beginner question - from EU Perspective

Post a reply


This question is a means of preventing automated form submissions by spambots.
Smilies
:D :) ;) :( :o :shock: :? 8-) :lol: :x :P :oops: :cry: :evil: :twisted: :roll: :!: :?: :idea: :arrow: :| :mrgreen: :geek: :ugeek:

BBCode is ON
[img] is ON
[url] is ON
Smilies are ON

Topic review
   

Expand view Topic review: beginner question - from EU Perspective

Re: beginner question - from EU Perspective

by Aardwolf » Mon Feb 27, 2023 4:35 pm

Arcmode wrote: Thu Feb 23, 2023 9:53 pm 0.7 is the same density as cardboard. I would love to take a sample from the surface.
No need to wait or even speculate. It will be exactly what we already collect from everywhere else. Dense rocks.

Hayabusa-2 collected some samples from "snowball" Ryugu at 1.2 density. And guess what it brought back, rocks;
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-55315502
BBC wrote:chunks of rock...
Be careful what your lying eyes tell you BBC, didn't you know Ryugu is supposed to be made out of water.

Re: beginner question - from EU Perspective

by Arcmode » Thu Feb 23, 2023 9:53 pm

0.7 is the same density as cardboard. I would love to take a sample from the surface.

Re: beginner question - from EU Perspective

by Aardwolf » Wed Feb 22, 2023 4:54 pm

Here's Epimethus with an apparent density of 0.64 g/cm;

https://solarsystem.nasa.gov/moons/satu ... /in-depth/
NASA wrote:They are both thought to be composed of largely of water ice, but their density of less than 0.7 is much less than that of water. Thus, they are probably "rubble piles"—each a collection of numerous pieces held together loosely by gravity.
Really? Is that what this is? The internal loose material should at least be compacted to ice at 0.9 g/cm. Snow has virtually zero compression strength.

Re: beginner question - from EU Perspective

by Aardwolf » Wed Feb 22, 2023 4:52 pm

jacmac wrote: Wed Feb 22, 2023 3:10 pm This discussion about gravity and mass and pumice etc is way beyond my abilities.
However, I do have a question about PRESSURE deep in the earth (or any other solid body).
In a body of water or fluid, depth would be directly related to pressure. That makes sense.
But I don't understand assumptions of pressure deep under rocky bodies.
Any one passing under a BRIDGE of stone or rock would feel no pressure from the above structure.
So, deep in the earth how can depth be related to pressure when the lateral forces
in the structure above are not known ?
This has always bothered me.
Any comments ?
The bridge is protecting you from the pressure above you. You're still surrounded by atmospheric pressure. As for deep in the Earth, if you found a strong enough rock bubble you would be ok (like a submarine in the ocean), however, after about 1% down through the crust, it all likely turns liquid magma.

Re: beginner question - from EU Perspective

by jacmac » Wed Feb 22, 2023 3:10 pm

This discussion about gravity and mass and pumice etc is way beyond my abilities.
However, I do have a question about PRESSURE deep in the earth (or any other solid body).
In a body of water or fluid, depth would be directly related to pressure. That makes sense.
But I don't understand assumptions of pressure deep under rocky bodies.
Any one passing under a BRIDGE of stone or rock would feel no pressure from the above structure.
So, deep in the earth how can depth be related to pressure when the lateral forces
in the structure above are not known ?
This has always bothered me.
Any comments ?

Re: beginner question - from EU Perspective

by Aardwolf » Wed Feb 22, 2023 12:11 am

Maol wrote: Wed Feb 15, 2023 6:34 pm
Aardwolf wrote:Orbits are the result of charge not mass.
Astronomers calculate mass and velocity vs. gravity to determine orbits and vice versa, by rearranging the equation each can be determined from the others. The several moons of Saturn (and others) obey the "laws" of mass and gravity as calculated by astronomers since Newton, do they not?
No, that’s classic circular reasoning. We only observe 1 attribute, velocity. The gravitational constant is based on the result of the Cavendish experiment, but it is pure assumption. It’s just a requirement of believing mass = gravity that makes it a constant. It may just be relevant to Earth, and as a variable (based on charge) may explain why G has a 5.9 year oscillation coinciding with Jupiter's Aphelions/Perihelions in 1981, 1987, 1993, 1999, 2005 & 2011 which tie in to the low G measurements per the link below;

https://phys.org/news/2015-04-gravitati ... -vary.html

Obviously this predictable variation of a “constant” is unexplained by the mainstream, but if you insist on calculating mass using G and velocity, then depending on which years you get out your calculator, you MUST accept that the mass of all planets & satellites fluctuates up and down predictably every 5.9 years. Is that your belief?
Maol wrote: Wed Feb 15, 2023 6:34 pm How can Hyperion have 10 times the g/cm and orbit where it does in defiance of Newtonian math?
Newtonian math is based on the theory that mass = gravity. EU theory doesn’t sit within that framework so how can you use it to question it’s defiance/compliance. Apples & Oranges.
Maol wrote: Wed Feb 15, 2023 6:34 pm Does the force of charge depend on mass?
Yes and no. Charge principally depends on the distance from the sun (and likely Jupiter for its satellites), although the larger the satellite the larger its capacity for charge, so mass has a secondary effect. In fact volume may be a better fit to the charge ratio, not mass as such, but the 2 will obviously coincide.
Maol wrote: Wed Feb 15, 2023 6:34 pm The other moons orbit obeying Newtonian math which is calculated assuming their masses. Since the masses are all different, from and they are in orbits found to be correct with Newton's math assuming different densities as assigned to each, if, as you assert, the mass is actually 5 g/cm and the force of "charge" is constant relative to the distance from the Sun, why aren't the orbits arranged to satisfy charge acting on a constant mass of 5 g/cm, instead of the ratios of observed mass in Newtonian terms?
They are to an extent organised by charge. Higher charge satellites exist closer to the sun, lower charge further away, with some larger satellites showing slightly higher charge because of their relative size.
Maol wrote: Wed Feb 15, 2023 6:34 pm In other words, why is Hyperion such an outlier one way or the other, Newton or EU?
Why is it an outlier? It’s very similar to Janus & Epimethus and closer in gravitational pull to the majority of moons far from the sun. The real outliers are our Moon, Io & Europa “coincidently” being relatively close to the sun & and large compared to their siblings (together with the inner planets). All the other significant satellites (200+?) mysteriously all made out of water and/or holes (but cleverly disguise themselves as rocks).

Re: beginner question - from EU Perspective

by Maol » Wed Feb 15, 2023 6:34 pm

Aardwolf wrote:Orbits are the result of charge not mass.


Astronomers calculate mass and velocity vs. gravity to determine orbits and vice versa, by rearranging the equation each can be determined from the others. The several moons of Saturn (and others) obey the "laws" of mass and gravity as calculated by astronomers since Newton, do they not?

How can Hyperion have 10 times the g/cm and orbit where it does in defiance of Newtonian math?

Does the force of charge depend on mass?

The other moons orbit obeying Newtonian math which is calculated assuming their masses. Since the masses are all different, from and they are in orbits found to be correct with Newton's math assuming different densities as assigned to each, if, as you assert, the mass is actually 5 g/cm and the force of "charge" is constant relative to the distance from the Sun, why aren't the orbits arranged to satisfy charge acting on a constant mass of 5 g/cm, instead of the ratios of observed mass in Newtonian terms?

In other words, why is Hyperion such an outlier one way or the other, Newton or EU?

Re: beginner question - from EU Perspective

by Aardwolf » Wed Feb 15, 2023 4:49 pm

Maol wrote: Wed Feb 15, 2023 3:34 pm I am in agreement with the essay in holoscience,com but also recognize it is essentially a word salad explaining the obvious and easily understood theory of EU without providing anything to quantify a description of it. Essentially, as much assumption as you accuse "mainstream astronomers" are employing to explain the Universe as they choose to describe it. Where is the middle ground?
You agree but then define Wal’s article as word salad? Odd stance to take.

Maol wrote: Wed Feb 15, 2023 3:34 pm You still haven't proposed a theory to explain the gravitational anomaly of the orbit in EU terms.
I’ve explained repeatedly what my theory is. Here it is again although why are you referring to as a description of an anomaly? It's a theory of all orbit mechanics;

Orbits are the result of charge not mass.

I suspect you think that’s just more word salad but unfortunately I can’t articulate the theory in less or clearer words than that.

Maol wrote: Wed Feb 15, 2023 3:34 pm The "mainstream astronomers" agree that in their understanding of Newtonian gravity the density is inferred by the orbital mechanics, in which case it must be 0.5g/cm density to coincide with the observed body size (volume) and orbit.

Are you suggesting there is some local anomaly of EMF which has sufficient strength to have more influence than gravity and control the orbit in spite of your premise the mass is in error by a factor of ten, .5 to 5/cm ?

In EU theory, what can explain a local EMF anomaly of such large proportion?
I don’t think I understand your premise. I’m not saying there is some local anomaly, the effect is ubiquitous. It’s not locally overriding mass based gravity, mass based gravity is a nonsense. Simply, all the electromagnetic charge in the solar system is provided by the sun. So, all things being equal, the further from the sun the lower the charge (and by definition the lower the charge based gravity on those bodies). I think you're stuck in a mass=gravity=mass=gravity=mass loop without any substantiation.

Re: beginner question - from EU Perspective

by Maol » Wed Feb 15, 2023 3:34 pm

Aardwolf wrote: Tue Feb 14, 2023 1:50 am
Maol wrote: Sat Feb 11, 2023 5:34 am
Aardwolf wrote: Sat Feb 11, 2023 2:15 am
Maol wrote: Thu Feb 09, 2023 4:40 pm Have you offered an explanation for the 0.5g/cm density yet? If you have, I missed it. Or, are you saying NASA et al. are lying? Explain that, why would they do that?
Lying about what exactly? They have no idea what the density is, they can only measure orbital perturbations. They are then ASSUMING the density based on an incorrect theory. You seem to think they have actually measured the density.
Then will you provide the correct theory which agrees with the measured orbital perturbations and what is the density you presume to validate your theory?
The theory is basically the EU theory linked below, I don't think it's a secret;
https://www.holoscience.com/wp/electric ... -universe/.

The density is exactly what it looks like, the density of rock. Which is likely 4-5 g/cm or so, however, as the "gravity" is electromagnetic charge, it is impossible to know density for sure unless we drill into a planet to check. The measured perturbations don't reveal density, they reveal charge, and the further from the sun the lower the charge is (although the size of the planet/moon is a secondary factor).
I am in agreement with the essay in holoscience,com but also recognize it is essentially a word salad explaining the obvious and easily understood theory of EU without providing anything to quantify a description of it. Essentially, as much assumption as you accuse "mainstream astronomers" are employing to explain the Universe as they choose to describe it. Where is the middle ground?

You still haven't proposed a theory to explain the gravitational anomaly of the orbit in EU terms.

The "mainstream astronomers" agree that in their understanding of Newtonian gravity the density is inferred by the orbital mechanics, in which case it must be 0.5g/cm density to coincide with the observed body size (volume) and orbit.

Are you suggesting there is some local anomaly of EMF which has sufficient strength to have more influence than gravity and control the orbit in spite of your premise the mass is in error by a factor of ten, .5 to 5/cm ?

In EU theory, what can explain a local EMF anomaly of such large proportion?

Re: beginner question - from EU Perspective

by Aardwolf » Tue Feb 14, 2023 1:50 am

Maol wrote: Sat Feb 11, 2023 5:34 am
Aardwolf wrote: Sat Feb 11, 2023 2:15 am
Maol wrote: Thu Feb 09, 2023 4:40 pm Have you offered an explanation for the 0.5g/cm density yet? If you have, I missed it. Or, are you saying NASA et al. are lying? Explain that, why would they do that?
Lying about what exactly? They have no idea what the density is, they can only measure orbital perturbations. They are then ASSUMING the density based on an incorrect theory. You seem to think they have actually measured the density.
Then will you provide the correct theory which agrees with the measured orbital perturbations and what is the density you presume to validate your theory?
The theory is basically the EU theory linked below, I don't think it's a secret;
https://www.holoscience.com/wp/electric ... -universe/.

The density is exactly what it looks like, the density of rock. Which is likely 4-5 g/cm or so, however, as the "gravity" is electromagnetic charge, it is impossible to know density for sure unless we drill into a planet to check. The measured perturbations don't reveal density, they reveal charge, and the further from the sun the lower the charge is (although the size of the planet/moon is a secondary factor).

Re: beginner question - from EU Perspective

by Maol » Sat Feb 11, 2023 5:34 am

Aardwolf wrote: Sat Feb 11, 2023 2:15 am
Maol wrote: Thu Feb 09, 2023 4:40 pm Have you offered an explanation for the 0.5g/cm density yet? If you have, I missed it. Or, are you saying NASA et al. are lying? Explain that, why would they do that?
Lying about what exactly? They have no idea what the density is, they can only measure orbital perturbations. They are then ASSUMING the density based on an incorrect theory. You seem to think they have actually measured the density.
Then will you provide the correct theory which agrees with the measured orbital perturbations and what is the density you presume to validate your theory?

Re: beginner question - from EU Perspective

by Aardwolf » Sat Feb 11, 2023 2:15 am

Maol wrote: Thu Feb 09, 2023 4:40 pm Have you offered an explanation for the 0.5g/cm density yet? If you have, I missed it. Or, are you saying NASA et al. are lying? Explain that, why would they do that?
Lying about what exactly? They have no idea what the density is, they can only measure orbital perturbations. They are then ASSUMING the density based on an incorrect theory. You seem to think they have actually measured the density.

Re: beginner question - from EU Perspective

by johnm33 » Fri Feb 10, 2023 1:57 pm

1. red shift error means distances to other stars are wrong. I've heard that closer to us stars are possible to calculate, but the farther ones we can't. What is EU reality there? How is it that closer stars we CAN measure?

2. If gravity is not what is holding all the planets in their magically perfect orbits in perpetuity, then how do we know how to calculate their mass?

3. If we can sense a planets gravity from a probe, than I'm assuming we can extrapolate what the gravity is on that planet, and based on the measured size of the planet, can we deduce confidently what that planets mass is?

4. Can we use the same above on the sun, or are there electrical factors that make our sensor data on the graivity 'influenced' and therefore not an accurate means to determine the Suns mass?
1. Check out 'Malaga Bay' website and look through the parallax series.
2. Imo the planets are held in place by electromagnetic tensions in the suns bloch wall, that changes the orbits change. Don't know about mass I'm still a beginner too.

Re: beginner question - from EU Perspective

by Maol » Thu Feb 09, 2023 4:40 pm

Have you offered an explanation for the 0.5g/cm density yet? If you have, I missed it. Or, are you saying NASA et al. are lying? Explain that, why would they do that?

Re: beginner question - from EU Perspective

by Aardwolf » Thu Feb 09, 2023 3:53 pm

Arcmode wrote: Thu Feb 09, 2023 6:09 am Hyperion's craters are similar to those found on Mars. For example the dendritic ridges running along the inner rims and seeming to occur in preferred size ranges. The majority of Martian craters are almost certainly electrical in origin.

Upon closer examination it seems the 'pumicy' appearance is mainly down to the way some craters have been etched into the surface apparently at an oblique angle along the wall of what was perhaps a previous, much larger crater. Most of the surface is just overlapping, relatively shallow craters, and not really 'pumicy.'
And clearly not a "loose" snowball either of 0.5g/cm density! Sometimes I think NASA et al. are just trolling us.

Top