beginner question - from EU Perspective

Historic planetary instability and catastrophe. Evidence for electrical scarring on planets and moons. Electrical events in today's solar system. Electric Earth.
Maol
Posts: 467
Joined: Fri Mar 11, 2011 8:40 pm

Re: beginner question - from EU Perspective

Unread post by Maol » Wed Feb 08, 2023 8:09 am

Aardwolf wrote: Tue Feb 07, 2023 5:48 pm
Maol wrote: Mon Feb 06, 2023 8:33 pm Are you factoring in your calculations that the value of g diminishes with depth in a body until at the center of gravity it reaches zero?

https://physicsteacher.in/2017/10/18/ac ... ght-depth/
Yes. There's still pressure as gravity is pulling in all directions rather than just one. Is the pressure at the bottom of the ocean lower than the surface? After all the gravity gradient is lower, why not pressure? Gravity between two identical planets is also zero. So, could you lift a copy planet Earth off the surface of the actual planet Earth by hand? Gravity at that point is, after all, zero.
For them to be in static contact at their surfaces would it not be necessary for them to be orbiting each other such as to have a centripital force balancing the gravitational force? In which case pushing them apart by hand would be possible but require a lot of patience. Similarly, in this hypothetical discussion of a small body forming by accumulating pumice-like material, pressure at depth is affected by whatever rotation is occurring during accretion of the body.

Aardwolf
Posts: 1456
Joined: Tue Jul 28, 2009 2:56 pm

Re: beginner question - from EU Perspective

Unread post by Aardwolf » Wed Feb 08, 2023 3:00 pm

Maol wrote: Wed Feb 08, 2023 8:09 am
Aardwolf wrote: Tue Feb 07, 2023 5:48 pm
Maol wrote: Mon Feb 06, 2023 8:33 pm Are you factoring in your calculations that the value of g diminishes with depth in a body until at the center of gravity it reaches zero?

https://physicsteacher.in/2017/10/18/ac ... ght-depth/
Yes. There's still pressure as gravity is pulling in all directions rather than just one. Is the pressure at the bottom of the ocean lower than the surface? After all the gravity gradient is lower, why not pressure? Gravity between two identical planets is also zero. So, could you lift a copy planet Earth off the surface of the actual planet Earth by hand? Gravity at that point is, after all, zero.
For them to be in static contact at their surfaces would it not be necessary for them to be orbiting each other such as to have a centripital force balancing the gravitational force? In which case pushing them apart by hand would be possible but require a lot of patience.
No, why posit additional parameters to aid you? Let’s say it’s 2 hemispheres of a non-rotating planet. Could you push apart those hemispheres considering gravity is zero at that point?
Maol wrote: Wed Feb 08, 2023 8:09 am Similarly, in this hypothetical discussion of a small body forming by accumulating pumice-like material, pressure at depth is affected by whatever rotation is occurring during accretion of the body.
No. "Pumicy" Hyperion for example rotates once every 13 DAYS. Some low mass locked moons even less (Iapetus takes nearly 3 MONTHS to rotate). Centripetal forces would be so low they're likely unmeasurable. Pressure would be completely unaffected and pumice would be crushed.

Maol
Posts: 467
Joined: Fri Mar 11, 2011 8:40 pm

Re: beginner question - from EU Perspective

Unread post by Maol » Thu Feb 09, 2023 1:23 am

Aardwolf wrote: Wed Feb 08, 2023 3:00 pm
Maol wrote: Wed Feb 08, 2023 8:09 am
Aardwolf wrote: Tue Feb 07, 2023 5:48 pm
Maol wrote: Mon Feb 06, 2023 8:33 pm Are you factoring in your calculations that the value of g diminishes with depth in a body until at the center of gravity it reaches zero?

https://physicsteacher.in/2017/10/18/ac ... ght-depth/
Yes. There's still pressure as gravity is pulling in all directions rather than just one. Is the pressure at the bottom of the ocean lower than the surface? After all the gravity gradient is lower, why not pressure? Gravity between two identical planets is also zero. So, could you lift a copy planet Earth off the surface of the actual planet Earth by hand? Gravity at that point is, after all, zero.
For them to be in static contact at their surfaces would it not be necessary for them to be orbiting each other such as to have a centripital force balancing the gravitational force? In which case pushing them apart by hand would be possible but require a lot of patience.
No, why posit additional parameters to aid you? Let’s say it’s 2 hemispheres of a non-rotating planet. Could you push apart those hemispheres considering gravity is zero at that point?
Maol wrote: Wed Feb 08, 2023 8:09 am Similarly, in this hypothetical discussion of a small body forming by accumulating pumice-like material, pressure at depth is affected by whatever rotation is occurring during accretion of the body.
No. "Pumicy" Hyperion for example rotates once every 13 DAYS. Some low mass locked moons even less (Iapetus takes nearly 3 MONTHS to rotate). Centripetal forces would be so low they're likely unmeasurable. Pressure would be completely unaffected and pumice would be crushed.
No, why posit additional parameters to aid you?
Why not? I am only trying to postulate a scenario that could result in such low density bodies. Do you have a theory that might explain it?
Let’s say it’s 2 hemispheres of a non-rotating planet. Could you push apart those hemispheres considering gravity is zero at that point?
One of us is being ridiculous with suggesting improbable scenarios, not sure which.
No. "Pumicy" Hyperion for example rotates once every 13 DAYS. Some low mass locked moons even less (Iapetus takes nearly 3 MONTHS to rotate). Centripetal forces would be so low they're likely unmeasurable. Pressure would be completely unaffected and pumice would be crushed.
Whatever rotation exists today doesn't imply that has always been for the last several billion years. From whatever unknown initial velocity bodies and fragments of bodies gradually lose rotation as they accrete and become tidally locked. I think the process is messy.

Arcmode
Posts: 54
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2022 10:45 pm

Re: beginner question - from EU Perspective

Unread post by Arcmode » 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.'

Aardwolf
Posts: 1456
Joined: Tue Jul 28, 2009 2:56 pm

Re: beginner question - from EU Perspective

Unread post by Aardwolf » Thu Feb 09, 2023 3:44 pm

Maol wrote: Thu Feb 09, 2023 1:23 am
No, why posit additional parameters to aid you?
Why not? I am only trying to postulate a scenario that could result in such low density bodies. Do you have a theory that might explain it?
Yes I do, isn’t that where we started. I’ll say it again, they do not have low density, they are rocks.
Maol wrote: Thu Feb 09, 2023 1:23 am
Let’s say it’s 2 hemispheres of a non-rotating planet. Could you push apart those hemispheres considering gravity is zero at that point?
One of us is being ridiculous with suggesting improbable scenarios, not sure which.
Why is it ridiculous? That is exactly the point where gravity = 0 and you believe that means pressure = 0. Maybe you finally realise that just because the “net effect” of gravity is zero, that is irrelevant with regards to pressure. If that wasn’t the case, you deeper you went in the ocean the lower the pressure would be. I think we can easily demonstrate that doesn’t happen.
Maol wrote: Thu Feb 09, 2023 1:23 am
No. "Pumicy" Hyperion for example rotates once every 13 DAYS. Some low mass locked moons even less (Iapetus takes nearly 3 MONTHS to rotate). Centripetal forces would be so low they're likely unmeasurable. Pressure would be completely unaffected and pumice would be crushed.
Whatever rotation exists today doesn't imply that has always been for the last several billion years. From whatever unknown initial velocity bodies and fragments of bodies gradually lose rotation as they accrete and become tidally locked. I think the process is messy.
We’re measuring gravity now. We’re measuring rotation now. Whatever may or may not have happened during formation, these moons can no longer be pumice as it would be crushed. Therefore something is wrong with their theory (unless you also think they are all made out of water like the rest of the congregation).

Aardwolf
Posts: 1456
Joined: Tue Jul 28, 2009 2:56 pm

Re: beginner question - from EU Perspective

Unread post 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.

Maol
Posts: 467
Joined: Fri Mar 11, 2011 8:40 pm

Re: beginner question - from EU Perspective

Unread post 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?

johnm33
Posts: 172
Joined: Thu Jul 14, 2011 11:43 am

Re: beginner question - from EU Perspective

Unread post 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.

Aardwolf
Posts: 1456
Joined: Tue Jul 28, 2009 2:56 pm

Re: beginner question - from EU Perspective

Unread post 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.

Maol
Posts: 467
Joined: Fri Mar 11, 2011 8:40 pm

Re: beginner question - from EU Perspective

Unread post 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?

Aardwolf
Posts: 1456
Joined: Tue Jul 28, 2009 2:56 pm

Re: beginner question - from EU Perspective

Unread post 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).

Maol
Posts: 467
Joined: Fri Mar 11, 2011 8:40 pm

Re: beginner question - from EU Perspective

Unread post 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?

Aardwolf
Posts: 1456
Joined: Tue Jul 28, 2009 2:56 pm

Re: beginner question - from EU Perspective

Unread post 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.

Maol
Posts: 467
Joined: Fri Mar 11, 2011 8:40 pm

Re: beginner question - from EU Perspective

Unread post 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?

Aardwolf
Posts: 1456
Joined: Tue Jul 28, 2009 2:56 pm

Re: beginner question - from EU Perspective

Unread post 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).

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests