
www.maxphoton.com
Lighten Up!

jtb
Posts: 566
Joined: Thu Jun 21, 2012 12:36 am

Re: Circular Planetary Orbits

Unread post by jtb » Mon Jan 12, 2015 12:56 pm

JHL wrote: jtb wrote:Why are all the ancient structures oriented on the movement of the sun; why not something else?
I think if I'd been ancient peoples and suddenly the whole heavenly paradigm shifted, I'd be quite inclined to mark the new system for reference.
The point I'm trying to make is this: if the sun is the new bases for time keeping, what is the evidence for the previous method of time keeping before the paradigm shift?

User avatar
paladin17
Posts: 175
Joined: Mon Jul 14, 2014 7:47 am
Location: Minsk, Belarus

Re: Can You Create a Stable Planetary System? Play God here!

Unread post by paladin17 » Wed Jan 14, 2015 1:30 pm

Max Photon wrote:NASA's Astronomy Picture of the Day has an interesting game in which one can build his or her own planetary system and see whether it is gravitationally stable.

http://apod.nasa.gov/apod/ap150112.html

(Caution: drinking and creating the universe is against the law.)
Cool!
Thanks.

jtb
Posts: 566
Joined: Thu Jun 21, 2012 12:36 am

Re: Gravity and the Solar System

Unread post by jtb » Sat Oct 28, 2017 6:28 am

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GCNWOptuLec

Link above disputes gravity as postulated by modern science.

Locked

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests