Zarkov Posted July 23, 2002 Author Share Posted July 23, 2002 If you are good at maths Aman, maybe we could work together. The maths woulf involve centifugal, centripetal forces and precession, Maxwells equations etc. > Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Radical Edward Posted July 23, 2002 Share Posted July 23, 2002 Originally posted by Zarkov 1) There is no explanation in conventional gravitational systems that explain how a system with more than two orbiting bodies is stable. 2) To maintain the integritity of both Newtonian and Relativity theories, dark matter or dark energy has to be invoked, when there is absolutly no evidence for this. 3) To maintain the integritity of both Newtonian and Relativity theories, gravity waves (gravitons) have to be invoked, when there is absolutly no evidence for this. 1) you are dead wrong here. the theories are fine as they are, what there isn't is an analytical expression, which is impossible to achieve for any multi body problem. 2) also wrong, there is evidence, for example neutrino oscillations. 3) Gravity waves are not the same as Gravitons. Gravity waves are an effect that are predicted by general relativity, and Gravitons are a possible forge carrier in a Quanum Gravity which has not been devised yet. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Radical Edward Posted July 23, 2002 Share Posted July 23, 2002 Originally posted by Zarkov 3. All physical forces on an object are due to direct contact with another object ie there are no "forces at a distance". There is no pull only PUSH. 4. The universe is full of particles ie there are no empty spaces (because nearby particles will immediately be pushed into any spaces that are created). 5. Because of 3. and 4., the only kind of perpetual motion possible in the Universe is a vortex. In order for a particle to move, it has to push on another particle, which pushs another, etc. Unless that push goes around in a closed circle, it will eventually dissipate. 6. Energy is manifest as a magnetic ether, which can not be screened, and is efficient over large distances. The source of this energy is the neutron's magnetic field. 6a. Electric forces are produced when an object moves in this magnetic ether. Positive charges and negative charges are pushed to each other, but similar charges are pushed apart. Electric forces keep the atoms together (" bind " the electrons to the nucleus). At large distances electric forces are usually not so important because of a screening effect. For example, a positive charge has negative charges pushed to its neighborhood so that they screen off the field from positive charges. 7. Nuclear forces keep the nucleons (protons and neutrons) together in the atomic nucleus. They are the dominating forces in the nucleus, but of no importance at large distances from it. This force is a consequence of modified neutron to proton interaction. 3) Electromagnetism would disagree with you there, and since electromagnetism is a fundamentel tenet of your theory you have a problem. 4) where are these particles in the vacuum? there is no evidence for them 5) Does not logically follow from three and four. 6) the whole point of a neutron is that it is chargeless. magnetic fields are generated when moving through an electric field. since neutrons do not have an electric field you have a problem. furthermore, neutrons are not fundamental, and magnetic fields can be experienced without them, namely as an effect of electrons which are fundamental. 7) you need to illustrate this statement more clearly "This force is a consequence of modified neutron to proton interaction." what is this interaction? what is the modification? furthermore, what about quarks? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zarkov Posted July 23, 2002 Author Share Posted July 23, 2002 Neutrons are fundamental to everything. All matter may be spin different types of spin in the magnetic ether. At absolute zero there is no ?spin, neutron are still sources of magnetism. To actually delve right down to the bottom, eg quarks etc, is no fundamental to gross observed behaviours, but I expect eventual answers there will be applicable to gross states of matter. Particles in a vacuum.... therefore there is no absolute vacuum, ie space devoid of matter. Magnetism is all pervaiding. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aman Posted July 23, 2002 Share Posted July 23, 2002 His equations relate electric fields and magnetic fields. His math is pretty well proven and accepted. It's interesting his calculations say electromagnetic waves propogate at the speed of light. Maybe when we break the barrier of the microcosom there might even be faster effects. Just wishful thinking. Centrifugal forces are fun to play with and the math is readily available. Something magical about how a gyroscope spins. If you imply there is a pulsed effect to the universe then I can see precesion but that also needs a logical argument. Connect it all through reason and ingenuity and I'd like to here about it. Just aman Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zarkov Posted July 23, 2002 Author Share Posted July 23, 2002 Thanks, Aman. Light is a wave constrained by wave mechanics, in the medium it travels in. A speed boat can easily out run the waves produced. There is no limitation to speed except construction restraints Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Radical Edward Posted July 23, 2002 Share Posted July 23, 2002 Originally posted by Zarkov Neutrons are fundamental to everything. All matter may be spin different types of spin in the magnetic ether. At absolute zero there is no ?spin, neutron are still sources of magnetism. To actually delve right down to the bottom, eg quarks etc, is no fundamental to gross observed behaviours, but I expect eventual answers there will be applicable to gross states of matter. Particles in a vacuum.... therefore there is no absolute vacuum, ie space devoid of matter. Magnetism is all pervaiding. neutrons are not fundamental particles. neutrons are not sources of magnetism. you missed the point about quarks, the mechanisms behind quarks are entirely different from anything you have described so far, and there is no way that your theory could encompass them within that sort of framework. to say that 'you expect' without providing any evidence or good reason is inadmissable, there must be some reason that you expect your theory to include quarks. will your theory actaully predict anything new? will it have all the same effects as current theory, while operating in a completely different mathematical framework? how do you intend to go about addressin the issue of the multiple body problem when considering that the vacuum is full of 'particles'? what are the properties of these particles? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Radical Edward Posted July 23, 2002 Share Posted July 23, 2002 Originally posted by Zarkov Thanks, Aman. Light is a wave constrained by wave mechanics, in the medium it travels in. A speed boat can easily out run the waves produced. There is no limitation to speed except construction restraints what about the Lorentz Transforms? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zarkov Posted July 23, 2002 Author Share Posted July 23, 2002 I do not subscribe to general relativity > Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Radical Edward Posted July 23, 2002 Share Posted July 23, 2002 come up with something better that explains all the made observations then. so far the majority of what you say flies in the face of observation, never mind physics itself. you still haven't addressed all the other points I have made. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zarkov Posted July 23, 2002 Author Share Posted July 23, 2002 Radical E, sorry I missed your post. Quarks, tell me more about the building blocks of matter. Newtonian gravity maths is based upon centripetal force formulae, coupled with Kepler's law. I have yet to complete the maths, but basically it simplifies the whole mess, and actually fits into reality correctly. But ? quarks, I am willing to hear your opinion Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zarkov Posted July 23, 2002 Author Share Posted July 23, 2002 Spin Gravity ! "Scientists have detected a mysterious gravitational-like force which is pulling on distant spacecraft. They became aware of the force after analyzing the trajectories of four deep-space probes. "It is almost as if the probes are not behaving according to the known law of gravity," said Dr John Anderson, of the American space agency's (Nasa) Jet Propulsion Laboratory, the scientist heading the study into this anomaly. "We've been working on this problem for several years, and we have accounted for everything we could think of." Pioneer 10, one of the probes being affected by the mystery force, was launched towards the outer planets in 1972. It is now far beyond Jupiter but still in radio contact with Earth. By studying the Doppler shift of the radio signals from the craft, scientists have been able to calculate, very precisely, how fast it is travelling. The puzzle is that Pioneer 10 is slowing more quickly than it should. At first, scientists speculated that the slowing might be due to the gravitational pull of some nearby, unseen object. However, when the trajectory of Pioneer 10's sister spacecraft, Pioneer 11, launched in 1973, was analyzed, it was found that it too was being subjected to the same mysterious pull. Since Pioneer 11 is on the opposite side of the Solar System from Pioneer 10, the effect cannot be the gravitational force of some unseen body. "Our analysis strongly suggests that it is difficult to understand how any of these mechanisms can explain the magnitude of the observed behaviour of the Pioneer anomaly," Anderson's team stated. The mystery deepened when it was revealed that the same unexplained force has been affecting on the Galileo spacecraft on its journey to Jupiter, and the Ulysses spaceprobe that is orbiting the Sun. Several scientists have noted that the strength of the effect seems to be related to two of the Universe's physical constants: the speed of light and the speed of the expansion of the Universe. If this were true it would suggest a fundamental flaw in our understanding of gravity. " Exerp from ? I will supply the link later if can get it > Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blike Posted July 23, 2002 Share Posted July 23, 2002 Theres another post on the forum regarding that. Could something leaking out of the probe into space thats slowing it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aman Posted July 23, 2002 Share Posted July 23, 2002 Since space is slightly compressed near the sun due to gravity, then a mile would seem realitively the same as a mile out near Jupiter but in actuallity be shorter than one near Jupiter. Maybe we are seeing that as space expands farther from the sun we are just seeing the spacecraft going farther to cross the same distance. Just for thought. Just aman Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blike Posted July 23, 2002 Share Posted July 23, 2002 I didn't think of that aman, interesting proposal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Radical Edward Posted July 23, 2002 Share Posted July 23, 2002 I suspect people have already applied general relativity to the scenario... good idea though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zarkov Posted July 23, 2002 Author Share Posted July 23, 2002 "Apparent sunward acceleration increases proportionally with spacecraft velocity, not 1/r2 as a gravitational force would indicate. " Yes going out against angular momentum, therefore more energy required, going in pick up energy. This is all spin gravity > Maybe ?? still thinking Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zarkov Posted July 23, 2002 Author Share Posted July 23, 2002 More spin gravity lines of force Spin gravity lines of force...see this link showing temperature correlations http://www.sprl.umich.edu/GCL/paper_to_html/evolut_clim.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zarkov Posted July 23, 2002 Author Share Posted July 23, 2002 Review of the Anomalous Doppler Data from Pioneer 10 and 11 Curtis E. Renshaw, William L. Kallfelz Tele-Consultants, Inc., 680 America’s Cup Cove, Alpharetta, GA 30005 (September 29, 1998) Abstract Pioneer 10/11 radio metric data indicate an apparent, constant skewing between predicted and observed Doppler shifts. This indicates a possible acceleration of 8.5 X 10-8 cm/s2 toward the Sun for both craft. Gravitometric models and systemic problems fail to explain the discrepancy. The anomalous signals seem to indicate an error in the relativistic Doppler equations rather than any new physics. Letter Anomalous Pioneer 10/11 Doppler data has been interpreted as a constant acceleration toward the Sun at ~ 8.0 X 10-8 cm/s2, [1]. Potential modeled causes change with time, act in the wrong direction or are too negligible in size to produce the offset, requiring a look at the algorithms that convert signals observed on Earth to a more inertial frame, such as the solar barycenter. Complex in practice, the modifications are conceptually simple. The Earth is a non-inertial system compared with a reference frame stationary or linearly moving with respect to the Sun, with gravitational and motional effects modeled to great precision. Time read on an array of clocks on Earth is converted to that of a hypothetical clock in a gravitationally uniform, perfectly circular Solar orbit, referred to as TDB, Barycentric Dynamical Time. TDB represents a fixed offset from a hypothetical clock in the inertial solar barycenter reference frame, through which all observations are ultimately transformed, [2,3]. Data received from Pioneer 10/11 is transformed to TDB, then to solar barycenter time, or some similar defined-inertial frame. Data then appears as if the receivers were in the solar barycenter reference frame. The reduced data is compared to the 13 cm S-band signal transmitted to the spacecraft. After conversion to the solar barycenter frame, two-way light times provide range data. Doppler shifted received signals used as inputs to the special relativistic Doppler expression determine the measured spacecraft velocity. Gravitational models that predict the degree of slowing over time are very precise, and provide the expected velocity for any time period or range, given the spacecraft’s trajectory history. When the observed Doppler shift is compared to the expected value from gravitational modeling, there is a constant residual offset that correlates to the numerical difference between Newtonian and special relativistic Doppler equations. One-way special relativistic and Newtonian radial Doppler shifts, denoted "S" and "N" respectively, [4], are: (1) (2) In the current study, the "time-dilation" term in (1), composed of two parts due to spacecraft and TDB velocities with respect to solar barycenter, is the primary difference between special relativistic and Newtonian radial Doppler equations. Experiment confirms clock slowing due to an induced velocity measured against an ideal inertial frame, demonstrated notably in GPS and muon lifetime measurements at CERN. If clock slowing is due to some mechanism other than the hypothesized relativistic time dilation, then the special relativistic Doppler equation is incorrect, and the Newtonian equation is preferred, [5]. Assuming the validity of (2), then application of (1) in converting from TDB to solar barycenter frame for a 30 km/sec Earth velocity introduces an apparent constant frequency offset of -5.00 x 10-9 Hz/Hz. An additional apparent frequency offset due to the use of (1) versus (2) in converting from solar barycenter to the 12.24 km/sec Pioneer spacecraft is -8.32 x 10-10 Hz/Hz. Applied to the Doppler equations, these offsets translate to a residual shift in frequency of -5.83 x 10-9 Hz/Hz, one-way only. If equation (2) is correct, these offsets will appear as a steady frequency drift in the Deep Space Network of –5.83 x 10-9 Hz/s. Dividing by the S-band carrier frequency results in a perceived constant clock acceleration of -at = –2.53 x 10-18 s/s2. Since such a consistent, systemic acceleration of all clocks is unlikely, the offset may be viewed as an anomalous spacecraft acceleration of ap = atc, or ap = 7.59 x 10-8 cm/s2, independent of distance and constant for a given spacecraft velocity. Apparent sunward acceleration increases proportionally with spacecraft velocity, not 1/r2 as a gravitational force would indicate. If the anomaly is due to a preference for the Newtonian radial Doppler expression, one also expects the observed correlation between Aerospace Corporation’s Compact High Accuracy Satellite Motion Program and Jet Propulsion Laboratory’s Orbit Determination Program, as they apply the same Doppler methodology. The authors of [1] state "it is interesting to speculate on the possibility that the origin of the anomalous signal is new physics." More likely the result is an artifact of the equations chosen to model the Doppler effect, requiring a closer look at equations comparing light-times, clock rates and Doppler frequency shifts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zarkov Posted July 23, 2002 Author Share Posted July 23, 2002 Some more info on the pioneer anomoly........ After the discovery of this unexplained acceleration, in 1980, John D. Anderson and Eunice L. Lau decided to keep track of the anomaly. At that time, they assumed it was a navigation modeling error, and didn’t give it high priority. They expected the anomaly would go away but it did not. In 1994, Michael Martin Nieto contacted Anderson about how to tell if Newton’s laws hold on interplanetary distance scales. He was astounded when he learned of the acceleration anomaly. Discussions with others in the physics community emphasized that before the claim could be taken seriously, an independent computer code would be needed to determine if the same result could be obtained. Several people came on board, including Philip A. Laing and Anthony S. Liu of The Aerospace Corporation. Using both the JPL and Aerospace Corporation navigation software, they analyzed in detail the data from January 1987 to July 1995. During that time, the Deep Space Network had generated and delivered reduced radio Doppler data to Anderson and Lau, so it was available. They concluded that there remained an unmodeled acceleration towards the Sun of approximately (8.79 +/- 1.25) x 10-8 centimeters/second. The results were published in Physical Review Letters in 1998. It’s possible that it’s due to some possible systematic problem that hasn’t been identified. However, some have proposed modifying Newton’s laws. One such proposal is called Modified Newtonian Dynamics (MOND), which proposes that the normal gravitational force, which square of the distance, is modified at very large distances. At such distances, the gravitational force would decrease as the inverse of the distance, instead of the square of the distance. Therefore, the gravitational force would be stronger than you would otherwise expect. However, MOND does not attempt to explain why this is. The modification is just added in an ad hoc way. It doesn’t follow logically from any fundamental theory of gravity we currently have. Now, someone could come up with such a theory, but so far no one has attempted to do this, as far as I know. In the past, we detected that the rotation of the spiral galaxies is different than you would expect from Newtonian mechanics. Some people at that time suggested MOND as an explanation, but instead the physics community settled on the simpler explanation that the galaxies were surrounded by dark matter. There was independent that there was dark matter in the universe to explain cosmological effects. I propose that the anomalous acceleration of Pioneer 10 is also due to dark matter. During the origin and history of the Solar System, the Sun would gravitationally attract nearby dark matter which would accumulate around the Sun. By now, the Sun would be at the center of a ball of dark matter. The Pioneer 10 probe would feel the gravitational attraction not just of the Sun but of the Sun plus the surrounding dark matter which would appear to us as an extra acceleration towards the Sun. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zarkov Posted July 25, 2002 Author Share Posted July 25, 2002 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Radical Edward Posted July 25, 2002 Share Posted July 25, 2002 no no, 'predictions' are something that the mathematical model shows to happen, something you may or may not expect. For ecample Maxwell's Equations predicted the propagation of elecromagnetic waves at the speed of light. Dirac's equations predicted antimatter, spin and a bunch of other stuff (and hence he got a nobel prize) what you have just typed out is 'conjecture' - something else entirely, and not a thing really sorth taking much notice of. sorry. of course if you have done the maths, and your maths predicts all these things without them having been fed in in the first place, then fair enough. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zarkov Posted July 25, 2002 Author Share Posted July 25, 2002 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! > Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Radical Edward Posted July 26, 2002 Share Posted July 26, 2002 you need maths, there is no point carrying on unless you have the maths there. wandering round saying 'this theory predicts these effects' while never properly explaining the tenets of the theory and how they apply to the problem, namely the mathematical results will not get you anywhere. I am still wondering about your earlier assertation that neutrons are the source of this magnetic field. where is your evidence for this? neutrons are chargeless - that is why they are called neutrons (neutral). they are not affected by electrical fileds at all, this is why they were discovered so late. also, if it is the magnetic field that generates everything, then how come there are no magnetic monopoles, and yet there are electrical poles which impose an electrical force on objects with charge, regardless of whether they are spinning. If it is this supposed magnetic force that leads to gravity, then what is the actual relation between the two? you have essentially said that you have unified electromagnetism and gravity. how do the strong and weak forces and their associated charge carriers relate to all of this? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Unregistered Posted July 26, 2002 Share Posted July 26, 2002 <A HREF=" http://www2b.abc.net.au/science/k2/stn/posts/topic102992.shtm "> Zarkovian spin gravity Refuted</A> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now