Planetary orbits and spins

[nick c]

These are a few questions I have been mulling over for some time. Thought some one else might enjoy them?


1. Could the earths rotation be driven by the current being delivered to the earth from the sun? Wouldn't there be a considerable torque on the earth ?

2. High pressure rotates clockwise, Low pressure counter clockwise, Could there be individual " current ropes " playing between the earth and sun. Take a close look at plasma ball there seems to be a twisting of the plasma ropes. If a suspended earth object is suspended in this environment would we see the plasa twisting and turning at various points on the object?

Thanks

[nick c]

The earths rotation speeds up and slows down.
http://www.livescience.com/environment/050225_wobbly_planet.html
I remember reading somewhere that the rotation will speed up when we are hit with a cme and it slows down immediately afterwards.
Anyways, as I am sure you can see from reading the article that there is a colliation with the weather but that doesn't mean they have found the cause. If we realise that the earth is recieving energy from the sun, as seen in the northern and southern lights, and understand that the earths weather is driven by the energy we recieve from the electrically active solar environment http://www.holoscience.com/news.php?article=aapprbh6 http://www.holoscience.com/news.php?article=9eq6g3aj then the cause becomes more obvious. Since we are the focus of a z-pinch it would be obvious that if the energy input into the planet increased the spin would increase. Well, I am no expert so I hope this helps.

[Osmosis]

The current supplied by the sun, should be affecting the earth's total magnetic field readings. So, if we have an increase in the total magnetic field, corresponding with the speed-up of rotation and a CME event, perhaps this would lead to more proof of solar current influencing the planets' behavior.

[GaryN]

In E-Mail discussion with the author of the Universe Sandbox program( I asked if he could simulate an Electric Universe!), he asked if electrostatic charge would affect the orbit of the solar system planets. I said I thought they should organise themselves to reach an equilibrium. However a Google search turned up the Titus-Bode rule. I searched TB, but no match.
Anyone familiar with it?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Titius-Bode_law

[MGmirkin]

Would he only consider electrostatics, or would he consider electrodynamics as well? Granted electrodynamics would be something more like PIC (particle-in-cell) simulations, which can get tricky. But considering ONLY electrostatics (w/o the possibility of electrodynamics) might get things only half-right.

IE, one would want to be able to consider flowing charged particles / systems as opposed to ONLY static clouds of charge. IE, the difference between say the Earth's negative charge (electrostatics) and the sun's positive charge vs. the flow of currents (650,000 Amp Birkeland currents / "magnetic flux ropes" discovered by THEMIS) between the Earth and sun (electrodynamics) or the Io-Jupiter flux tube(s) (1 million Amp current)...

Just a thought... IE, how complicated / "correct" would we want it to get? The more correct the better, in my opinion...

Cheers,
~Michael Gmirkin

[MGmirkin]

In E-Mail discussion with the author of the Universe Sandbox program (I asked if he could simulate an Electric Universe!), he asked if electrostatic charge would affect the orbit of the solar system planets. I said I thought they should organize themselves to reach an equilibrium.

I think Thornhill has speculated on a mechanism whereby the planets will tend to exchange charge for some time and alter orbits until a "lest-interaction" regime of orbits is achieved. I don't know whether the Holoscience site specifically addresses that issue or not, or whether other papers or newsletter articles might have previously addressed it (AEON, Kronos or Thoth)?

~Michael Gmirkin

[nick c]

Michael:

I think Thornhill has speculated on a mechanism whereby the planets will tend to exchange charge for some time and alter orbits until a "lest-interaction" regime of orbits is achieved. I don't know whether the Holoscience site specifically addresses that issue or not, or whether other papers or newsletter articles might have previously addressed it (AEON, Kronos or Thoth)?

In a Thoth newsletter, Don Scott and Wal Thornhill discussed orbit circularization. No mention of Titius Bode, but I think this is to what you are refering.

CIRCULAR ORBITS
by Donald Scott and Wal Thornhill

DONALD SCOTT WROTE:
It also appears that Jupiter's plasma sheath extends almost all
the way to Saturn (much as Venus' does toward Earth). I'm
wondering if any more of the planets have plasma sheaths that
extend to just short of their next outward neighbor's orbit. If
that were the case, it certainly seems consistent with the idea
that the electric charge on each planet (together with the
electrical potential of the solar plasma at that orbital
distance) determines the length of the planet's sheath - and
this, in turn, causes circularization and the spacing between the
orbits of adjacent planets.

WAL SAYS:
You have the argument for orbit spacing precisely, but I consider
it to be a secondary effect. There would also seem to be a
primary mechanism at work where the annual charge exchange with
the solar plasma sheet is smoothed out. Comets are an extreme
example of varying charge exchange throughout an orbit and we
know that they exhibit so-called non-gravitational accelerations.
I have suggested that those accelerations *are* due to gravity
but that it is gravity itself that is changing as a result of
strong charge exchange with the solar plasma.

Such an orbit circularising mechanism would be more powerful
since it operates continually and not just when planets are in
line with the Sun. It would explain the near circular orbit of
Jupiter since any effect from Mars would be negligible. Also the
number of oppositions of the outer gas giants since the proposed
Saturnian system breakup, ca. 10,000 years ago, would be quite
small. So you might expect their orbital eccentricities to be
much higher if they were involved and the mechanism you mentioned
was the only one to cause circularisation of orbits.
----------------------------------------------
http://kronia.com/thoth/ThoIII11.txt

I am sure that there was something on Titius Bode in Aeon or Kronos. Robert Bass wrote an article in Pensee on this subject, of the planets spacing themselves so as to achieve a state of least action interaction.

Nick C

[webolife]

Look up "Bode's Law" if that's what you were wondering about, aka Bode's Rule:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Titius-Bode_law

The disclaimer that Neptune and Pluto disobey Bode's Rule, or disprove it, may be pe-mature... way more remains to be discovered about the interaction of that planetary pair and the nature of the Kuiper belt, before Bode's Rule can be entirely ruled out. Perhaps a future modification of the rule will bear out the observed pattern?

Lagrangian points also play a part in this discussion, as a consequence of natural hexagonal geometric ratios in the unified field.

Whether you blame it on gravitation, electricity, divine geometry, or music (as in Johannes Kepler's 3rd law of planetary motion... the "harmonics" law), or a combination of these, the natural order is a wonder to behold. The solar system as a unified system of masses exhibits orderly periodic properties (without its individual elements necessarily being waves)! BTW, compare the locations of the planets with the harmonics of a musical string.

[GaryN]

Thank you Michael and Nick C for your posts which have helped form a picture in my mind of what MIGHT be happening in our electrical environment.

"The Titus Bode rule is not the result of any known planetary interaction, nor is it even very accurate. Yet many astronomers suspect that it may be telling us something about the formation of the solar system, they just don't know quite what."

I had the feeling the T-B rule was telling me something, but couldn't put a finger on it.

Would he only consider electrostatics, or would he consider electrodynamics as well? Granted electrodynamics would be something more like PIC (particle-in-cell) simulations, which can get tricky. But considering ONLY electrostatics (w/o the possibility of electrodynamics) might get things only half-right.

Yes, electrodynamics must be considered, but my feeling is that the electrostatic force is the most influential in shaping the planetary formations. Electrodynamics produce and confine accumulating electrostatic charge. I'm going to have to expand on this post in the NIAMI forum, but basically what I am reasoning is that the Sun, and other bodies to varying degrees, build up a series of conentric rings of charge that have the highest values at the OUTER extremes.

If my proposal turn out worthless, I think it may at least be my finest Mad Idea!

[webolife]

Not worthless at all, Gary...
A similar model I've considered for about 3 decades is built around the relationships/ratios of the semi-major axes of the [elliptical] planetary orbits.
Specifically, the ratio of Period squared to Radius squared = the radius (ie semi-major axis) leading to an "area-mass equivalence" from which the planetary masses can be deduced. In this model the relative masses of the planets are given as a consequence of their relationship to the semi-major axis of the orbit, as well as showing how the concentric and repetitive harmonic nature of the orbits is correlated to the general planetary color! I would recommend you use the semi-major axis numbers versus the usually given average distance figures of standard sources, although for most low-eccentricity planets these will be very similar.

[MGmirkin]

(Was the Titius-Bode Series Dictated by the Minimum Energy States of the Generic Solar Plasma?)
http://public.lanl.gov/alp/plasma/downl ... 8.1990.pdf

Regards,
~Michael Gmirkin

[GaryN]

(Was the Titius-Bode Series Dictated by the Minimum Energy States of the Generic Solar Plasma?)
http://public.lanl.gov/alp/plasma/downl ... 8.1990.pdf

Regards,
~Michael Gmirkin]

That looks like a very interesting find, Michael, but I will admit to you that I am NOT a scientist, and that all that math gives me a headache! I would consider myself more akin to a Buckminster Fuller 'generalist'.
I have read and tried to understand the document, but any conclusions, if there are such, are lost on me. I would love to hear from those on TB willing to share their knowledge and expertise, and have hopes that the TB-ers collective wisdom will lead us to some synergetic conclusions.

[hyper.real]

The Wells paper ("Was the Titius-Bode Series Dictated by the Minimum Energy States of the Generic Solar Plasma?") belongs in the explanatory matrix of the Plasma Universe, but not the Electric Universe.

It is a possible account of the structure of the solar system (Sun, planets, smaller bodies) as we see it today, with the exception of a missing body between Mars and Jupiter. It is premissed only on the initial existence of a thin cylinder of plasma. The equations describing this plasma (under particular boundary conditions) involve a pair of Bessel functions, which are equivalent to (and can be computed) by the expansion of a series of terms. Wells performs that numeric expansion, scaling the result to the solar system. What he finds is that when the J(0) function evaluates to zero _and_ at this distance from the origin (centre of the Sun) the slope of the J(1) funtion is zero (i.e. it is a min or max), these distances correspond plausibly to the orbits of the planets. These are indicative of "islands of stability" in the the internal dynamics of the plasma. Thus we have a mathematically sophisticated derivation of Bode's "law" of planetary distances, which ties in with known behaviour of plasmas.

The equations used also yield Kepler's Laws relating orbital period and distance. Thus we have a mathematically sophisticated derivation of Kepler's Laws, which is independent of Newton's laws of motion and gravitation.

This then is an account of major properties of the solar system starting from plasma alone. A thin disc developes into differently-rotating annullar rings of plasma, which in the course of time are swept up into vaguely globular plasmoids, from which the planetary bodies eventually settle out. The latter stages of the process might be accounted for by other known properties of the action of plasma on dusts.

It is missing one planet. The author notes that its absence in reality may be the reason for the discrepancy between predicted and actual values for distance for the inner planets, as the error in the correspondence for the outer planets, including Pluto, is well under 1%. No account for the relative sizes of the planets is given, tho it looks as if one could be developed from consideration of the sizes of plasma rings swept up and other assumptions about the distribution of dust in the original plasma cloud. No account is given for the inclinations of planets' axes of rotation.

This theory of the Solar system appears to be incompatible with (a) the Saturnian hypothesis of a historically composited solar system, (b) theories of expulsive "birthing". (Very soon the status of Pluto as a planet will seem strange to readers - a case of falsification by the philosophers' ruse of redefinition of terms?).

The account as stated does not seem generalizable, except in regard to crunching more of the numbers to find where the "stability islands" exist beyond Pluto. The doctrine of the Oort Cloud may be a disincentive.

Another option that intrigues me is whether the boundary of the Sun (its diameter) could be deduced from the equations, i.e. the conditions for this. If so, it could have predictive value to other solar systems. As it stands the discovery of planets around other stars would seem on the face of it a falsification of the account.

[GaryN]

Thanks hyper.real, I THINK I am a little wiser!

As it stands the discovery of planets around other stars would seem on the face of it a falsification of the account.

Not sure I understand you here, as it seems like the 55 Cancri planets discovered so far adhere roughly to the formula.


From:http://www.planetary.org/news/2007/1107_Solar_System_Emerges_around.html

55 Cancri, as its name suggests, is the 55th brightest star in the constellation Cancer. It is similar in mass to our Sun, though older and somewhat dimmer, and it is located only 41 lightyears away – practically in our galactic back yard. Remarkably, as the outlines of the star's planetary system gradually emerged, it became clear that its basic architecture resonates strongly with that of our own solar system. 55 Cancri's system includes one giant planet, four times the mass of Jupiter, orbiting at a Jupiter-like 6 astronomical units (AU) from the star, and four smaller planets orbiting inside 0.8 AU, with an enormous gap in between. Compare that with our own solar system, where giant Jupiter orbits at an average distance of 5.2 AU from the Sun, and the four smaller inner planets are all congregated within 1.5 AU from the Sun.

Researchers find such similarities suggestive. The giant gap in the 55 Cancri system between the outermost giant planet and the one next in, notes team leader Geoffrey Marcy of U.C. Berkeley, is where one would expect to find Earth like rocky planets. In fact, Fischer notes, any planet within this gap must be relatively small, or it would destabilize the orbits of the known planets. And while the detection of such distant Earths is currently beyond the capacity of planet hunting technology, Marcy believes that this will soon change. Within five years, he predicts, continued observations may reveal the presence of rocky planets around 55

[junglelord]

The thing I find interesting is that the APM model incorporates and quantifies both charges and gravity as the only three forces. The shape of the primary angular momentum's double luxodrome is the same as the path of the earth around the sun. Thats pretty wild when you think about it and very fractal.