Zarkov

Thanks, MrL, yes it is not you of course, but all is opinion and your opinion is in your power! If there is a force pushing in there is a force pushing out. Just because the boffins have failed to demonstrate it, or at least thought they could not in a special case example, does not mean it is ficticious in all cases.

http://www.sprl.umich.edu/GCL/paper_to_html/evolut_clim.html Shows temperature relationships in the atmosphere, reflecting the spin gravity lines of force.

Well MrL, shame that your will not allow centrifugal force. Yes I know the protestrations of the physicists that think it is ficticious, and yes it is in a closed system such as a circling weight on a string. But these same physicists claim that it is possible to have falling / rising accelerating INERTIAL FRAMES, when applied to gravitational wells! BUT I am afraid they are incorrect on both counts!!! Next Einstein had at least on good handle, and that was he thought gravity created tensor wells, and he thought there was an ether. I instead have magnetism wells (no not magnetic wells), and magnetism is my ether. Light is a wave in this ether, and as such is constrained by wave mechanics in this ether> But until you can allow centrifugal force in an open system you will not be able to understand spin gravity. Without this there can be no extensions into the other Cosmological explanations. Maths always comes after the observations, and the formulation of the theory. I must post those pics of gravity waves..... Thanks, for you criticism. Nice to type with you ! :)

Good insights, RadE, this is what I am working on. Yes spin gravity has nothing to with mass, but then what is mass?? The force pushing objects down (on Earth say) is produced as a result of SLOWING field spin, and it is the perpendicular resultant. ( in the case of slowing towards the centre) Now this could be implied as electrical moment, but I know it isn't!!! I really need some maths!! before I can get a good handle on it. If anyone has a math formulae for determining the resultant from the change to field spin speed (angular momentum) then please post it, even if is obscure. Thanks And as for Newtonian gravity extensions to other objects, that is based upon the premis that similar masses will have similar gravities! Then there is magnetism, detailed as per my points, which is not quite the same as classical explanations!

I did Rad E, his comments were posted from an in correct poit of view. I am still working on point (12)? not listed. He was not aware of point (13) so his understanding of what I was implying was flawed. I see little point confusing him further :)

Try here, discussion group on lead toxicity. http:www2b.abc.net.au/science/k2/stn/posts/topic116224.shtm

Only after he reappraises his understanding, thanks

OK, just for enlightenment!! comming up, to this site soon!!

" Despite the self-consistency and remarkable success of the standard Hot Big Bang model in describing the evolution of the universe back to only one hundreth of a second, a number of unanswered questions remain regarding the initial state of the universe. * The flatness problem Why is the matter density of the universe so close to the unstable critical value between perpetual expansion and recollapse into a Big Crunch? * The horizon problem Why does the universe look the same in all directions when it arises out of causally disconnected regions? This problem is most acute for the very smooth cosmic microwave background radiation. * The density fluctuation problem The perturbations which gravitationally collapsed to form galaxies must have been primordial in origin; from whence did they arise? * The dark matter problem Of what stuff is the Universe predominantly made? Nucleosynthesis calculations suggest that the dark matter of the Universe does not consist of ordinary matter - neutrons and protons? * The exotic relics problem Phase transitions in the early universe inevitably give rise to topological defects, such as monopoles, and exotic particles. Why don't we see them today? * The thermal state problem Why should the universe begin in thermal equilibrium when there is no mechanism by which it can be maintained at very high temperatures. * The cosmological constant problem Why is the cosmological constant 120 orders of magnitude smaller than naively expected from quantum gravity? * The singularity problem The cosmological singularity at t=0 is an infinite energy density state, so general relativity predicts its own breakdown. * The timescale problem Are independent measurements of the age of the Universe consistent using Hubble's constant and stellar lifetimes? From Cambridge Cosmology.

New catagory, crackpots, well let me introduce a ludite! And please do not continue stalking me, Thank you Fafalone

" I would like a doctor who is not only a talented physician, but a bit of a metaphysician, too." Yes the artist, and the scientist, willing to leap to heights few dare to go, true creativity! When you are dealing with the unknown, tool and information are finr but it is only through creative leaps that unknown solutions can be found.

Here is the one of the two assertions I left out. 14) The rate of degredation of a spinning field system is proportional to the resultant, spin gravity. Discussion of MrL, critique :_ The above will clarify, the "gravity" produced is not due to spin as such, but due to a change in spin. The spiral lines of force have been photographer (see earlier post), and I will link another link showing a couple of atmospheric temperature variations plots which show the same imprinting. You can also verify this yourself by allowing a stream of water to spiral to Earth. This spiralling is mirrored by plant growth etc. As the planets are slowly pushed away from the Sun, (a high pressure source, creating a spherical pressure system) they expand, and volatiles are lost to space, in this way our atmospheric pressure is lost with time. Evidence of this is the large, Dinasours. that roamed this planet not so long ago (cf large animals now only exist in the sea, a dense atmosphere) Centrifugal and centripetal forces are BOTH real. They can only be demonstrated in an open system, and the reasons why they are real is supplied in (14) above. It is only when an object is free to go it's own way, that centrifugal force can be shown, they are both a resultant to the changes in angular momentum due to angular velocity in a spinning field, ( constant speed, increasing speed, and decreasing speed). Some of the other objections will be cleared up once this new information in (13) is digested. Just note the moon of a planet is still within the planets field system and as such is a true satellite, not just held there on a string!!!

Reply to MrL "Created from the sun, or created from the planets? Because it would have to be some coincidence that allows, say, Jupiter and all its moons to be created in the same 'birth'." This creation or expulsion process is ongoing from the Sun, until it dies. The planets continue the same process as long as they are able.. The larger planets are still able, as is the closer planets, and maybe Earth still. It is showin nodation, therefore something is moving inside!

"Efforts to reduce lead in the environment have resulted in lowering the geometric mean BLL for adults in the United States from MORE THAN 12 to less than 3 micrograms/dL between 1980 and 1994" ...my highlight! The reasons why I have not tried to go down the path of presenting data, is because it creates a false impression in people not familiar with this subject. If you read the literature, you may well get an impression that you are only at risk if you say, chew air rifle pellets, or strip lead paint , you may think you HAVE to be exposed in some documented manner to be posioned. By inspecting the above extract you will note ( remember this is an average), that the exposure level in the immediate past was enormous by today's criteria. That means everyone was/is metal posioned, in lead alone!!! This is an important point because you may feel falsely reassured by reading "reports". >

Well that what forums are for, we all need to know the truth, all I ask is a reasonable understanding of what I am about!! The truth has a way of showing itself. But first, all I can say is you will have to read carefully to really understand :)

Please invite Mrl here I need all the advice I can get :)

Congratulations I like my new home at PSEUDOSCIENCE.

Rad E, just looking at your post again. Magnetism is spin and spin (vortex) is the only stable configuration, so there can not be a magnetic monople. Electricity is time linked magnetism, and this is spin perpendicular to the magnetic plane, the electric and the magnetic moments are perpendicular to each other. Neutrons are intrinsically magnetic, they are magnetic down to 0 o Kelvin. I think magnetism is the fundamental force and electricity is the derivative. So as such electricity can be monopolar. Hope this helps for the moment

Rad E, yes you are correct. It is not all there yet. Spin gravity has not been explained here yet. It is a resultant directed towards the centre of spin. Magnetism is the ether, spin gravity is the resultant of movemnet (spin) in this ether. I have not posted the mechanism, even though I could do this, because I would like constructive criticism on the theoretical problems that the predictions could face. Spin gravity does not rely on any of the predictions posted, basically they are assertions that stem from spin gravity. Sorry this is a theory in progress :)

Ok, conjecture based upon experimental evidence and basic theory. There is a lot more to come, the description of how spin gravity effects itself, I have deliberately omitted, so that any discussion can centre of the fesibility of the predictions, as if it do actually occur! >

There was a young man from tasmania A little isle just off australia Zarkov's my name And confusion's my game And I live in the land of fantasia An "admirer's" dedicated poem !

SPIN GRAVITY theory PREDICTIONS: 1) Planetary/moon systems are only stable when they orbit with their axies paralell or radial to the spinning axis and in the equatorial plane. 2) Planets are not formed by condensing nebulas, but by material that is thrown out from a sun. Earth-like planets and moons are similarly "born" by electrical expulsion of part of the positively charged cores. This ejected material is 'pushed' away from the Sun by solar pressure. Kepler's laws are kept, in particular, that which predicts planets close in orbit faster than those farther out, so we should see a progression in planet ages; that is, the closest planet (Mercury) should be younger than further out planets, such as Earth. The outermost planets should be the oldest. Venus would be near incandescently hot, and Jupiter should emit radio noise. When a planet/moon is ejected from the belly of a larger planetary/solar object, it is basically semisolid, and because of surface tension quickly deformes into a sphere which can be shaped by spin to become an elipseoid. 3) Planetary Moons should also be created by the same process as above, with the same general effects. 4) Moons and planets should be ejected out of astronomical bodies at periodic times throughout astronomical history. Comets can be ejected in this manner. 5) The orbits of planets are not closed and stable, but migrate outwards with time, in a spiral, pushed out by solar pressure. Every year, the moon is moving away a meter from the Earth and the Earth, is moving away a few meters from the Sun. 6) The actual rotational speed of a planet could be dependant upon it's core composition, and behave like a dynamo armature driven by the Sun's rotation. Our core rotates slightly faster than the crust. 7) Planetary orbits are stabilized against vortex chaos by exchange of electric charge through their plasma tails (Venus is still doing so strongly, judging by its "cometary" magnetotail, and it has the most circular orbit of any planet) 8) A planetary atmosphere is a 'satellite' of the planet held in place by spin-gravity and magnetism. At a specific point from the centre of spin, any mass will behave as a satellite, examples are clouds, ice crystals, moons etc. 9) The atmospheres of planets created by geology, are modified if LIFE is present thus creating an Earth like environment. Zarkov predicts LIFE on Venus would create a new "Earth". Atmospheres are also moderated by a reduction in stellar pressure as the planet spirals out from the sun centre. 10) This model would predict that as the Earth spirals away from the Sun, most of the Earth's water would be lost to space because of the consequent decrease in solar pressure, and the Earth would end up a dry, dessicated planet like Mars. It would have reduced atmospheric pressure but still retain some portion of its atmosphere. Life though would become extinct and the oxygen content of the atmosphere would fall to low levels. 11) Spin is the fundamental source of gravity in all astronomical systems. The ubliquity of spinning objects in the universe (from particles to galaxies) supports this idea. 12) Spin gravity lines of force are spiral in shape, due to the resultant being precessional, and are directed towards the centre of spin. . . 15) All objects in a spinning field have at least 2 forces acting, one is a push out (centrifugal force), the other a push in (centripetal force). 16) Spin gravity has no aberration as it is always directed toward the centre of spin. 17) Spin gravity waves travel through all things. 18) Bodies with no rotation should have no gravity, only magnetic and electrostatic bonding. 19) Spin gravity predicts a flatening of the poles because certrifugal force would throw out the equitorial regions. 20) Spin gravity predicts there is a greater push down force at the poles than at the equator, and the furthur away an object is from the centre of spin, the less the force pushing in is, because the force pushing out becomes greater. At sea level at the equator, g = 9.79 m/s2. At sea level at the poles, g = 9.83m/s2. LAPAZ Altitude 4084.9 m Latitude -16.5 g = 9.77334220. ATICO Altitude 15.08 m Latitude -16.2 g = 9.7844720. Centrifugal force at the equator is -0.03g 21) Spin gravity accounts for the observed shapes and dynamics of galaxies without recourse to invisible dark matter and central black holes. 22) The magnetic ether permeates all space. Objects in this field are permeable to this field, and it is the degree of permeability that defines the magnetic properties of an object. Vortices in the magnetic ether are responsible for some kinds of astronomical phenomena. 23) The magnetic properties of all matter generate a surrounding field, which can be viewed as a tensor well. 24) Internal electrostatic and magnetic forces prevent stars from collapsing. 25) Moving objects in a magnetic field induce electricity. Many phemonena in space and on Earth can be attributed to this effect. The extra, small (10%), longrange, non-gravitational force exerted between massive objects can be attributed to electric fields. Electrical effects are powerful at short range, and set up filamentous dipoles. The estimated efficiency of the Crab Nebula neutron star powerhouse in converting rotational energy to energy in high energy particles is 98%. 26) Spin, magnetic ether and the induced electric force explains the powerful electric jets seen issuing along the spin axis from the cores of active galaxies. The electric voltage generated by the Crab Nebula neutron star is 10 quadrillion volts. 27) Cosmological redshifts are not due to an expanding universe, but are due to an interaction of the light en route to Earth with electromagnetic fields in space. 28) Electromagnetic "pinch" is created by the magnetic force between parallel current filaments that are part of the huge electric currents flowing inside a galaxy. The lines of force possess tensile elastic strength against longitudinal stretch, and radial compressive force. 29) The Chandler wobble is the notational force produced as a resultant from the Earth's axial rotation and the precession of the Eath's axis in orbit. 30) Black holes are not suported by spin gravity. 31) The speed of light is constrained by wave mechanics, and is constant for various materials.

Challeng yourself with Spin Gravity, where gravity does not suck it pushes! Why, because a pull does not exist !

Don't be in the dog house, be in touch with new views of tied old scenery. Learn about Pyramid Water, click Pseudoscience Thanks for taking the time to read this thread. :)

Kenel, I was in the doghouse for a while, I've been let out now, and my tails are wagging, over 1500 views......