@Lou

Quote:

True but the mass of the outer planets with the exception of Pluto is much larger hence larger magnetosphere as well. It's also been shown that Neptune's orbit is affected by Pluto and vice versa.

Jupiter's mass is 1/1000th that of the Sun. Saturn is smaller, as it Neptune. Pluto has a mass approximately equal to 0.002 Earth masses. The effects you describe account for the rounding errors in the current model of the solar system.

@MikeB

Quote:

A very simple way to understand. You have a compass, the needle points north. Now the magnetic field becomes twice as dense. Will your needle then suddenly point south? Of course not.

I don't even...

Try this one: You have a compass and a magnet. The magnet is placed at a location relative to the compass such that its magnetic effect on the needle of the compass is 1.5x stronger than the Earth's current field. So the needle points towards the magnet. Then imagine the magnetic field of the Earth becomes twice as powerful - the needle will then point north!

Of course.

Its really incredibly simple - you keep telling us that its the Sun's magnetic field keeping the planets in line. The Sun's magnetic field has been observed to weaken over the past 22 years, to the point where it is now only half as strong. Therefore, by your own 'theory', the planets should have slowed down and moved to a closer orbit, since there is less magnetic magic to 'push them away'.

But this has not happened. Unless you think that Big Science has conspired to keep it secret that the Earth now orbits closer to the Sun than Venus?

Quote:

Again I point you to this: http://www.nasa.gov/multimedia/videogallery/index.html?collection_id=14658&media_id=82280481 The magnetism force here is strong enough to even exchange particles between Saturn and this moon beyond its rings. Is it really something so hard to consider? If you exchange gravity for magnetism as the dominant force which keeps in place a lot more questions can be answered than science can today. Like the planetary tilts in our solar system and why the planets orbit the sun around its equator instead of anywhere else.

That video describes the exchange of charged particles between two magnetospheres that are in close association with eachother. Nothing like the Sun's interaction with its planets. Please, stop with the appeals to authority.

Now, on to the main points: if you use magnetism as the dominant force, you simply raise a host of unsolvable problems and fail to fix anything wrong with gravity. You can't explain why non-magnetic objects stay in orbit! You can't explain why the planets tilt on their axes, because by magnetism they should all line up with the Sun's magnetic field! And you certainly can't explain why this tilt varies over time, as it has been observed to do. You can't explain why Pluto orbits off the plane of the ecliptic and you can't explain why Venus rotates backwards.

And as for the notion that gravity somehow can't explain why the planets generally orbit around the sun's equator, well, if you know the basics, the answer to your error falls into place.

Basically, you can't explain anything with magnets that we can't do with gravity, your magnetism idea doesn't unite the quantum and macro scales under some kind of unified field theory, and it has so many more fatal flaws that it simply can't be taken seriously by anyone with any background in the physical sciences at all.

@MikeB

Quote:

Quote: This is exactly what has happened here. You told us the sun and earth's magnetic fields are keeping things in place. A very simple way to understand. You have a compass, the needle points north. Now the magnetic field becomes twice as dense. Will your needle then suddenly point south? Of course not.

There's two 'actions' here - direction and strength. A compass doesn't measure strength. It measures alignment with a field.

Think of it this way. You're driving a car North and hit a Southbound car at 100km/hr. Now the direction (north/south) would represent the magnetic field. The speed (100km/hr) represents the strength of action. ... Do the same thing drive North and hit a Southbound car at 200km/hr. Would the amount of damage be the same? Of course not there is greater FORCE in action and the impact is larger.

Quote:

The direction of the force remains the same. Or for example you hold a globe in front of you while spinning. Then you you squeeze the globe twice as hard while spinning, will this change the position of the ball? Of course not.

Assuming the force is in the exact alignment of the sping then no.

The observation against this is we don't have alignment. Two planets North is on top South is on bottom. Two planets South is on top and North is on bottom. Two planets North and South are horizontal. Some planets only have an introduced force and no diople. And NONE of these align spin with magnetic field.

@Lou

Quote:

True but the mass of the outer planets with the exception of Pluto is much larger hence larger magnetosphere as well. It's also been shown that Neptune's orbit is affected by Pluto and vice versa.

You have two factors here Lou. They are mass and magnetosphere. As described how to figure out which one is the largest influence is simple. Calculate the Force of each. The winner is the one that has the larger Force. (Hint it's been done and it isn't magnetism.) Do the math!

@MikeB

Quote:

The magnetism force here is strong enough to even exchange particles between Saturn and this moon beyond its rings. Is it really something so hard to consider?

The charge that this has somehow not been considered by me is a lie. I've explained how the formulas work so too could do the consideration that's already been done. As much as you want to blame me the refusal to consider is on your part.

You have lots of comparisions here for us to consider. You seemingly don't understand we have considered them and found that the force of gravity is greater than that of magnetism. You reuse to "Do your math" and thus fail to consider these.

Last edited by BrianK on 26-Apr-2011 at 12:28 PM.

@BrianK

Quote:

The charge that this has somehow not been considered by me is a lie.

Then I think you may be ready for step two. For this to work you would need to try to see my viewpoint, nomatter if you don't agree with this viewpoint.

IMO, the flat earth theory was very much a local/continental viewpoint.
The Universal gravity theory I find a very earthly viewpoint.
The galacitc viewpoint IMO are balances between repulsion/neutral/attraction.

Look at this picture and look at what you see if watching from my viewpoint:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Orbit5.gif

What I see is two stars of equal mass within well balanced orbits around eachother through attraction and repulsion.

Now what is the earthly viewpoint of universal gravity? (From my point of view)

From this viewpoint two equal mass objects constantly try to slam into eachother but miraculously miss each other due to a miraculous combination of speed and direction. Although both objects really would like to hit each other, but a micracle prevented this from ever happening.

IMO in my model there are far more possibilities (such as differing orbit speeds) and far fewer coincidences. For example for two planets to be in balance its the same behaviour. How could they both mariculous have developed just the right speed and directions to orbit each other like this? IMO if universal gravity was true there would be no solid roundly shaped planets in out solar system.

@MikeB

Quote:

Then I think you may be ready for step two. For this to work you would need to try to see my viewpoint, nomatter if you don't agree with this viewpoint.

Though point of order -- Me understanding your viewpoint does not add validity to the view point.

Quote:

Look at this picture and look at what you see if watching from my viewpoint: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Orbit5.gif What I see is two stars of equal mass within well balanced orbits around eachother through attraction and repulsion.

What I see is two objects of similar size orbiting each other in a circular path. There's nothing here indicating mass, nor amount of attractive or repulsive forces so I'm not sure how you see that? Is there friction here? Is that black background a pool of oil on a moon of Jupiter OR a table with a black cloth on earth or what?

And that's actually step 2 (and one that you haven't done). Identify what the items are and understand their properties. We can then use these properties to compare the 4 fundamental forces against each other - strong, weak, electro/magnetic, gravitational - and determine which force is the largest. That'll be the primary force at play.

So if these two masses are stars as you charge we can find their composition and size which generates a mass. We can use a gaussmeter or magnetometer to measure the strength of their magnetic field. We can use lasers and measure distances. We can get everything together to make a comparitive understanding of the forces in play.

Quote:

From this viewpoint two equal mass objects constantly try to slam into eachother but miraculously miss each other due to a miraculous combination of speed and direction. Although both objects really would like to hit each other, but a micracle prevented this from ever happening.

Ah yes are we all living in the Matrix and can't see the magic man beind the curtain?!

Or as in the case of planets can we use our knowledge and measure the aspects which are associated with Force? This clearly can be done.

Quote:

IMO in my model there are far more possibilities (such as differing orbit speeds) and far fewer coincidences.

Your model is some undefined miracle at action. It's not even scientific it's much worse as it's unfalsible. There may indeed be some invisible dragon that breathes fire the same temperature as the atmosphere that lives in my garage but the unfalsibility of such an entity means that science can't speak about it.

Though note you claimed magnetism is at work not gravity so you, yourselve have defined a material aspect and science can indeed say something about this. And it's that magnetism is the primary force at play between the earth and Sun is clearly wrong.

Quote:

IMO if universal gravity was true there would be no solid roundly shaped planets in out solar system.

You're lost.

@BrianK

Quote:

Though point of order -- Me understanding your viewpoint does not add validity to the view point.

4

But can you understand that to someone like me repulsion/attraction does sound far more natural from both stellar as well as atomic perspective?

Quote:

What I see is two objects of similar size orbiting each other in a circular path. There's nothing here indicating mass

The image is from the original post.

Quote:

Is there friction here?

Yes there is friction (albeit usually very low) and thus without these stars spinning an creating forces such as the sun's heliospheric current (which is not the case) would eventually stop orbiting around each other.

Quote:

Is that black background a pool of oil on a moon of Jupiter OR a table with a black cloth on earth or what?

It's outer space without any distracting details such as stars and galaxies.

Quote:

So if these two masses are stars as you charge we can find their composition and size which generates a mass.

In this example the actual mass is irrelevant other than them being equal.

Quote:

Or as in the case of planets can we use our knowledge and measure the aspects which are associated with Force?

Yes you can only estimate the force needed to keep things in balance and attribute this to friction vs heliospheric/magnetosheric current instead of gravitational pull.

Quote:

You're lost

To me it explains Ceres can be orbiting within the main asteroid belt with 33% of the mass of the entire asteroid belt and still be very much stay undamaged. Based on the theory of universal gravity all kinds of objects in the asteroid belt would like to slam into it and Ceres must be orbiting at a very different speed than the rest of the asteroid belt which makes it far more likely for it to get damaged (just like one car driving at a very different speed than all the other cars on the road).

What's your explanation?

@MikeB

Quote:

But can you understand that to someone like me repulsion/attraction does sound far more natural from both stellar as well as atomic perspective?

Sure but then as I've said this is but a starting point. It would be your inital hypothesis of how this works. The next step is for you to gain observational evidence to see if it supports or denies your assumption. And in the case of observational evidence your assumption is not supported. Which again is why you've been asked to do the math and you'll see the electromagnetic force for a planetary object is seriously weaker than the gravitational one.

Now Einstein, like other physicts, wanted to build a Unified Theory. His first attempt was to combine electro/magnetic and gravity. Afterall the formulas look fairly similar. Mathematically this proved to be complex. It's not believed that gravity is the least similar force and likely the last one tied into a Unified Theory.

Quote:

In this example the actual mass is irrelevant other than them being equal.

This diagram is an example of gravity at work. Nothing about magnetism here. Because the masses are the same the important factor in determining the change of force is the change of distance.

Quote:

Yes you can only estimate the force needed to keep things in balance and attribute this to friction vs heliospheric/magnetosheric current instead of gravitational pull

One can certainly estimate the force to keep such a system in balance due to magnetism. The next step would be to then measure the magnetism and see if it corresponds to the expected value. And this is exactly the problem with your 'it's all magnets' statement. The magnetic forces are much weaker than gravitational forces within our solar system. Which eliminates that type of force from being the predominate player. Just as Strong and Weak are eliminated too. Now you might think this is only in our solar system. Until you realize that we've used Gravity to predictively find other planets. And certainly one of the criteria establishing acceptance of a Theory is that it makes more frequent and more correct prediction than competiting theories.

Quote:

What's your explanation?

You seem to know the rate of impact on Ceres? Any links or where I can get this? I couldn't seem to find anything that indicated more or less strikes than any other item. Ceres is supposedly a thin layer of dust covering ice, covering rock. If that's correct the scenario may be a much smaller strike breaks up ice and dust, makes a bit of water, and that quickly refreezes and 'rebuilds' the surface.

The problem I see with Ceres is you are making a final assessment and I can't find any good pictures of the surface that might indicate or not how dotted it is with collisions. Neither can I find any data indicating average strike counts. If you have this data please share.

...
I've been open to your a hypothesis - 'it's magnets'. I looked at the evidence and Gravity is the largest out of the 4 fundamental forces. Since the data failed to support the hypothesis there are two choices here. Either the data is wrong OR the hypothesis is wrong. The data is certainly not wrong to the degree necessary that would enable magnetism to be the answer.* The honest answer is the hypothesis is mistaken.

* -- amateur techniques to measure the mass of the earth are under 2% for example.

@BrianK

Quote:

Now Einstein, like other physicts, wanted to build a Unified Theory. His first attempt was to combine electro/magnetic and gravity. Afterall the formulas look fairly similar. Mathematically this proved to be complex

Maybe he would have opted for a different theory if he knew the things we know today. If Einstein told you this is how our solar system operates, would you without your current biases (so no "education" on this topic) refute his claim? Would you have told him you think stars actually would like to slam into each other but the momentum prevents this from happening?

Quote:

The problem I see with Ceres is you are making a final assessment and I can't find any good pictures of the surface that might indicate or not how dotted it is with collisions

The surface of Ceres is far less battered than the Moon or Mars.

Last edited by MikeB on 26-Apr-2011 at 09:31 PM.

Call me crazy but if you put two spheres of equal mass and diameter in a vacuum on a completely flat surface, my gut is that they won't attract each other.

Now give them polarized magnetic fields, tilt them and make them spin and things become interesting.

@MikeB

Quote:

If Einstein told you this is how our solar system operates, would you without your current biases (so no "education" on this topic) refuter his claim?

Personally? I'd say what to him what I'm saying to you. Show us the evidence. And this was exactly what was done.

Newtonian Gravity had some big problems. For example, Mecury cannot exist in it's orbit under Newton. The postulate was another body, the planet Vulcan, must exist. The observational evidence was against Newton as Vulcan has never been found. Under Einstein one no longer needed Vulcan. In short, Einstein's Graviation explained everything Newton did and more. This is why that Theory wins out. (Though Newton's method works when the speeds are faily slow. Thus for ease of calculation it sticks around.)

And really Mike that's the plus of living now. We have the opportunity to see lines of evidence and testing that exist that didn't prior to or even during Einstein's life. We can now use laser spectography to look for mass induced wobbles and it works down to as small as a 10cm/s shake. WOW!

You're throwing out electro/magnetism as the answer to a problem that doesn't exist. Your SWAG neither explains better than Einstein let alone better than Newton. Thus, it's subjectated to the bottom. If you want to keep your guess please do. Perhaps somewhere out there is a solar system that's magnetically dominated. The problem in this thread is that it's clearly not the one you're living in. And more specifically it is neither Elenin nor Planet X.

I'd recommend reading books on the Bohr-Einstein debates. They're a good read to see what happens in science, which is populated by people afterall, as it goes through a paradigm shift.


Quote:

The surface of Ceres is far less battered than the Moon or Mars.

I gotta trust you there as the Hubble images, which are supposed the best we have, didn't have a level of detail where I could agree or disagree with that. The descriptions I've read said a surface like a C-Type asteroid, which means it's fairly well pitted. Even if your description is right this doesn't mean it's a magical magentic force at work. You need evidence to support this. Similarily my self healing hypotheseis needs evidence to confirm or deny this possibility.

Ceres seems to be unique to the point it was considered purposing another 'Dwarf Planet' category. Though it appears this never made it formally. Perhaps it is a magnetic force in this case. That however doesn't prove it's also the magnetic case of the planets. Each one needs to stand with their own line of evidence. The evidence of magnetic charges is a substantially weaker force than that of gravity. So small in fact it's basically not considered at all. Again gravity may be very weak but it's orders of magnitudes stronger than magnetics.

@Lou

Quote:

Call me crazy but if you put two spheres of equal mass and diameter in a vacuum on a completely flat surface, my gut is that they won't attract each other.

A vacuum is a space devoid of matter. If you have a vacuum chamber on your desk there could be nothing in it besides the two spheres. However, the earth has a greater gravitational pull on either sphere than they would with each other. Additionally, you said they were on a flat surface. This means unequal friction as the bottom of the sphere presses against the surface. F=ma in this case a (acceleration) is g (9.8 m/s/s aka gravity on earth).

Quote:

Now give them polarized magnetic fields, tilt them and make them spin and things become interesting.

The polarization doesn't make them float which indicates that gravity is still part of this sytem. The motion imparted must be enough to overcome the friction of the object. Clearly the magnetized spheres don't float away. So they aren't being repulsed by the planet.


Inverting my answer and expanding here's a question ---If it is magnetism why do we use acceleration of a rocket? --- Wouldn't it make more sense to build a very strong electromagnet around an object and invert the polarity thereby repulsing the ship with a very strong magnetic field? Earth's is .5 Gauss we can certainly make much, much stronger magnetic fields. .5 Gauss is .5microteslas. 1.5 Tesla rare-earth magnets exist. We're building 30 Tesla, if not more, electromagnets.

Some ideas might to use magentism exist but none are a magnetic field around an object. Ion Engines use magentism to heat and eject ions, so it's still propulsion like a rocket. A rail gun is one item but the object leaving is traveling due to F=ma not due to any magnetism vs earth.

Turns out to leave earth your acceleration must exceed your acceleration due to free fall, aka gravity. Your magnetic field has nothing to do with it.

@BrianK

Quote:

BrianK wrote: @Lou Quote: Call me crazy but if you put two spheres of equal mass and diameter in a vacuum on a completely flat surface, my gut is that they won't attract each other. A vacuum is a space devoid of matter. If you have a vacuum chamber on your desk there could be nothing in it besides the two spheres. However, the earth has a greater gravitational pull on either sphere than they would with each other. Additionally, you said they were on a flat surface. This means unequal friction as the bottom of the sphere presses against the surface. F=ma in this case a (acceleration) is g (9.8 m/s/s aka gravity on earth).

Since they are spheres, all the tiny point of contact to the flat surface would do it force the spheres to have to roll. That said, they could be 1" apart and 1 foot in diameter hence a theretical stong gravitational pull yet I bet they wouldn't move.
Gravity wouldn't effect horizontal acceleration once the threshhold of force required to overcome the friction force was achieved. One way to measure gravity is to separate them a good distance then supply force to make them approach each other in parralel paths that don't cross then see if their trajectory is affected by the gravity they should have to each other which could be pre-calculated based on their mass, right?

Quote:

Quote: Now give them polarized magnetic fields, tilt them and make them spin and things become interesting. The polarization doesn't make them float which indicates that gravity is still part of this sytem. The motion imparted must be enough to overcome the friction of the object. Clearly the magnetized spheres don't float away. So they aren't being repulsed by the planet. Inverting my answer and expanding here's a question ---If it is magnetism why do we use acceleration of a rocket?

Because F=MA is still valid in the absence of gravity. Now think about what I just said: in the absence of gravity.

Quote:

--- Wouldn't it make more sense to build a very strong electromagnet around an object and invert the polarity thereby repulsing the ship with a very strong magnetic field? Earth's is .5 Gauss we can certainly make much, much stronger magnetic fields. .5 Gauss is .5microteslas. 1.5 Tesla rare-earth magnets exist. We're building 30 Tesla, if not more, electromagnets.

I already supplied you a link to magnetic levitation. The act of spinning is required. This is what helps explain why planets maintain an orbit thru a combination of attraction and repulsion.
Planets are polarized and part of the planet nearest the sun repulses the sun thru part of the orbit, as the seasons change, the earth is then attracted to the sun because the other pole dominates. This is what MikeB is suggesting.

Quote:

Some ideas might to use magentism exist but none are a magnetic field around an object. Ion Engines use magentism to heat and eject ions, so it's still propulsion like a rocket. A rail gun is one item but the object leaving is traveling due to F=ma not due to any magnetism vs earth.

So you are saying magnetism can be used to simulate F=MA, imagine that. Perhaps F=MA is the simplified formula that results from a net of electro-magnetical forces on an object...? Acceleration is rarely constant. Actually, I think you know that even F=MA is the simplified version of the formula and that A is really a vector. What if A was determined by the field created between the earth's magnetic field and the sun's in the case of earth's orbit around the sun? What would cause that force to change? Could it be the pole that happens to be closer the the sun at any given time which does change as the earth orbits.

Gravity is a net result of electomagnetic forces. The spinning allows the earth to levitate around the sun in a vacuum we call space.

Quote:

Turns out to leave earth your acceleration must exceed your acceleration due to free fall, aka gravity. Your magnetic field has nothing to do with it.

Gravity is a net force. For relatively small distances aka the atmosphere it appears constant. In the big picture it doesn't exist directly.

Let me point you to a practical simulation.
SPACE WAR
Yes, Space War, one of the first video games. In that game, regardless of your vector acceleration, eventully your ship would crash into the "sun". That game is a gravity simulator. If it were an electrice field simulator, then the ships would be able to orbit for what would seem an eternity.

@Lou

Quote:

Since they are spheres, all the tiny point of contact to the flat surface would do it force the spheres to have to roll

Not true.

Assuming the earth is the only at force here the sphere would roll till a stationary point is found. Eventually friction of rubbing against the earth will take over. If the center of mass is off center there will be a point that's going to be favored over other points. If the mass is perfect then any point will be as equally good as the other.

Let's test magnetism here. Take ball A and put a heavy off center weight in it. Let's make sure it's heavy enough so it always favors this side of the object when it stops. Let's now do the same to ball B but opposite of the heavy mass add a light object of heavy magnetic charge (say 3x the earth's measure). The result? Same as ball A. Magnetic charge has no effect.


Quote:

One way to measure gravity is to separate them a good distance then supply force to make them approach each other in parralel paths that don't cross then see if their trajectory

You will, obviously, need to eliminate gravity else the barycenter of the earth and the two balls is closer to the center of the earth and therefore you will not see the intended effect. Not realizing this will cause you to make an observational error.

Quote:

I already supplied you a link to magnetic levitation. The act of spinning is required.

No spinning required. A frog takes 16 Tesla to float. So what's the problem? A law of motion says every action has an opposite and equal reaction. We're seeing a magnetic effect once we reach a point that's very much greater than the .5 microtesla of the earth. If it's just magnetism only a bit more than .5microtesla would be needed. So unless you and Mike somehow break the law of gravity and law of motion the Swag of Magnets is false. I'll be a bit more friendly and say IF it exists it's clear that Gravity predominates to the point magnetism is typically neglible.

The rest here I won't go into I think I've carried enough of the it's just Woo that it's time you and MikeB stopped the 'but what if excuses' and brought some data.

Though I'll steal the idea of
Quote:

SPACE WAR

Great example for MikeB to look at. This was programed with only attractive force. One is able to bum-rush the sun (or black hole) in the middle of the board. When done properly the result is an increase acceleration. A great example of how 'all forces come in twos' is false. And how pull can look like push under the correct directions.

Quote:

eventully your ship would crash into the "sun"

And guess what eventually effects the planets too. The moon will eventually break away from the earth. Because it's acceleration is greater than the graviational pull of the earth. The earth too is supposed to spiral into the sun at some point.

I'd love to grab the Space War code and program a mass w/ acceleration that remains in orbit at it's Langrangian Point. Of course not every mass and acceleration could occur. If the mass is too small it may be unable to reach a speed fast enough to allow orbit. We'd have to assume the programmer created the spaceship with enough mass and ability for acceleration to allow a Langrangian Point to be reached. There's no indication of this condition being met. And assuming it is met it we still haven't ruled out your lack of videogame prowess.

@BrianK

Quote:

BrianK wrote: @Lou Quote: Since they are spheres, all the tiny point of contact to the flat surface would do it force the spheres to have to roll Not true. Assuming the earth is the only at force here the sphere would roll till a stationary point is found. Eventually friction of rubbing against the earth will take over. If the center of mass is off center there will be a point that's going to be favored over other points. If the mass is perfect then any point will be as equally good as the other. Let's test magnetism here. Take ball A and put a heavy off center weight in it. Let's make sure it's heavy enough so it always favors this side of the object when it stops. Let's now do the same to ball B but opposite of the heavy mass add a light object of heavy magnetic charge (say 3x the earth's measure). The result? Same as ball A. Magnetic charge has no effect. Quote: One way to measure gravity is to separate them a good distance then supply force to make them approach each other in parralel paths that don't cross then see if their trajectory You will, obviously, need to eliminate gravity else the barycenter of the earth and the two balls is closer to the center of the earth and therefore you will not see the intended effect. Not realizing this will cause you to make an observational error.

I can't visualize your example at all.

What's even simpler to measure and would eliminate barycenter blah blah blah is to launch then in a vacuum at each other parralel but in different planes and simply measure their velocities with precise equipment. If they exhibit gravity they should accelerate towards each other and slow after the perpendicular point between themselves and the force applied to them. Once again I think you will see that gravity doesn't exist.

Further proof: objects in space shuttle cabins don't suddenly cling to anything in space. The float randomly.

Quote:

Quote: I already supplied you a link to magnetic levitation. The act of spinning is required. No spinning required. A frog takes 16 Tesla to float. So what's the problem? A law of motion says every action has an opposite and equal reaction. We're seeing a magnetic effect once we reach a point that's very much greater than the .5 microtesla of the earth. If it's just magnetism only a bit more than .5microtesla would be needed. So unless you and Mike somehow break the law of gravity and law of motion the Swag of Magnets is false. I'll be a bit more friendly and say IF it exists it's clear that Gravity predominates to the point magnetism is typically neglible.

An example. If I punch you in the face ( ) it was electical signals in my muscles that moved my arm. You would perceive that my arm was the force but it was simply the mass, electricity supplied the acceleration in my muscle tissue. To you my arm could be called gravity. Your face became attracted to my fist. Yes you can calculate the mass and the net acceleration of my fist but where did the source of that acceleration come from? It's not gravity, it's electromagnetic forces in my muscle tissue.

Quote:

The rest here I won't go into I think I've carried enough of the it's just Woo that it's time you and MikeB stopped the 'but what if excuses' and brought some data.

I think I described clear examples here where as yours, to me, was not.

Quote:

Though I'll steal the idea of Quote: SPACE WAR Great example for MikeB to look at. This was programed with only attractive force. One is able to bum-rush the sun (or black hole) in the middle of the board. When done properly the result is an increase acceleration. A great example of how 'all forces come in twos' is false. And how pull can look like push under the correct directions. Quote: eventully your ship would crash into the "sun" And guess what eventually effects the planets too. The moon will eventually break away from the earth. Because it's acceleration is greater than the graviational pull of the earth. The earth too is supposed to spiral into the sun at some point. I'd love to grab the Space War code and program a mass w/ acceleration that remains in orbit at it's Langrangian Point. Of course not every mass and acceleration could occur. If the mass is too small it may be unable to reach a speed fast enough to allow orbit. We'd have to assume the programmer created the spaceship with enough mass and ability for acceleration to allow a Langrangian Point to be reached. There's no indication of this condition being met. And assuming it is met it we still haven't ruled out your lack of videogame prowess.

After 450 millions years, this planet is sure taking it's damn time to do it...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Orbit5.gif
Again you can simulate this in space war and the masses would spiral together rather quickly. The only way to sustain such an orbit is with polarized magnetic fields and rotational tilt.

As I said, gravity is a net effect and seemingly constant between extremely large objects or between large objects and small objects. But between small objects, it basically doesn't exist. The net effect is nothing. So you measure .5gauss well, picture every molecule on this planet producing a magnetic field. The net effect is that we are attracted to the mass of the earth since every atom in our bodies is also producing a magnetic field. They don't all go in the same direction hence we are mostly "neutral" however we still do exhibit some attraction just as a magnet attracts most metals even if the metal is not a magnet. I say this net effect is what you observe as gravity. The spinning of the earth makes it's poles and though we are mostly nuetral we are still attracted to the entire planet electro-magnetically. This is why I say it's a net effect.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pO0kikKcjuM&feature=related
In String Theory, gravity doesn't exist.

Heck, I even think a black hole is just a giant solenoid...
http://science.howstuffworks.com/electromagnet4.htm

Last edited by Lou on 27-Apr-2011 at 03:34 AM.

@Lou

Quote:

I can't visualize your example at all.

Perhaps a more real world example may help you. Loaded Dice are created by decreasing mass on 1 side and/or increasing mass on the opposite side. The result is an unbalanced die which now doesn't roll equally but instead favors the lighter side up / heavier side down. Use the same material and magetize one side -- no effect.

Quote:

launch then in a vacuum at each other parralel but in different planes and simply measure their velocities with precise equipment.

Again a vacuum won't matter. A vacuum is particle free not gravity free. Also, just because there are two objects here does not prove positive the same effect is or isn't at work within the planets of the solar system.

Quote:

Further proof: objects in space shuttle cabins don't suddenly cling to anything in space. The float randomly.

They don't float randomly. That's an incorrect observation. The space shuttle is falling towards earth as is everything in it's cabin. It's simply accelerating away at the same time causing a low gravity condition. Aka gravity is not 9.8 m/s/s in the space shuttle orbiting the planet, it's less.

Per your example you've failed to provide any coorelation that the sun or planets work by the same mechaism in your arm. Even if you find violence as an easy answer when the real world fails you.

Quote:

After 450 millions years, this planet is sure taking it's damn time to do it...

Yup.

:EDIT
You added this
Quote:

I say this net effect is what you observe as gravity

As I've told Mike you're free to say whatever you want. The proof is in the evidence which neither of you has brought. Conjecture is not conclusive.

You noted that gravity doesn't exist in String Theory. Great! The problem here is String Theory works great mathematically but has yet to be proven in the real world. It may be someday.

There's a concept of a Unified Force which unities gravity, electro/magnetism, strong, and weak forces. We aren't there yet. And once we are it'll be a question of how this is applied. It could be such that the UF has different properties it displays under different conditions. As such that would explain why the magnetic force is weak to non-existent for planets in our solar system and the gravitational aspect is predominate.

Call us when you move from conjecture to evidence or predictability that's a close proximity to the Law of Gravity.
:END EDIT

Last edited by BrianK on 27-Apr-2011 at 04:26 AM.

@BrianK

Quote:

So unless you and Mike somehow break the law of gravity and law of motion the Swag of Magnets is false. I'll be a bit more friendly and say IF it exists it's clear that Gravity predominates to the point magnetism is typically neglible.

To be clear, in my model gravity dominates on planetary/stellar surfaces. The further away the objects are the magnetic forces including the current increase in dominance. At the distance of moons from planets both forces will have significant effect.

However at planetary and stellar distances magnetic related forces near completely dominate.

In my model this is due to repulsion:
http://www.arm.ac.uk/press/2011/aac_horseshoe_orbit.html

IMO their model doesn't work. This object is a tiny very low mass object compared to the earth, at almost the same distance from the sun it is said to move both slower and faster than the earth for hundreds of thousands of years. The difference in mass between earth and this rock is so great it cannot orbit at a similar speed as the earth does (at times a little faster and at other times a little slower) at roughly the same distance based on the univeral gravity theory.

In my model, when it follows the earth and gets too close it gets repulsed (as its speed/momentum is not high enough to overcome the repulsive force). When in 175 years it again comes close to earth but is now being approached from behind it speeds up due to repulsion.

True scale model of the solar system (slowly scroll to the right to find earth):
http://www.phrenopolis.com/perspective/solarsystem/

Last edited by MikeB on 27-Apr-2011 at 08:56 AM.
Last edited by MikeB on 27-Apr-2011 at 08:54 AM.
Last edited by MikeB on 27-Apr-2011 at 08:40 AM.
Last edited by MikeB on 27-Apr-2011 at 08:21 AM.
Last edited by MikeB on 27-Apr-2011 at 08:16 AM.

No matter how outrageous the following news report may seem to be to most, this thread is about considering all options.

It is related to this thread as it suggests ET Intelligence and talks about phenomena also talked about within this threads such as the blue vortexes reported above Russia and New Zealand (which at first sight seems to be magnetosphere related) as well as about 2010 SO16 (the above mentioned object in orbit around the sun at earth distance), 2005 YU55 (the round shaped 400 meter diameter object approaching earth from the south, the largest object ever discovered to be approaching us closer than earth-moon distance) and the two sun sighting reported in China as talked about in the OP:

Russia orders missile alert after mysterious ‘vortex’ slams into Germany: report

http://nation.com.pk/pakistan-news-newspaper-daily-english-online/International/11-Apr-2011/Russia-orders-missile-alert-after-mysterious-vortex-slams-into-Germany-report

"A shocking ‘top-secret’ report prepared Russia’s Ministry of Emergency Situations (EMERCOM) on their meeting this past week with Prime Minister Putin, in Novgorod region, warns that our planet Earth is ‘under attack’ by an as yet unnamed ‘extraterrestrial entity’ to which President Medvedev has responded by ordering a second regiment of S-400 Triumf anti-aircraft missile system to protect Moscow from low-Earth orbiting ‘targets’.

According to this report, the extraordinary gamma-ray explosion first observed in deep space on March 28 by NASA’s Swift satellite, and that has so far lasted an unprecedented 12 days, appears to be ‘communicating’ with the massive Asteroid 2010 SO16 , the largest space rock ever discovered so close to Earth, and Asteroid 2005 YU55, a round mini-world that is about 400 meters (1,300 feet) in diameter and which in early November will approach our planet within a scant 0.85 lunar distances.

Though Russian scientists have as yet been unable to identify what these ‘communications’ mean, this report continues, the effects upon our planet are being widely observed due to these two Asteroid’s shooting of ‘blue beams’ into our Earth’s upper atmosphere that have been captured on video in Russia, New Zealand and by the International Space Station.

This EMERCOM report further states that one of these ‘blue beams’ created a massive ‘vortex’ that opened over northern Germany this Friday past hurling nearly 100 vehicles into total chaos killing 8 people and wounding over 41 more.

Even more alarming is this report stating that as these two massive Asteroid’s have moved closer to our Earth over the past two-decades, the winds on our planet have been mysteriously increasing too, a shock finding further confirmed by Vice-Chancellor Ian Young, of the Swinburne University of Technology in Melbourne, Australia, who has found that our world has gotten stormier the past 20 years, winds have picked up around 5 percent on average, and extremely strong winds caused by storms have increased even faster, jumping 10%.

Equally alarming is this report stating that our Earth’s ozone layer has suffered a record loss this spring over the Arctic due to these ‘blue beams’ disrupting our planet’s magnetic shielding, a finding further confirmed by the World Meteorological Organization who report that observations from the ground, balloons and satellites show that this region has suffered an ozone column loss of about 40% from the beginning of the winter to late March."

part 2

This EMERCOM report, also, reports that these two massive Asteroids are responsible for the many reports around the world of two suns appearing in the sky, such as in China this past month where one such episode was aired on their national news programme.
Important to note in this report, too, is it stating that another danger to our Earth from the presence of these massive Asteroids is their gravitational fields directing towards our planet fireballs every Spring season, such as the one that exploded in the skies this past week over the US State of Tennessee, but which Bill Cooke, of NASA’s Meteoroid Environment Center, in a statement said “For reasons we don’t fully understand, the rate of bright meteors climbs during the weeks around the vernal (Spring) equinox.”
To what, and/or whom, lies behind these shocking assaults upon our planet Earth we were given a ‘clue’ this past week when the United States domestic spying agency called the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) released to the public one of their most top-secret memos confirming that aliens had landed in the US in what is now referred to as the Roswell UFO Incident.

According to this FBI document, a memo titled ‘Flying Saucers’ to the FBI director J. Edgar Hoover from Guy Hottel, the special agent in charge of the Washington field office in 1950, stated “three so-called flying saucers had been recovered in New Mexico” by the US Military in 1947 that he described as being “circular in shape with raised centers, approximately 50 feet in diameter occupied by three bodies of human shape but only 3 feet tall, dressed in a metallic cloth of a very fine texture and with each body bandaged in a manner similar to the blackout suits used by speed flyers and test pilots”.

To the reason(s) behind the FBI releasing this top-secret document at a time when our entire world is continuing to be pushed towards the abyss, and admitting what the US Military and past American regimes have spent hundreds of millions trying to hide from their own people; it is not in our knowing.

What is in our knowing, at least as far as the Americans are concerned, is their CNN News Service reporting this past week that the sales of bomb/survival-shelters in the US have risen an astounding 4,000% this past year showing a growing fear among these people of what is soon to come, and which many believe is related to the ancient Hopi Indian prophecies relating to the ending of this present age.

In our March 1 report ‘Russian Warning Issued Over “Controlled” Comet Headed Towards Earth’ we further documented that the Americans aren’t alone in their fears as Russia is building an additional 5,000 bomb shelters by 2012 too, but unlike the US will protect ordinary peoples and not just the elite classes whose wealth has been gained by wholesale theft.

Though many in the West continue to shun the ancient prophecies related to these times, and which the Sorcha Faal has well documented in her seminal works “The Masks Of The Dark Gods: The Coming Destruction Of Planet Earth” and “Battle Begins For Throne of This World: The Return of the Einherjar Warriors”, it is well worth noting, that with each passing day, the headlines of world’s most mainstream newspapers, more and more are beginning to resemble titles to reports we could have very well written ourselves.

After all, there is truly nothing new under the Sun, what has happened before will happen again, as it is now as our world blindly stumbles to its end of this age. (EU Times)

Last edited by MikeB on 27-Apr-2011 at 09:21 AM.
Last edited by MikeB on 27-Apr-2011 at 09:02 AM.

The guy who recorded the video of a big fireball-like object in australia on two seperate days in the same location seems to have made it into a newspaper:

http://www.youtube.com/user/sangstar1

He also got some reactions from experts on the matter.

Quote:

This EMERCOM report further states that one of these ‘blue beams’ created a massive ‘vortex’ that opened over northern Germany this Friday past hurling nearly 100 vehicles into total chaos killing 8 people and wounding over 41 more.

I checked the mainstream news reporting for that day. Indeed 8 people died and 131 people were wounded when a massive extremely thick sandstorm slammed into a german highway. The resulting inferno burned away a significant part of the road.

Experts are blaming global warming:

http://www.rtl.de/medien/information/rtlaktuell/15367-ac17b-51ca-24/ersthelfer-alles-stand-in-flammen.html

Last edited by MikeB on 27-Apr-2011 at 11:25 AM.