Spin Gravity- Magnetism

[fafalone]

Pluto has a highly eccentric orbit, and right now it's heading towards the farthest point in that orbit. It's just following the course it has for quite a while, and there's nothing to suggest for some reason it would just change course from where it is right now and leave. There are no indications its velocity right now will allow it to break the orbit. That ranks right up there with the most ignorant things you've said.

 

and look up 'eccentric' in the mathematical context, since i'm sure you don't understand mathematics enough to know what it means here.

[Radical Edward]

Originally posted by Zarkov

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.

 

Actually no. This is just an approximation based on the fact that the sun is a hell of a lot bigger than anything else. The masses of both objects matter in reality. The objects actually orbit around the centre of mass, this gives rise to one of the two tides, and the fact that binary stars orbit around apparently empty space. There will be a general relativistic argument to this no doubt, but I see no real reason to stray beyond cimple newtonian mechanics to debunk you point.

[aman]

Logic states that due to entropy, once an object is captured in an orbit, over time it will become less eccentric if it's orbit is not affected by outside influences. Are you saying that Pluto has already been effected?

Just aman

[Zarkov]

You maybe right RadE, still working on data.

 

I will just say this, the relationships are too good to be caused by multiple "attractions" or as you say "the centre of mass" as opposed to the central mass.

 

Aman, Pluto is spiralling out, and as frame dragging makes all the orbits of the planets more eccentric, Pluto will one day just keep on going.

 

Until more data is available, as Fafalone said, this can only be conjecture.

 

I do think however that the mechanism is more related to what is moving around what, and this is not relative!

[fafalone]

Yeah. one day it will just keep going. that will be the day when the sun explodes so theres no more central mass.

[Zarkov]

So Fafalone you appear to hold to a stable solar system, that is just waiting for the Sun to become a red drawf??

 

Nothing is moving away, nor inward ??

 

[Radical Edward]

Originally posted by aman

Logic states that due to entropy, once an object is captured in an orbit, over time it will become less eccentric if it's orbit is not affected by outside influences. Are you saying that Pluto has already been effected?

Just aman

 

not really. If there are no outside influences (namely a two body problem) then nothing will happen to the orbit. If there are outside influences, you can't figure out what is going to happen really unless you calculate all those influences explicitly.

[Radical Edward]

Originally posted by Zarkov

You maybe right RadE, still working on data.

 

I will just say this, the relationships are too good to be caused by multiple "attractions" or as you say "the centre of mass" as opposed to the central mass.

 

 

eh? The mass of the planets is trivially small compared to the mass of the sun. Have you ever actually worked your way though the mathematics of a simple two body problem? If you do, you'll find that basic classical mechanics predicts pretty much everything you need or want to know about the earth moon system, from the orbital period through tides and so on.

[Sayonara]

Originally posted by Zarkov

You maybe right RadE, still working on data...

 

...Until more data is available, as Fafalone said, this can only be conjecture.

I wish you'd stop saying things like this.

 

I mean first off, what data? And what are you doing with that data that is so unique?

 

And secondly, why fall back on conjecture when you have hundreds of years of perfectly good science and theory to work with? This all goes back to that scientific method argument which was never satisfactorily concluded.

[fafalone]

Orbits do deteriorate, but short of extraplanetary or extrasolar collisions or extremely close calls, the orbits are not deteriorating at a rate that would break orbit before the sun died.

[Zarkov]

What about with an expanding Universe model, how does this affect your thoughts on stability, Fafalone ?

[fafalone]

You know damn well I never said it was 100% stable. I just said the rate of deterioration is not significant enough to be noticed anytime in the next couple billion years. Now stop pissing me off by not actually understanding what I say.

[fafalone]

And as towards the expansion of the universe, again, is on the scale of billions of years.

[Zarkov]

Fafalone, even spiralling in/out planets is on a large time scale. With such small changes in our time it is extreemly difficult to say a system is :stable" especially when everything is moving, but logic would suggest that everything is doing something, and is not just staying :stable"

 

Even the spiral galaxies had to have got their shape by a method, explosion and spin, or spin in/out.

 

Just a thought

[fafalone]

I never said it was stable, but I did imply that is was stable relative to our time frame.

An interesting point about the motion of the galaxy as a whole... a newly discovered galaxy spins in the opposite direction as all other spiral ones. And of course not every galaxy is a spiral to begin with.

[Zarkov]

That new galaxy is interesting Fafalone, I have yet to actually investigate object axial rotation rates, as I have not theory for this, and I am finding it hard to get data on all the moons of the solar system.

 

Yes in our time frame, it all appears stable, well almost.

 

Your bet is that the planets are relatively set in their orbits, moving in (as some think) or moving out ?

[Radical Edward]

ho won earth can you come up with a theory and baerly know any of the facts? It seems completely proposterous. and you still haven't addressed the violation of dirac's equation

[Zarkov]

Quantum gravity is as renuous as spin gravity!

 

If I have stood on Dirac's toes, sorry !

[fafalone]

Quantum gravity explains effects on a sub-atomic level. It does not violate existing data and theories shown to be true numerous times. Furthermore, it doesn't defy logic (assuming you understand the concept of things working different on those kinds of scales)

[Zarkov]

http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0208085

 

 

This work shows that the gravitational field is rather an unusual field and cannot be quantized due to the absence of a fermion charge carrier. When its existence is assumed quite strange results are obtained for its mass. And this means that the graviton does not exist either since bosons act between fermion states.

 

Just thought you might like this.

[fafalone]

It would take me hours to explain how many flaws are in the paper. I'll just go over a few ones:

-Not published in a reputable journal,

-only 2 references,

-gravity is not static field (as demonstrated by countless mathematical proofs and observations of the movement of stars), elementary particles can also be leptons or mesons,

- ". And if the fermionic mass carrier exists each mass is

a multiple of the fermion mass. Otherwise, mass cannot be quantized because without a fermionic mass carrier there cannot be mass currents." No.

- ".. When particles change mass in a high energ y collision there should exist suchfermion currents." No.

-They continually apply non-Euclidean principles to Euclidean systems and vice-versa.

-The entire "masson" thing in incoherent babbling.

-"This leads us to say that the gravitational field is always a static field which is in line with the null results of gravitational waves." You could say that, and you could be talking out your ass.

[aman]

Thanks Fafalone, I could see stuff wrong while reading but it is a lot simpler since you pointed out valid arguments. I appreciate you taking the time to do this since I am slower but I am still following all of this.

Your arguments should be food for thought and hopefully not tossed aside as ignorant critisism.

Just aman

[fafalone]

My arguments are based on research I've been following in journals such as Nature and Physical Review Letters for years, as well as a solid foundation of physics and quantum mechanics, and everything I said I could prove, but it would take a while to explain, especially to someone like Zarkov who hasn't even mastered algebra so, never think i'm ignorant about topics in this area

[Zarkov]

Wow, Fafalone you really are up on all this quantum stuff!

 

Good to read!! I think my answer will lie in this area, especially considering my musings

 

Spin, vortices and waves will show the way, I do believe it is mirrors within mirrors, much like the spiral of this solar system and it's moons

[fafalone]

This knowledge is precisely why I know your theories are unfounded gibberish that defy how things work.

Of course spin produces a force, but anyone with any grasp whatsoever of physics know it's not the only force there is.

Anyone familiar with interferometers, Maxwell's equations, and basic electromagnetic theory knows there's no "magnetic ether" that somehow has gone undetected and unsuggested by any solid evidence.