@MikeB

Quote:

Of course you can calculate at such distances. However what I state is that gravity between objects as far as the planets are apart gravity is reduced to near nothing. So when you stand on the earth or are for example in an ariplane the force of gravity will be huge. However when talking about distances in the range of AUs this isn't at all the case.

Certainly distance plays a role. As it does in magnetism. However, you seem to believe the formulas to be wrong but are unable to provide more accurate formulas for anyone to test.

Force of Gravity is BigG * mass of object 1 * mass of object 2 / distance squared.
Force of Magnetism is charge of object 1 * charge of object 2 / distance squared.

Thus, if you want to find out if Gravity or Magnetism is the predominate force you simply need to compare the top of the formula. Distance squared is always the same. Which ever value is larger Gravity or Magnetism will always be larger no matter the distance because both lose their effect based on the same ratio - distance squared.

Again you believe this to be wrong. It's taken you 50 pages of failures of proof. Anyday would be good.

@MikeB

Quote:

Of course you can calculate at such distances. However what I state is that gravity between objects as far as the planets are apart gravity is reduced to near nothing. So when you stand on the earth or are for example in an ariplane the force of gravity will be huge. However when talking about distances in the range of AUs this isn't at all the case.

The effect of gravity decreases wit distance by the reciprocal of the square of the distance. As does the electromagnetic influence.
If the gravitational influence is larger by a given factor at a distance of 1AU, it will also be greater at a distance of 100AU, or 1000AU, or even 4 light years.
Both forces diminish at the same rate.
The challenge remains to provide a mathematical basis for your hypothesis.

_________________
When in trouble, fear or doubt, run in circles, scream and shout.

@MikeB

No, wait, you did answer one of them. My solar flares point. Excellent.

Quote:

Massive solar flares will have an impact. But not on earth's orbit as the magnetic link between the sun and earth is very strong and the mass of the earth is much much much more than the combined mass of the molecules which slams into earth's magnetosphere in these short periods and thus will have a near neglectable effect on orbit speed.

Nonsense. If the magnetic field of the sun is what drives its orbital characteristics, then the sudden massive spike in field intensity caused by a solar flare should literally move the Earth.

It does not. It only moves tiny molecular particles around in the upper atmosphere, revealing that the ultimate capacity of magnetism in the modern solar system is limited to blowing spacedust around.

It can't move planets. Gravity is the dominant force that does that.


Now, if you can answer my other two questions as well?

I'm particularly interested to hear about Venus' retrograde orbit, which is completely impossible in a magnetically driven system.

@T-J

Quote:

And I note that you still haven't answered my earlier questions about your idea.

Maybe you can provide a point by point short overview per question. Once you again started to talk about "math" I kinda skipped quite a bit of your writings.

@BrianK

Quote:

Which ever value is larger Gravity or Magnetism will always be larger no matter the distance because both lose their effect based on the same ratio - distance squared.

Thinking of the planets and sun as equal scale drops, which kind of force would be more likely to you to be powerful enough to put things into motion in a spiral?

Would it be a rotating magnetic field or a straight pull of this matter towards the sun (the bigger drop).

Based on your education you will probably state the direct pull between this matter. But what would you answer without such biases? Assuming of course an understanding of the basics of magnetic fields and adhesion/cohesion forces between matter.

Even if you still don't agree, do you understand enough of my reasoning to at least allow me to not share your opinions (nomatter if a smart guy almost a hundred years ago invented some inventive excuses for Newton's theory).

It's a matter of you believe light around objects such as stars and planets is bent by bending space-time (Einstein) or if you believe like me light (which is magnetic) is bent by magnetic fields.

Or believing in dark matter (inventive excuse for Einstein theories, not to be confused with the stuff you flush down your toilet) or not believing in it like me. If dark matter does not exist everything falls apart like a house of cards and it was truly just a blind faith you had in some theory.

Last edited by MikeB on 13-May-2011 at 09:19 PM.
Last edited by MikeB on 13-May-2011 at 09:18 PM.

This turned out to be a very long topic, past 1000 posts, so locking this one, part 2 is

found here, discussion continues there.

_________________
Site admins are people too..pooff!