Zarkov Posted July 26, 2002 Author Posted July 26, 2002 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 :)
Zarkov Posted July 26, 2002 Author Posted July 26, 2002 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
Radical Edward Posted July 26, 2002 Posted July 26, 2002 Originally posted by Zarkov 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. how would you go about explaining the force experienced by two infinitely long (or lets just say long enough to ignore end effects) parallel wires along which a current flows. how would you explain the force felt by one electron on another how would you explain the force felt by one proton on another (at long distances, lets ignore the strong force for now) how woul you explain the force felt by an electron on a proton? why is the 'magnetism' intrinsic in neutrons not measurable, why are they not affected by electric and magnetic fields? this statement "I think magnetism is the fundamental force and electricity is the derivative. So as such electricity can be monopolar." makes no sense, because electrical fields can exist without magnetic fields, but the converse is not true.
Radical Edward Posted July 26, 2002 Posted July 26, 2002 Originally posted by Zarkov Rad E, yes you are correct. It is not all there yet. it is beyond 'not all there yes' so far I haven't even seen one tenable point.
Sayonara Posted July 26, 2002 Posted July 26, 2002 Originally posted by Radical Edward how woul you explain the force felt by an electron on a proton? You've probably posted this before on PA GD, but how do you explain it? Even though it's considered something we 'know', I've heard some interesting stories about this particular force. (And why isn't Mrl here?)
Radical Edward Posted July 26, 2002 Posted July 26, 2002 this is something that I haven't talked about there. heh, I will discuss it after zarkov (not pa's zarkov is it?) has voiced his opinion. well invite MrL if you like, shame he isn't here as he knows his stuff.
Zarkov Posted July 27, 2002 Author Posted July 27, 2002 Please invite Mrl here I need all the advice I can get :)
Sayonara Posted July 27, 2002 Posted July 27, 2002 I think our Zark spells it with the 'h'. Zarkov - you really don't want to meet Mrl on a bad day... :toilet:
JaKiri Posted July 27, 2002 Posted July 27, 2002 Originally posted by Sayonara³ (And why isn't Mrl here?) Originally posted by Radical Edward well invite MrL if you like, shame he isn't here as he knows his stuff. What's that you say?
Radical Edward Posted July 27, 2002 Posted July 27, 2002 Originally posted by blike Whos MrL?? the guy who just posted. (someone sayonara nad I know from another forum)
Sayonara Posted July 27, 2002 Posted July 27, 2002 Originally posted by MrL_JaKiri What's that you say? :bravo: This should be fun.
Zarkov Posted July 27, 2002 Author Posted July 27, 2002 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 :)
JaKiri Posted July 27, 2002 Posted July 27, 2002 Originally posted by Zarkov 1) Planetary/moon systems are only stable when they orbit with their axies parallel or radial to the spinning axis and in the equatorial plane. This is almost creationist in its stylings; as you can only get perfectly stable systems in confined models, any empirical example we could give could be said to be 'unstable', which of course we could not prove, only disprove. Therefore stating such a thing as a prediction is almost singularly unhelpful. Originally posted by Zarkov 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. If it is pushed out, as the only thing that really keeps the sun together is the gravity, wouldn't this cloud of plasma just expand? Originally posted by Zarkov 3) Planetary Moons should also be created by the same process as above, with the same general effects. 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'. Originally posted by Zarkov 4) Moons and planets should be ejected out of astronomical bodies at periodic times throughout astronomical history. Comets can be ejected in this manner. Now, I could be going insane, but am I the only one to see something problematic with creating a ball of ice from plasma? Originally posted by Zarkov 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. If the moon is 'pushed out' by solar pressure, then I don't think there would be an increase in orbital radius; the effect would be to direct the orbit of the moon 'away' from the sun, and to elongate the elipse in that direction. Plus the orbital radius is only increasing by about 4cm per year anyway. Originally posted by Zarkov 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. If the rotational speed of the planet is dependent on magnetic interaction between the core and the sun, then surely the length of the martian day would be very different to the terran day, as mars has no magnetic field to speak of? Yet the martian day is only 1.026 terran days. Originally posted by Zarkov 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) Vortex chaos? Originally posted by Zarkov 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. If that is so, then why don't all the particles in a planet's atmosphere simply orbit? Why do we have counter-rotational winds, and the like? Originally posted by Zarkov 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. What do you mean, 'created by geology'? Geology is defined as 'The scientific study of the origin, history, structure and processes of the Earth'. Actually make something even nearing sense and I might be able to understand what you are talking about. Originally posted by Zarkov 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. Since you are saying that all the particles on a planet are orbiting, then why would the water be lost to space if it is in orbit around the planet? Originally posted by Zarkov 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. Why then has there been shown to be gravitational attraction between non-spinning objects? Originally posted by Zarkov 12) Spin gravity lines of force are spiral in shape, due to the resultant being precessional, and are directed towards the centre of spin. 'Lines of force' are defined as the direction taken by a point mass/charge at the given points. If the lines of force are spiral in shape, then wouldn't things fall in a spiral, rather than vertically down? (You seem to have forgotten how to count at this stage) Originally posted by Zarkov 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). The words have individual meaning, but don't seem to be coherent as a sentence. Plus you don't seem to know what 'centrifugal force' (which doesnt exist) and 'centripetal force' (which does) are. Originally posted by Zarkov 16) Spin gravity has no aberration as it is always directed toward the centre of spin. Aberration is defined as 'a deviation from the expected course'. So I don't really understand what you are trying to say, as this is no prediction; it's a verification of the truth of the model (given certain errors for other factors). Originally posted by Zarkov 17) Spin gravity waves travel through all things. As opposed to 'normal' gravity, which when the earth is between mars and the sun, mars flies off at a tangent. Originally posted by Zarkov 18) Bodies with no rotation should have no gravity, only magnetic and electrostatic bonding. Proven to be incorrect. Originally posted by Zarkov 19) Spin gravity predicts a flatening of the poles because certrifugal force would throw out the equitorial regions. There is no such thing as centrifugal (or certrifugal as you put it) force. Originally posted by Zarkov 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 1. There is no such thing as centrifugal (or certrifugal as you put it) force. 2. Without some kind of numerical prediction, this is not a different prediction to either Newtonian gravity or General Relativity, and can't support the theory. Originally posted by Zarkov 21) Spin gravity accounts for the observed shapes and dynamics of galaxies without recourse to invisible dark matter and central black holes. Since you haven't given any numerical values/equations etc for spin gravity so far, you can't actually say this. Newtonian Gravity and General Relativity don't need dark matter or central black holes if you don't put any numbers in. Originally posted by Zarkov 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. An ether would suggest absolute positioning, which really went out with Newton. Originally posted by Zarkov 23) The magnetic properties of all matter generate a surrounding field, which can be viewed as a tensor well. Doesn't this go against what you said in 22? Originally posted by Zarkov 24) Internal electrostatic and magnetic forces prevent stars from collapsing. Haven't you said that all these forces are 'push' forces, in which case the sun should explode instantly, as there's nothing holding it in. Originally posted by Zarkov 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%. Since electricity is a flow of electrons, I don't see how moving a proton in a magnetic field induces electricty. Plus this would mean that all objects induce electricity, going back to 22 and 23. Originally posted by Zarkov 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. Explain why. Originally posted by Zarkov 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. Red shifts have been shown to be independent of distance, not proportional to as this theory would suggest. Originally posted by Zarkov 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. Once again, the words make sense, but I have no idea what you are talking about. Originally posted by Zarkov 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. The Chandler wobble is not a force... Originally posted by Zarkov 30) Black holes are not suported by spin gravity. Which is a great pity, as there is really quite a lot of evidence for them. Originally posted by Zarkov 31) The speed of light is constrained by wave mechanics, and is constant for various materials. You do understand that wave mechanics depends upon Special Relativity, which you decried earlier?
Zarkov Posted July 28, 2002 Author Posted July 28, 2002 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!
Zarkov Posted July 28, 2002 Author Posted July 28, 2002 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!!!
Zarkov Posted July 28, 2002 Author Posted July 28, 2002 " 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.
Guest hogslayer Posted July 28, 2002 Posted July 28, 2002 Most of you here are too young to remember an article in OMNI magazine, in the late 70s/early 80s, that addressed something called "static gravity". The basis was that as a particle moved through an electromagnetic field, it became lighter. The faster it moved, the lighter it became. That is why jet planes can fly so much higher than little propellor planes. It is also why, when you stir your coffe, the outside begins to rise, becoause it is spinning faster. It sounds like somebody started digging into some REALLY old back issues of this rag. Too bad, he didn't read the disclaimer much later in another issue that stated it was a hoax, a joke, a bunch of nonsense meant to be enjoyed for entertainment, not seriously considered, LOL! Some people are like a brick wall. Arguing with them produces about the same results.
Radical Edward Posted July 28, 2002 Posted July 28, 2002 could you actually defend each of the thirtysomething points that MrL discussed zarkov?
Zarkov Posted July 28, 2002 Author Posted July 28, 2002 Only after he reappraises his understanding, thanks
Radical Edward Posted July 28, 2002 Posted July 28, 2002 his evaluation of what you said was very clear. try answering his points, explaining where you don't understand what he's on about where nescessary.
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