Starring Gravity, Co-Starring Magnetism

[d3x0r]

A couple weeks ago, a friend tossed out 'what's the magnetic field of the Earth look like?' It's not the same I learned it was when I was in school. We have great studies to prove it's shape and characteristics. And then I began to wonder what else has been found out about this. I found the Nasa STEREO project - lots of fun. I found a LOT of fact based on 'the world being flat' (I'll explain that later, for now, consider that the Earth is round, and yet everyone still thinks it's flat - some suspect it might be round).

As a software developer, I've tried my hand at lots of simulations, cool graphics, and when it came to space - the only simluations I know that work are the ones that the absolute path as projected from knowing a length of the path we have already gone... that is path-scripting. I learned in school that there is gravity. That's it, there's nothing more, and so I made some suns, and threw some planets around them. It was all aboslutely horrible, and either whizzed off the screen and crashed into the gravitational bodies, and even researching fact, and knowing enough math to figure out what approximate values would be, there was no hope; I'm a failure at cosomologic simluation - but then I guess everyone else is too.

Or maybe, there's actually more to the puzzle that has been disregarded as irrelavent. So for all of you that know someone that knows someone that knows a scientist... pass this along.

I fear I'm going to take a few large steps and will miss a lot of ground between...

Along two edges there are sloped lines; these will curve fit to 1/d^2 (squared) and 1/d^3(cubed). It's not like we didn't have a good deal of information already available to make the connection early on - Kepler's third law states that d^2 : r^3; that is the distance from the sun squared and the speed of rotation cubed is a proportionate to each other. The attraction of gravity falls off at 1/d^2, where 1 is some constant including things like G and mass. The field effect of magnetics falls off at 1/d^3, where again 1 is a constant with things like a magnetic constant, flux density and strength.

A spinning charged mass generates magnetism. A thing with mass generates gravity. There will be a point (a lot of points, a nice wide cuve to settle into) that as you move further away, the magnetism will play less of a role, and gravity will pull the object closer, as the gravity pulls it closer, the magnetic repulsion (yes, assuming that north-sourth poles are vertically aligned in the same direction north-north and south-south) will play a larger factor, correcting for the excessive gravity. This will stabilize quite well (link to a difference graph of the functions) at some point 1/d^2 and 1/r^3 will have a difference that will form a stable cusp for a planet to orbit in.

[ for a graph of the area that I'm talking about - http://graph-plotter.cours-de-math.eu/ the first graph is '1/x^2' the second graph is '1/x^3' the range should be 0.5 to 1.6 on the x scale. This will result in a red line (magnetic field) and a blue line (grav attraction) where they intersect at 1.0 is a sweet spot. And there it is - it's at 1.0, so what's the big deal? (I'll come back to that)]

(See the pictures, ignore the commentary, and if you feel compelled, investigate fraud angles...)
http://www.examiner.com/exopolitics...icts-solar-eruptions-hitting-earth-on-july-7"

And I go back to this crop circle, I'm calling the large elongated object in the center the sun, the 5 objects connected to the sun with lines are planets, but only the first 5, because that is enough to establish a rule. There are the curves of 1/d^2 (the curves furthest from the 'sun', on the outside of the boxes from the sun), and 1/r^3 (curves in the gap between planets). The planets are numbered with 0, 1, 2, 3, and 4 dots. So that the two sides can be matched. One should show a proprotionality of magnetic field (the height of the line away from the sun where the 1/x^3 curve is, and the other would be related to its relative mass along the length away from the sun. There is an odd that's not on any of the paths, maybe that's where we think we are, by disregarding magnetism, and assuming that we're an an eliptical orbit which makes everything else seem eliptical and with the sun at some balance point between.

On the other side away is another look at the same sort of information, but this time centered around out own planet earth, and our moon. THere are curves that I can't make out with the resolution of photos available to me. The moon is a minor permanent magnet, and certainly a weight. The moon will be very close to where we think it is, but this shows the moon passing in and out of the field of the sun, with the field being shown towards the sun as the field that is blocked by the Earth's magnetic presense.

What does it all mean? Well to go back to the math, let's apply a slight misinterpretation of Newton's third law, two forces equal and opposite result in a net 0. This keeps a repulsive force(magnetism) and attractive force (gravity), of which a significant portion needs to be gravity(? I have a theory that I cannot accurately prove while in the presense of gravity), or more correctly each force is 1/2 applied to what we think it is. So that instantly makes the sun 2x as massive. See, a lot of knowledge we have stated in books, one can apply the math to and come up with. But it's all math relative to what we know from gravity alone. Some bodies have less magnetic force, and will have to orbit closer even with the same weight. Some with a larger field could be much more massive than we think they are and still orbit at a distance we think they are.

This circle also...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5Eou22AVDZc"

As there are 9 circles, one can assume they are planets, but the third one out is actually smaller than the others. This would make Earth not quite so big as we think it is? All the planet drawing I've seen have Earth as bigger than venus AND mars. It never made sense to me that that one would be smaller... but maybe it is; maybe this is all a horrible misinterpretation.

The standard constant G 'hold to be true from distances of 1mm to a few hundred thousand km'. But beyond that, it falls apart. Why? One thing, maybe we're actually twice the distance we should be from the sun and it's 4x as massive. Maybe light takes 16 minutes to get here; how do we now the distance to the sun? Relative to all the other planets and angles to the background stars. So maybe measurements are somewhat accurate. When kepler first plotted the course of Mars he found it to be a percect circle, it wasn't until he got back to the Earth that he found the sun was in the wrong position relative to the Earth and mars.

So, to go back to my programming simulations, I came to the conclusion that computers were just too finite to handle running something as precise as the orbit of a planet; upon reflection, this probably isn't really the case. Beleiving that gravity alone is responsible for the positions of planets and orbits is a lot like beleiving the Earth is flat.

There are some problems with this line of thought 1) there is a LOT of information based on gravity alone - space-time warping, quantum and string theories. 2) if you have two magnets that are the same alignment, while they are exactly aligned they don't have a lot of force on them, but there is still quite an amount that will want to turn one towards the other to make poles mis-match (north goes to south). But then again, since only 1/2 the force is required, then it's still a really small part of the matter, and probably a gyroscopic motion will keep the planet generally stable; since I cannot get measurements of the force of this torque from the sun - a measurment they didn't put on the STEREO equipment; it's difficult to justify this.

However, and I must include this, in 1994 a nobel prize was given for a thing called 'gravitational radiation', as inspired by 'what would make two black holes move further apart'. So, while definatly no one in the world knows anything, people are willing to believe just about anything as long as it's within what they do think they know.

Edit: oh, and problem 3) the belief that gravity affects photons, which I cannot find a single lab expirament to confirm; however, do you know what affects photons and charged particles? The 'gravity' of Jupiter was measured as it passed in front of a star, and they measured the phase shift as Jupiter passed in front of it. What's a black hole? A swirling mess of charged particles, and a really big magnetic field, trapping everything like light; gravity certainly takes care of the rest. I'm not saying that now gravity doesn't have a significant role.

-----

Oh ya, and polar shifts! The 'strength' of the Earth's magnetic field has been weakening steadily for the past 40(60?) years [I had a site that had a good timeline since it's been recorded, but I'm failing to find it now] looks something like a sine wave to me, as we move slightly further from the sun, our own field will be decompressed, revealing a lower density of flux lines.

They claimed they made a magent 300,000 times as strong as the earth; so for the time that magnet was on, shouldn't all of our compases be pointed that way? No, because there's a lot of ways to measure a magnetic field, one is in 'tesla' which is the flux density - you know those 'lines' around a magnet, there's more of them. The other is ampere-meters, which is a silly term for what it means, also called oersted; this second measurement is how fast the field accelerates 1g-1cm-1second; this measurement however is expressed by emu (field strength) /cm3 (cc or ml).

Please correct me if I'm wrong and skipped a track somewhere.

I don't need to be called stupid, but advisements of failings are appreciated.

But anyhow, polar shifts I think are not in our immediate future; maybe on the next cycle when we're compressing the field and it's at it's strongest. Are you looking at apples and running out, or do you really have oranges which are the important part?

----

See the biggest thing for me was the field around our planet... http://nmp.nasa.gov/st5/SCIENCE/magnetosphere2.html"- this is just what we can definatly experience, because it is a sufficient strength and density to channel energies, and these are detectable now [magnetic force outside of this still exists, but at a frequency/power/density that it's not immediately detectable]. But the old view of a simple torus around the earth? maybe a slight bend because of solar wind or cosmic rays? But really, what sort of photon or particle is it that distorts a very strong magnetic field before it itself is deflected by the field? There aren't any... so what sort of radiation (emitted particle) or light would deform the magnetic field aroudn the Earth to such an extent? Well, another, larger, magnetic field would...

 

[d3x0r]

(seeking reference of work already done)

An expirament, best done in micro gravity, involves a gyroscope on a string moving in an orbit. how much force is on the string to keep the gyroscope in orbit (illustartions can be found here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circular_motion#Description_of_circular_motion_using_polar_coordinates". The hypothesis is that there will be 0 force required except for the cage on the gyroscope and its axel and the string.

If you remove the force of gravity on the same expirament in earth, the resulting force is nearly 0. So how much force does it really take to accelerate the Earth toward the sun in an already revolving path, with a gyroscopic spin. The math states that any additional vector perpendcular will increase a vector of motion, so really the force must be 0. I suppose the same expirament can be done on earth, putting a gyroscope in a bucket and doing it vertically; so the only force would be on the bucket and the axel of the wheel. But I don't have a rope with a fish scale that I can read while it's in motion.

I read and I read and I researched some more, finally there was a site that explained that no matter what, the full mass of the gyroscope is actually accelerated if you move any single part, all other parts must immediately respond. But what if, as is the nature of matter, that there are springs between the parts? A force on a few particles wouldn't have to immediately spread.

In the case of the Earth orbiting the sun, most of the particles of the Earth are already going in the direction for the next position to maintain its revolution around the sun, or they are in balance opposed to particles that will be in the correction rotation/revolution at any given moment (resulting in basically a 0 effect). At any given interval T this will be just the portion of a sphere that is the wedge of the angle of change for revolution. As T approaches 0, the mass of what must be accelerated also approaches 0. (a picture would be great here, I sketched it on paper pretty easy).

Worst case scenarios would be a spinning ball hitting another ball and producing an instantaneous change of direction (in 180degrees) from where they are, which would be that all particles would need a force applied. So a body like the moon that has a difference of revolution and rotation of 0, would be a larger force required (approaching rigid body), and a body rotation in the opposite direction of its revolution?

So a net balance of 0 would be between gravity and magnetic forces. So the true force computations would come from G/d^2 - M/d^3 = 0. This is also reflected in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaussian_gravitational_constant" , which he took and equated kepler's third law and taking the square root of the distance applied to magnetism...

 

[d3x0r]

Oh, misread kepler's third law... Well I guess I can't use that as a base stepping stone; the conclusion of the expirament from the second message should still be enough to assert validity.

 

[D H]

I certainly hope you are not moving toward some form of the silly electric universe nonsense, d3x0r. That is a crackpot theory and is a banned topic here.

What exactly are you trying to say, and please do be brief (your original post is very, very long).

 

[d3x0r]

Certainly not an electric universe. The title is a quick summation; but, since that apparently is too short...

I'm looking for why magnetic interactions have to this point been disregarded in solar mechanics, and pointing out that if they were accounted there would be a lot of things that would change; since a lot of current computations are based on calculations that are based on a chain of assumptions.

 

[D H]

Magnetic interactions are used to explain the behavior of the solar wind and interactions of the solar wind with the Earth.

Magnetic interactions have nothing to do with the orbits of the planets. It is far too small a force.

 

[d3x0r]

Since the scalar on magnetism is so much larger than gravity, and by expiramentation I can show that magnetic effects far exceed gravity, how does that hold to be true?

btw - links to obscure sites are for illustration purposes not proof.

They are now crediting magnetic effects for larger than solar mechanics.

What is the magnetic strength of the sun? I can tell you the teslas are higher than the Earth's, wouldn't be hard to assume the the ampere-meters are also higher.

 

[D H]

Since the scalar on magnetism is so much larger than gravity, and by expiramentation I can show that magnetic effects far exceed gravity, how does that hold to be true?

You cannot show that because it is not true.

Venus and Mars have pathetically small magnetic fields compared to the Earth. Those planets would not be there if the explanation of orbits was magnetic rather than gravity. The Earth's Moon has an extremely small magnetic field, practically no dipole moment at all. The Moon would not be orbiting the Earth if the explanation of orbits was magnetic rather than gravity. The Sun's magnetic field flips every eleven years or so. We see no such flips in the direction of the planet's orbits.

Newtonian mechanics coupled with Newton's law of gravitation describes almost all of the dynamics of the behavior of the planets. The small discrepancies between observation and behaviors predicted by Newtonian gravity are handled quite well by general relativity. There is no need to invoke magnetism to explain orbits. There is no mechanism to explain orbits in terms of magnetism. This is just a rehash of the electric universe nonsense (and it is nonsense).


We have rules against overly speculative posts and personal theories at this site. There are plenty of crackpot sites where you can talk about your ideas. Not here, though. To keep you out of trouble at this site I am locking this thread.