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).
[quote=Maol post_id=8972 time=1676486051 user_id=7143]
[b][quote=Aardwolf]Orbits are the result of charge not mass.[/quote][/b]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? [/quote]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;
[url]https://phys.org/news/2015-04-gravitational-constant-vary.html[/url]
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?
[quote=Maol post_id=8972 time=1676486051 user_id=7143]
How can Hyperion have 10 times the g/cm and orbit where it does in defiance of Newtonian math? [/quote]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.
[quote=Maol post_id=8972 time=1676486051 user_id=7143]
Does the force of charge depend on mass? [/quote]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.
[quote=Maol post_id=8972 time=1676486051 user_id=7143]
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? [/quote] 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.
[quote=Maol post_id=8972 time=1676486051 user_id=7143]
In other words, why is Hyperion such an outlier one way or the other, Newton or EU?
[/quote]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).