Geophysics of planets

Discussion of the astronomical and cosmological aspects of a universe of motion.
Post Reply
StevenO
Posts: 13
Joined: Fri Feb 13, 2009 4:52 pm

Geophysics of planets

Post by StevenO » Thu Feb 19, 2009 9:13 am

I recently came across Bruce's article in Reciprocity XXVII about the Geophysics of planetary evolution. I was a little puzzled about the suggestion that the planets have stable orbits because they have a white dwarf fragment at their core.

Do you still stand by that article? And if so could you explain the mathematics of the planetary orbits as compared to material sector gravity only? I recently saw an article that explained that you can derive another law from the Kepler laws that would state: (planetary velocity)^2 * orbit radius = constant (constant depends on solar mass). So that would mean the orbits are independent of the planetary mass. What would that mean for the estimation of planetary masses?

Thanks in advance,

Steven

User avatar
bperet
Posts: 1175
Joined: Thu Jul 22, 2004 1:43 am
Location: 7.5.3.84.70.24.606
Contact:

There is no gravity, the Earth sucks

Post by bperet » Thu Feb 19, 2009 11:59 am

Steven wrote:

I was a little puzzled about the suggestion that the planets have stable orbits because they have a white dwarf fragment at their core.

The concept hit me back when I first read Universe of Motion. In the RS, stellar evolution is "backwards", compared to conventional theory. One natural consequence of that is that the sun, and the planets, are constantly increasing in mass. If you check on the net, you'll find values for meteoric accumulation on Earth somewhere between 100-1000 tons a day. The sun has millions of tons accumulation per day. Increasing mass means decreasing distance of separation--we'll be spiraling into the sun--and an increase of velocity of Earth, making each year shorter. Yet, this is not the case. Given the Earth age of billions of years, all the planets should have been sucked into the sun by now, just like satellites about Earth regularly get pulled back into the atmosphere--unless propulsion is used to keep them in a stable orbit.

When you look around the solar system, meteors and comets travel in elliptical orbits, or just get pulled straight in by gravity. Planets and moons acted differently... as they say, "size doesn't matter," so there must be something inherently different about the nature of planets and moons that gives them the ability to "row upstream", against the flow of gravity.

Since gravity is scalar in 3 dimensions, the opposing force must be the inverse of gravity--anti-gravity. The only known astronomical objects in RS astronomy that exhibits strong, anti-gravity effects are the pulsar and quasar. The quasar is a bit large for consideration, but pulsars have the ultra-high speed motion (3-x) that fit the requirement of being an anti-gravity engine.

Consider Larson's "backwards" astronomical evolution. Star systems grow... singles, doubles, multiples. If planets formed during the 1st generation, single star, out of "ordinary" low speed (1-x) matter, they would behave just like meteors... elliptical orbits until they got sucked into the sun, because both planet and sun are increasing in mass at substantial rates, due to the presence of large quantities of dust and debris in the area where the star formed (and it is that dust and debris that caused the star to form!) Common sense says that 1st generation stars can't support planets--by the time they hit the main sequence, they would have all been assimilated.

So, that brings us up to 2nd generation stars, the binaries. That means the 1st generation star went supernova, with the stellar material outside the Ni-Fe-Co range reforming a dust/debris cloud, and the material inside blowing outward in time, creating the X-ray star. Over time, both cool and the debris collects to form the red giant, just as the 1st generation star did, following the same rules. The X-ray star, being inverse due to the explosion in time, cools down to the white dwarf and we have the classic red giant/white dwarf pair. But again, nothing to account for stable planets.

Because the supernova is triggered by the "age limit" of atoms, not any particular stellar class, it can occur at any time. And if you look at astronomical records, it does occur to all stellar classes--except the dwarf stars. The white dwarf, being in coordinate time, has to get "younger" before it can get older, and is therefore not subject to the age limit supernova explosion. That means it is still there in near orbit when the spatial star hits its age limit. And that explosion, which is in time as well as space, can accelerate the white dwarf into the pulsar range to exhibit anti-gravity, and also due to spatial proximity, blow it to fragments. That is the basis of my article, so you can see the line of reasoning.

Do you still stand by that article? And if so could you explain the mathematics of the planetary orbits as compared to material sector gravity only? I recently saw an article that explained that you can derive another law from the Kepler laws that would state: (planetary velocity)^2 * orbit radius = constant (constant depends on solar mass). So that would mean the orbits are independent of the planetary mass. What would that mean for the estimation of planetary masses?

Yes, I stand by it. In the 13 years since I wrote it, a lot of evidence has come to light in the field of astronomy to support the conclusion for both orbits and planetary expansion. (See Karl Luckert's work on Expansion Tectonics, for example).

As you may have noticed, I have more of a geometric mindset than a mathematical one--Nehru and Gopi are the experts there. But the V2 x R = K equation does not necessarily infer that the orbits are "independent of the planetary mass"... in my opinion, it would be better stated that the planetary mass is insignificant compared to the solar mass, in terms of the relationship. Also consider where the "velocity" originates... if the Earth is constantly running into meteoric dust, that dust provides resistance, and velocity should be slowing, causing us to crash into the sun (it is virtually impossible to keep a stable orbit between two, low-speed bodies (1-x), since the mass and separation are constantly changing through interaction with the environment).

I think you will find that the velocity is related to the volume of the planetary core (the anti-gravity material in coordinate time--see RS articles on the precession of perihelia to get an idea of what coordinate time does to orbits and planetary velocities) and that the velocity is determining the orbital position in the gravitational field of the sun (kind of a "backwards" Kepler law to match the backward RS view of astronomy!)

But, if you're good with math, I'd be happy to help you figure out how to quantify it in terms of equations. It would be quite interesting. I would recommend you read the Forces and Force Fields topicto get an idea of time and gravity.
Every dogma has its day...

User avatar
bperet
Posts: 1175
Joined: Thu Jul 22, 2004 1:43 am
Location: 7.5.3.84.70.24.606
Contact:

Why do they gravitate?

Post by bperet » Thu Feb 19, 2009 12:56 pm

You may also want to look at the "Why do they gravitate?" topic.
Every dogma has its day...

User avatar
bperet
Posts: 1175
Joined: Thu Jul 22, 2004 1:43 am
Location: 7.5.3.84.70.24.606
Contact:

Questioning the Rotational Base

Post by bperet » Thu Feb 19, 2009 4:07 pm

I've edited the reply to "Forces and Force Fields" to include the original Powerpoint presentation I did on the subject of "Questioning the Rotational Base". I am in the process of converting the presentation to Video, as time permits.
Every dogma has its day...

StevenO
Posts: 13
Joined: Fri Feb 13, 2009 4:52 pm

Thanks for all the answers

Post by StevenO » Fri Feb 20, 2009 4:46 pm

Thanks for all the answers Bruce. The two links will already keep me busy for the coming weeks...I must say being an EE that a white dwarf core makes more sense to me than all dynamo theories.

So...if you still stand by the article, do you still think a core flare could be due any time around 2003 :) ?

and how about this new magnetic pole forming in the Atlantic Ocean west of South-Africa?

User avatar
bperet
Posts: 1175
Joined: Thu Jul 22, 2004 1:43 am
Location: 7.5.3.84.70.24.606
Contact:

2003

Post by bperet » Mon Feb 23, 2009 11:53 pm

So...if you still stand by the article, do you still think a core flare could be due any time around 2003 :) ?

Actually, I think we had one... just not a big one. Earthquakes are at an all-time high, and have you noticed that the seasons appear to be off by more than a couple of weeks? Mid February here--normally the coldest part of the winter--and they are saying it will hit 70F by Thursday.

Just waiting on the vernal equinox on March 20th to get out my sextant, shoot some stars and see if we are where we are supposed to be.

and how about this new magnetic pole forming in the Atlantic Ocean west of South-Africa?

"During the 20th century it [magnetic north] has moved 1100 km, and since 1970 its rate of motion has accelerated from 9 km/year to 41 km/year (2001–2003 average; see also Polar drift)" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Magnetic_Pole)

If Nehru's sunspot research is correct, we are at the "new thredule" point now, so we'll know shortly.
Every dogma has its day...

User avatar
bperet
Posts: 1175
Joined: Thu Jul 22, 2004 1:43 am
Location: 7.5.3.84.70.24.606
Contact:

Changing orbit of Earth

Post by bperet » Sat Jun 09, 2012 7:53 pm

One of the things I had proposed in my Geophysics paper was that the orbits of the planets change. As the sun gets hotter, there is more intermediate and ultra-high speed motion, so in theory, the planets should move further out as the sun gets larger. I found these references in mythology:
The Indians of the Chewkee tribe on the Gulf Coast tell: "It was too hot. The sun was put 'a handbreadth' higher in the air, but it was still too hot. Seven times the sun was lifted higher and higher under the sky arch, until it became cooler."

--L. Frobenius: Dichten und Denken in Sudan (1925).

"In very old times the sky was very close to the earth."

--J. A. Teit: "Kaska Tales," Journal of American Folk-Lore, XXX (1917).

"Once a long time ago the sky was very close to the earth." 5 The sky was pushed up and the weather changed. The sun, after being stopped on its way across the firmament, "became small, and small it has remained since then."

--Frobenius: Das Zeitalter des Sonnengottes, pp. 205ff.
Other things to note before and after the pulling back of the heavens, according to these legends:
  1. The sun was originally larger and more orange in color (appears to have changed spectral class).
  2. After the change, the sun was much smaller and brighter.
  3. There is no mention of the Earth having polar ice caps prior to the change.
  4. The directions (N,S,E,W) changed. Previously, the sun rose in the west and set in the east.
  5. The Atlantic became wider (may indicate a spreading of the mid-Atlantic ridge).
  6. The length of the day stayed the same.
  7. The seasons changed and went backwards from what they were.
  8. The time between equinoxes was much longer than before, forcing new calendars.
I find it quite interesting, because if there is any truth to these legends--and it doesn't matter where in the world you go to get them, they all say the same thing--then the current geological and astronomical dating methods are WAY off, which is what I suspected in my original article.

I also noticed that the ancient people refer to the ages of man as "suns," not "earths" which is what I would expect if the change was localized to Earth. They all seem to point to a change in the sun that initiates the events, because after each cataclysm, there is a "new sun" in the sky.

I am beginning to see a correlation with the solar magnetic ionization level here, which moves in discrete jumps. It may be that stars do not slowly get hotter--they make discrete jumps between ionization levels, with a corresponding change in temperature, gravity and electric and magnetic field strengths.

The initial change from no magnetic ionization to unit ionization is enough to make all the elements past Uranium, radioactive. This initiates the "age limit" explosion process that Larson states is the source of stellar combustion. An ionization level of 2 makes all the elements from Gold (79) radioactive. Then it drops to element 71, 65, 60... the increments getting progressively smaller but the corresponding magnetic intensity getting much larger. The upper limit would be an ionization level of 43, which would trigger the nickel-iron-cobalt layer in the sun and cause a supernova.

Our sun is still rather young, so the increase in combustible material via age limit is still significant enough to cause a noticeable change in solar characteristics.
Every dogma has its day...

Lou
Posts: 42
Joined: Sat Nov 05, 2011 5:25 pm

Please allow me to comment on

Post by Lou » Sun Mar 08, 2015 7:18 am

Please allow me to comment on this topic. On a rotating sphere, charge is determined by the differential in mass across the equatorial plane. With liquid cores and mantals and shifting continents and acretion from space material collisions, there is a constant shifting of mass. The is unequal mass across the equator in charged bodies. Uncarged and neutral bodies (neurtrons) there are equal mass distribution across the equator of a spining objects.

Meteors and comets do not rotate about an axis as do planets and the Sun. They so maintain stable orbits because they can FLIP their charges and this is a stabliizing mechanism, such as is the misunderstood Higgs mechanism at the quantum level.

Linear gravity comes about due to polarity and charge. A spinning particles acquires this when sufficient motion is can polarized across the equator of the spinning particle. Polarity “pulls” the “center of gravity” to the poles. Instead of one focus we have two. This generates a gravitational field exactly the shape of the so called magnetic field of the earth. This can best be illustrated in the geometry of the Apollonian circles.

All motion must be counter balanced across the equator of a spinning spheroid. If there is more mass below the equator of the earth then we have poles. Motion must be added to the north to balance this out. Particles moves from the southern surface to the north following the gravitational field lines, thus adding motion to the north. This is measurable as the so called magnetic field but is not. It is a gravitational field disguised as a magnetic field. There are actual particles moving out there in space. Gravity must the sole control of matter-energy. The magnetic field is a red herring.

This “flip” is merely a very rapid polarity shifts. It happen on Earth and it happens with all spinning, breathing particles.

The Dirac spinor is a logarithmic function. This is of the same form as a spiral, the pattern motion. This flipping is not left and right, it is up and down. North and south are rapidly flipping. This flipping must occur along the axis of rotation of the particle as with the Earth. Try flipping the Earth end over end. Or try flipping a gyroscope end over end. It will certainly resist this kind of ‘flipping’.

Mathis is critical of this on his papers regarding the Higgs boson.

This change in polarity maintains orbits and matter relatively stable. It has an antigrtavtiy effect.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest