Toroidal path of sun due to electromagnetic forces

[james weninger]

I have been elaborating a similar approach in the old forum already!Pity that it got deleted. It dealt with the "grand circle" of our solar system around the center of our galaxis and the obvious "up-and-downs" of our system in relation to the central plain of the Milky Way. That was in connection with the SagA-Theory assuming that our Sun got "caught" by the Milky Way as SagA was commencing its perpendicular path through "our" Galaxis and the solar system got "stuck" here.

Moreover I recommend to read the work of Walter Cruttendens, as poster James Weninger has suggested in this thread before.

Look here:

"Comparison of Precession Theories: An Argument for the Binary Model"

As you may forget about the conclusions, the empirical data - which I find excellent reasoning - may help you to get further insights into the topic.

FS3

FS3, Sorry your thread was deleted. Can you sum up again?

In the mean time, do we all agree that the currently accepted idea of sun's orbit is wrong? Astronomers say the sun is on an elliptical orbit around a mass concentrated at the center of the galaxy, all the while bobbing up and down through the galactic plane.
1. If the sun is bobbing up and down,Kepler's laws for elliptical orbits quickly break down. Kepler's laws require elliptical motion in one plane.
2. To say the sun is orbiting a mass concentrated at the galactic center requires a continuous distribution of stars. Sure,on a galactic scale stars appear as a continuous distribution. On a local scale (say 10 ly),star distribution is discrete. If the sun is wandering through local stars, we can not map sun's velocity onto an elliptical orbit about galactic center. It's as absurd as saying "The moon is on an elliptical orbit around the sun,if we just treat earth and sun as a mass concentrated at solar system center"

[james weninger]

Just a thought.
JoeTB has a similar thread opened here:
viewtopic.php?f=10&t=226
would it be worth keeping the science part of this up here and concentrating on the myth part on Joe's thread?
I've not noticed Joe around for a while but maybe someone could PM him to see if he minds.
There is also a certain degree of overlap with my own Ancient Textual evidence thread as Nick's last couple of posts are taking us in a similar direction.

Good idea.
And on that note I would like to apologize. I find myself jumping from thread to thread,repeating myself on one thread and skipping over important points on another. If anyone has trouble following my arguements,that is my fault not yours.
Jim

[SpaceTravellor]

Hello,
In my opinion it takes 2 cosmic phenomenons to create a Toroidal movement in Space.

1. A fairly directed and focused force from a cosmic explosion.
2. A fairly rounded gas and dust molecular cloud.

When the directed force is hitting the the cloud fairly in the middle, the force will "turn the inside out" in a doughnut shape, accelerating the gas and dust more and more until gas and dust melts together in the ring. When reaching the critical stage, the whole ring explodes in an even larger ring shape. http://www.cosmology-unified.net/Cosmology.Holistic.htm

Link to a Doughnut Galaxy (2 fine illustrations and - the usual - explanation)
http://imagine.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/features/news/20jul04.html
Just forget the "Black Hole" explanation - it`s just an empty Vortex, although with enormeous forces goin on in the toroidal circulation and a strong force going out of the Doughnut in a 90 degree plane of the Doughnut.

More Doughnuts - in our Milky Way Galaxy:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/2632709.stm
This shape cannot be explained - unless one declares the orthodox gravity theory totally out of order, which I have done for some time ago.

In the case of our Milky Way, the movement is going OUT from the center which causes bulges in the outer area - again because there is an opposite force outside the Milky Way Galaxy which breakes the outgoing gas and matter from our Galaxy.

@ James Weninger:
If one accept the possibility (I think this for a fact) of an outgoing force from our Galaxy, I think this outgoing movement could explain the Toroidal movent of our Solar System.

NB: In my opinion, all the Creation Myths also confirms an outgoing force from the center of our Galaxy. http://www.native-science.net/MilkyWay.MotherGoddess.htm

[james weninger]

Hello,
In my opinion it takes 2 cosmic phenomenons to create a Toroidal movement in Space.

1. A fairly directed and focused force from a cosmic explosion.
2. A fairly rounded gas and dust molecular cloud.

When the directed force is hitting the the cloud fairly in the middle, the force will "turn the inside out" in a doughnut shape, accelerating the gas and dust more and more until gas and dust melts together in the ring. When reaching the critical stage, the whole ring explodes in an even larger ring shape. http://www.cosmology-unified.net/Cosmology.Holistic.htm

Link to a Doughnut Galaxy (2 fine illustrations and - the usual - explanation)
http://imagine.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/features/news/20jul04.html
Just forget the "Black Hole" explanation - it`s just an empty Vortex, although with enormeous forces goin on in the toroidal circulation and a strong force going out of the Doughnut in a 90 degree plane of the Doughnut.

More Doughnuts - in our Milky Way Galaxy:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/2632709.stm
This shape cannot be explained - unless one declares the orthodox gravity theory totally out of order, which I have done for some time ago.

In the case of our Milky Way, the movement is going OUT from the center which causes bulges in the outer area - again because there is an opposite force outside the Milky Way Galaxy which breakes the outgoing gas and matter from our Galaxy.

@ James Weninger:
If one accept the possibility (I think this for a fact) of an outgoing force from our Galaxy, I think this outgoing movement could explain the Toroidal movent of our Solar System.

NB: In my opinion, all the Creation Myths also confirms an outgoing force from the center of our Galaxy. http://www.native-science.net/MilkyWay.MotherGoddess.htm

SpaceTravellor,
While I do believe you are right about an outgoing force from our galaxy, I don't think that is what causes the toroidal path of our solar system.

As far as outgoing forces: We have works like "Pushing Gravity:New Perspectives on Le Sage's Theory of Gravitation" that argue that gravity may be a repulsive force.
We have the E-M ideas on this site that provide a mechanism for both attractive and repulsive forces on a galactic scale.
Even the mainstream scientific community has had to posit "dark energy" as a repulsive force acting between galaxies.
In short,I do believe you are right about an outgoing force at the galactic scale (whatever the mechanism turns out to be)

The thing is,only a right angle force (like magnetic forces on a charged particle) can cause toroidal motion of our solar system. The force on our solar system must always be perpendicular to the direction of the solar system's motion (not radially outward from galactic center)
Jim

[junglelord]

Space-traveler and James, its great to have both your inputs.
Wonderful change for the better for this forum.
Keep up the good work guys.

[SpaceTravellor]

Hello Jim,

The thing is,only a right angle force (like magnetic forces on a charged particle) can cause toroidal motion of our solar system. The force on our solar system must always be perpendicular to the direction of the solar system's motion (not radially outward from galactic center)
Jim

I agree I´m wrong about my remarks on the Toroidal movement of our Solar system - In fact: After writing this, I got a feeling of somebody in this Forum would correct me - and thanks for that, Jim.

But I´m not sure of electromagnetic forces causing the Toroidal movement. I´ve read somewhere that our Galaxy should be a little bit warped. Could this be the cause of the Toroidal movement when our Solar System orbits the Galaxy center?

As far as outgoing forces: We have works like "Pushing Gravity:New Perspectives on Le Sage's Theory of Gravitation" that argue that gravity may be a repulsive force.

Jim, thanks for these information’s, they are new to me! If you have some links, I´ll be glad to look at these theories. (By the way, do you have a website I can browse?)

To make my points about "gravity" very clear: In my opinion, there´s no such thing as a steady gravity force. There is 1 long wawe electricity (from several exploding sources) that causes swirls in local molecular gas and dust cloud; this swirling creates a hole which creates magnetic forces on the inside swirling hole/vortex. The magnetic force heats up the gas and dust.

When reaching the critical melting point in the big swirl, it explodes out larger magnetified lumps and gasformations that creates a lots of minor swirls in the (now young galaxy) sorroundings because of the original swirling. http://www.native-science.net/MilkyWay.Spiral.htm

The bigger and smaller melted magnetic swirling lumps becomes the densest Planets+Moons etc. and the magnetic gasformations becomes Gas"planets" i.e. "Suns" in all stages and brightness. That is: The creation of our Solar System MUST have taken place right out from the very centre of our Galaxy.

Throughout this whole movement; from the long wave cosmic explosion to the explosion in the gas- and dustswirl, the "gravitational force" has shown an inside going movement and a outside going movement. The orthodox "theory of gravity" does not at all compute to this full circle of movement.

- My approach to my points of views, origine from ancient Cyclical Mythology which is the most Holistic Cosmology I know of, and it´s very mind opening when one really diggs into the Tellings and Symbols and relate the whole Mythological content to Modern Science of Cosmology, Astronomy, Astrophhysics etc. etc.

Which I´m trying to do in my websites mentioned below.

Best Regards from Ivar.

[SpaceTravellor]

Ups - I have to get use to insert qoutations . . .

The inserted qoutes are of course not mine, but James´

Ivar

[junglelord]

The beauty of it is that you are working your way through it and are not set in stone.
I saw that from the posts above.
Way to go Space-Traveler.

[james weninger]

[/quote]Jim, thanks for these information’s, they are new to me! If you have some links, I´ll be glad to look at these theories. (By the way, do you have a website I can browse?)

To make my points about "gravity" very clear: In my opinion, there´s no such thing as a steady gravity force. There is 1 long wawe electricity (from several exploding sources) that causes swirls in local molecular gas and dust cloud; this swirling creates a hole which creates magnetic forces on the inside swirling hole/vortex. The magnetic force heats up the gas and dust.

When reaching the critical melting point in the big swirl, it explodes out larger magnetified lumps and gasformations that creates a lots of minor swirls in the (now young galaxy) sorroundings because of the original swirling. http://www.native-science.net/MilkyWay.Spiral.htm

The bigger and smaller melted magnetic swirling lumps becomes the densest Planets+Moons etc. and the magnetic gasformations becomes Gas"planets" i.e. "Suns" in all stages and brightness. That is: The creation of our Solar System MUST have taken place right out from the very centre of our Galaxy.

Throughout this whole movement; from the long wave cosmic explosion to the explosion in the gas- and dustswirl, the "gravitational force" has shown an inside going movement and a outside going movement. The orthodox "theory of gravity" does not at all compute to this full circle of movement.

- My approach to my points of views, origine from ancient Cyclical Mythology which is the most Holistic Cosmology I know of, and it´s very mind opening when one really diggs into the Tellings and Symbols and relate the whole Mythological content to Modern Science of Cosmology, Astronomy, Astrophhysics etc. etc.

Which I´m trying to do in my websites mentioned below.

Best Regards from Ivar.[/quote]

Ivar,
I don't have a website yet,but am working on it. I'll also assemble a list of interesting links. Give me a few days.
As far as the idea of our solar system being created right out of the center of the Galaxy,you may be right. For sure,if our solar system has a net charge,it did not get assembled by gravitational capture. As a matter of fact, Tom Van Flandern's "Dark Matter,Missing Planets & New Comets"shows how the current gravitational theory of solar system formation could not be right anyhow. His book is an interesting read.

Anyone reading,
As far as using mythology as a source,I agree. Here is one that just came to mind. On a recent Thunderblogs post,it talks of why the Earth has so much water. Where did it come from? We have a constellation, Aquarius,the water bearer. I could be crazy,but may be a hint hidden here?
Jim

[Grey Cloud]

Hi James,
You wrote:

As far as using mythology as a source,I agree. Here is one that just came to mind. On a recent Thunderblogs post,it talks of why the Earth has so much water. Where did it come from? We have a constellation, Aquarius,the water bearer. I could be crazy, but may be a hint hidden here?

Aquarius is an Air sign. The water he is carrying is not H2O methinks. Think aether. Don't mean to be cryptic but I don't want to de-rail the thread.

[james weninger]

O.K. back to the imagery. If the sun was moving toroidally,and we marked out the direction of solar system travel over time,we would see a path traced out just like the serpent Draco. The star Vega marks roughly the apex of the sun's way (the direction which we think the sun is traveling now). Vega is in front of Draco's head:this is just what we expect.
The imagery of Draco was set in the past. Draco's head was at the sun's direction of travel when the imagery was set. Since then, the sun's direction of travel has continued to spiral around to near Vega. With me so far?
Jim

[james weninger]

http://www.physicalsciences.ucla.edu/re ... ehelix.asp

I think the link above has some important information. Notice the part of the double helix shown in the green portion of the picture. It shows that the Double Helix Nebula is not a helix after all, but a torus. This is what I have been saying is the path of the sun.
This shows what is wrong with both mainstream theory AND current EU theory for the path of stars. Mainstream theory does not allow for a star's path to be governed by electromagnetic forces. The mainstream idea was that the stars in the nebula were just traveling in a straight line,and magnetic forces twisted the nebula to it's present shape. Now the mainstream astronomer must explain why the nebula curves off to one side as we trace it back in time.
Current EU theory is equally wrong in thinking the paths of stars follow plasma laws, and that the Double Helix Nebula is a Birkeland current. I have already stated that there is no Z pinch evident in the Double Helix Nebula, now the path appears to curve in a simple toroidal fashion. When considering a star's motion (the sun or stars in the Double Helix Nebula), it would be much wiser to think of the star as a charged object moving through an external magnetic field. This will let you calculate the observed toroidal path. Assuming that stars travel as Birkeland currents leads not only to the wrong path for stars, but more importantly points to the wrong sources for the magnetic fields causing these paths.
In Short: Mainstream theory is wrong about the path of stars in the Double Helix Nebula, but correct that the source of magnetism is external to the nebula. EU theory is correct in assuming a curving path for these stars, but wrong in assuming that the moving stars themselves generate the dominant magnetic fields. I am not saying Birkeland currents do not exist in space. I am just saying that to compute a star's motion, think of the star as a charged sphere and use simple E-M. It works.

[GaryN]

james weninger posted:

When considering a star's motion (the sun or stars in the Double Helix Nebula), it would be much wiser to think of the star as a charged object moving through an external magnetic field. This will let you calculate the observed toroidal path.
..I am just saying that to compute a star's motion, think of the star as a charged sphere and use simple E-M. It works.

Hear, hear!

Even a galaxy should be considered a charged object moving through the external magnetic field of a much larger structure, I reckon. How many orders of magnitude is your imagination good for?

[james weninger]

The gravitational model of Earth's precession (besides violating the law of conservation of angular momentum),fails to explain why the rate of precession has been increasing for at least the last few decades(really ever since we started tracking it accurately). Our toroidal model gives a simple explanation. What basic models for toroidal motion leave out is that the magnetic field is stronger nearer the center of the toroid. So as the sun spirals around the toroid, it should spiral faster near the center,and slower as it spirals back out. In other words,we should expect increasing rates of precession for 1/2 of our ~26,000 year precessional cycle and decreasing rates of precession for the other 1/2

[james weninger]

We are almost ready to prove mathematically that the sun is spiralling through space due to electromagnetic forces. How? I have already stated in this thread that precession is due to the solar system spiraling through space. In the thread "anomalous accelerations due to electromagnetic path of the sun", I am trying to show that anomalous accelerations and orbital energy changes of spacecraft are due to the solar system spiralling through space. Now we put them together. Our current rate of precession is our angular velocity around one spiral. We can also calculate our angular velocity from the anomalous acceleration-orbital energy info,since those give us solar system acceleration and velocity (we can solve for angular velocity and radius of spiral). The answers should be the same.