Spin Gravity- Magnetism

[fafalone]

The way you showed it involved a form of Keplers Law that is flat out not equivalent. Furthermore, while it is not dependent on mass, this not at all point to a vortex shape.

[Zarkov]

" this (does) not at all point to a vortex shape"

 

It is mandatory that in a vortex, a swirling whirlpool, that mass in not instrumental in the speed of motion. All bodies will given time go at the speed of the rotation!

:)

[fafalone]

This would imply a change in the orbital velocity of planets, this simply has no evidence. Velocities are also not proportional to distance from the center; their orbital periods are different because of distance, not velocity.

[Zarkov]

Fafalone, the period comes from the orbital velocity and the distance from the centre.

 

The solar system does not have a flat rotation, it's speed of rotation is solely dependant upon the distance from the centre. This would not be expected in any system other than a spiralling field

[fafalone]

Again, this does not even remotely indicate a significant shift in z-axis as would be the case in a vortex.

[Zarkov]

What does the speed and distance relation that is constant (and not dependant upon mass) mean to you Fafalone?

[fafalone]

It means the solar system rotates predominantly in 2 directions, not 3.

 

---------o---------

 

not

 

\ /

\/

[Radical Edward]

Originally posted by Zarkov

Fafalone, the period comes from the orbital velocity and the distance from the centre.

 

The solar system does not have a flat rotation, it's speed of rotation is solely dependant upon the distance from the centre. This would not be expected in any system other than a spiralling field

 

that's bollocks. one would expect the orbital period to have nothing to do with the masses of the objects, except the central one around which everything is orbiting (well okay, the centre of mass, but we'll let that slip as an approximation)

[Zarkov]

Why, Rad E?

 

Fafalone, yes you --------0------ is correct, but why the 0 ?

[Radical Edward]

because there is no good reason that it should.

[fafalone]

The o represented the sun.

[Zarkov]

The O is the Sun, but the mass of the Sun, is not material to the orbital speed and distance of planets from the Sun, but the Sun is a mass and as such it induces a magnetic field, which sets ups the field vortex for the solar system.

 

BUT mass is is not attracting or repelling in any case. It is spin gravity that is in operation.

 

Tell me what you think.

:)

[fafalone]

Your observations must be alot better than everyone elses, since not only does no one else observe this, but you've observed that despite the fact dipole spin gravity couplings violate parity symmetry in the Dirac equation, it's still the acting force.

[Zarkov]

I was just looking at satellite data, on altitude and velocity.

 

The figures given obey the rv^2 =K rule.

 

so v = (K/r) ^0.5

 

So all satellites, artificial or natural, and all planets obey this rule!

[fafalone]

That has nothing to do with your theory of spin gravity, and doesn't even remotely address my last post. Furthermore, earlier you said K=1/4pi. rv^2 will not always equal 1/4pi. In fact, in order for that equation to be true, r or v would have to be infinitesimal.

[Zarkov]

Artificial satellites!

http://spaceboy.nasda.go.jp/note/eisei/e/eis03_e.html

 

altitude (kms) speed (kms/sec)

0 7.906

200 7.778

500 7.612

1000 7.350

5000 5.918

10000 4.934

30000 3.310

40000 2.932

 

rv^2 = K = 4 X 10^ 5

[fafalone]

0*7.906^2 = 0

200*7.778^2 = 12099.4568

500*7.612^2 = 28791.2762

etc.

These all do not equal a constant, and certainly not 1/4pi or 4x10^5

[Zarkov]

You have to add 6400 km to the altitude, this is the radius of the Earth!

 

It seems that this equation is fundamental to the Universe.

 

Ksun = 1.327 X 10 ^11

 

Kearth = 3.99 X 10^5

 

K neptune 6.8 X 10 ^6

 

With these figures you can calculate either the velocity or the distance from the centre of ant body orbiting the central body.

 

This is all I have found so far.

 

There is much more to this....I will let you know

 

:)

[fafalone]

Ok and this relates to a unproven force which violates the Dirac equation in what way? What you are talking about are parts of well established classical mechanics, not "spin gravity" as the only force there is.

[Zarkov]

. Central Body ..... Mass X 10^24 kg ...... K/m X 10^-20

 

 

... Earth ............ 5.97 ............ 6.683

....Mars............. 0.642 ............6.6978

.... Jupiter........102 ................. 6.6666

.... Saturn .......568 ................6.6877

.....Uranus.........86.8..............6.690

.....Neptune ....102.................6.6978

.....Pluto............0.0125..........8.32

 

r m v^2 = Kuniversal = 6.6826 X 10^20 (Newtons Gravitational constant = 6.672 )

 

for any body, where v is the orbital velocity at the distance r, to the central mass.

 

KE = r v^2 but v = w r

 

so KE = r^2 w^2

 

so the energy required falls off at 1/r^2

[fafalone]

Originally posted by fafalone

Ok and this relates to a unproven force which violates the Dirac equation in what way? What you are talking about are parts of well established classical mechanics, not "spin gravity" as the only force there is.

[aman]

Thanks Fafalone. You are handling this very well. I'm trying to follow it all and your last argument is valid as far as logic and obwervation. I'm open to any evidence of spin-gravity relevance.

Just aman

[Zarkov]

So you are following this Fafalone! good

 

From the last set of data you will see that Pluto is about to leave the solar system. Throught this approach I can say with accuracy (if I had the data) just how stable the various orbiting objects are in their orbits.

 

You may also notice that the mass of the orbiting object is not relevant, it is only the central mass that is material to these calculations.

 

The calculations employed averages and assumed circular orbits. The whole solar system is a wheels within wheels set up

[fafalone]

Again,

 

Originally posted by fafalone

Ok and this relates to a unproven force which violates the Dirac equation in what way? What you are talking about are parts of well established classical mechanics, not "spin gravity" as the only force there is.

[Sayonara]

Originally posted by Zarkov

From the last set of data you will see that Pluto is about to leave the solar system.

When, exactly?