@T-J

Quote:

F = G*(m1*m2)/r² F = 6.674×10^-11 * (2 x10^30 * 7.6 x10^27)/149597870000^2.

distance (r) = 15000 (distance of 15000 AU) * 149597870.7 kilometers (1 AU) * 1000 (for km into m conversion).

So here you are making an enormous miscalculation in a simple one-dimensional formula yet you state: "it works" and make some degradatory statement against me and others.

What does this show:
1) These figures are meaningless to you, if a miscalculation is made you have no way to reference its validity.

2) Tyche can exist with a 26 million year orbit or the later revised 1.8 million year orbit because NASA says so. But according to you a planet with a couple of thousand of year orbit cannot exist (as NASA tries to discredit the existance of Nibiru).

3) Even when you are wrong you opt to attack people who do not share your believes.

IMO in this situation there is little difference between religion and science. I would call the above situation rather a *blind faith*.

The thing I like about science is that it's more flexible than most religions. But what I like about religion is that they have philosophized deeply about the meaning of life. Yet you should understand that unlike the abrahamic religions (which are greatly politically/lawbook based) other more open "religions" do exist which more regard life-philopsophies.

Quote:

Unlike you, I don't claim to know everything.

I don't know everything and never did I claim so. I do share my views (combined with the reasoning why I think this), which can be totally different from established mainstream viewpoints.

Honestly your standpoint in this thread has been far more intolerant and hostile than mine. I hope this example makes you understand and you change your ways accordingly (learning process).

Last edited by MikeB on 03-May-2011 at 10:51 AM.
Last edited by MikeB on 03-May-2011 at 09:47 AM.

MikeB wrote:

Quote:

We know life can exist under extreme pressures in our oceans, maybe life can exist under massive gravitational conditions as well.

This theory appears to be correct, a couple of weeks after making this statement the following article was posted:

Alien Bacteria Could Breed in Extreme 'Hypergravity'
http://www.space.com/11478-alien-life-bacteria-hypergravity.html

@BrianK

Quote:

BrianK wrote: The field is clearly not a sum of every point of mass within an object. Knowing this we have two choices. Either your guess is wrong as the evidence clearly does not support that statement. Or magnetometers are wrong and we have to go back and rebuild what a magnetic field is and how we measure it. Your choice is?

You are ignoring basic principles. Gauss units are centimeters-square. A unit for area, not volume. I mentioned this before but again it flew over everyone's head.

Until a magnetic effect of volume can be computed easily, the dumbed down formula is what makes gravity close-enough under *certain* circustances. I told you gravity is a net effect...and approximation. It's like saying it was the spirit of Santa Claus that brought your kids presents. The kids go to be with no presents under the tree, the next morning presents are uhm present. OMG look what gravity brought us! Oh I mean Santa Claus...

Leonid Elenin at Spaceobs states Comet Elenin may be brighter than expected and "when the comet comes out of conjunction with the Sun and we can see it in the morning sky, its brightness will have already returned to mag. 4-4.5. The comet will remain visible to the unaided eye until the beginning of November"

Conspiracy theorists take all his comments with a grain of salt as they believe NASA already discovered ELEnin a long time ago and "Elenin" acts as a puppet for them being allowed to "discover" this comet.

Anyway NASA states the comet will be at its nearest point to the sun on 9/11 and thus this is when the comet should become very bright due to the effects of solar wind and this at least confirms we will be able to see the comet for months in the sky without additional aid.

This will in any case become a pretty hectic period as various more comets and asteroids are sheduled to be making close approaches in the near future. Astronomically a very interesting period.

@Lou

Quote:

You are ignoring basic principles. Gauss units are centimeters-square. A unit for area, not volume

We handle 'volume' all the time. While area is a two dimensional measure volume is a 3 dimensional measure. I'd say we have 3 dimensions for magnetism we have Gauss or Tesla which is area and we have vector which is magnitude of direction. So don't we always handle volume with the 3rd dimension being direction?

And for more observational evidence we know that magnetic fields can be blocked by certain materials, such as lead, yet gravity is unimpeded. Wouldn't this tell us that the two items are different because they have different behaviors under the same circumstance? Which is likely why we have to independent equations for handling the two events?

@MikeB

Quote:

This will in any case become a pretty hectic period as various more comets and asteroids are sheduled to be making close approaches in the near future. Astronomically a very interesting period.

Though when nothing is approaching us too is as equally as interesting.

@T-J

Quote:

T-J wrote: @Lou You need to read the rest of my edited message as you were typing your hogwash... Quote: [quote]The earth's rotation keeps our tilt stable as it does all other bodies in space. What a shame that the Earth's orbit actually varies according to the laws of gravitational motion.

once again simple reading comprehension is lacking. rotation makes our tilte stable. The tilt is what influences the laws of magnetic orbits aka eliptical.

Quote:

And what a great shame that the Earth (and the other planets) have not responded in any way to the halving of the Sun's magnetic field strength over the past 22 years. If they don't react to its halving, it is impossible to rationally stick to the belief that it is the driving force keeping them where they are.

The earth's magnetic field is changing as well, or haven't you been paying attention.

Quote:

Quote: In any simulation of gravity, objects spiral into each other at exponentially increasing speed unless you introduce another constant force. Gravity is like teaching children that the stork delivers babies. Point to one peer-reviewed simulation of gravity that shows this!

You can do this with any PC like I did years ago when I made my own space war type game.

Quote:

And teaching children what you believe with absolutely no scientific evidence whatsoever would be tantamount to teaching Intelligent Design in the science classroom.

Actually, science admits it is flawed, only you cling to it with an iron grip because it's the best answer you claim science can come up with.
This page best explains why gravity calculations are flawed.
They are all done assuming perfect circle orbits and gigantic masses related to a test particle.

@Lou

Quote:

Quote: And what a great shame that the Earth (and the other planets) have not responded in any way to the halving of the Sun's magnetic field strength over the past 22 years. If they don't react to its halving, it is impossible to rationally stick to the belief that it is the driving force keeping them where they are The earth's magnetic field is changing as well, or haven't you been paying attention.

You've explained that the orbits of the planets are due to the sum of the magnetic fields. We see the sun has halfed it's magnetic field. So why don't we see any changes in planetary orbits? You seemingly contend it's because the earth's magnetic field is changing too. Great, except the observational evidence is it's not getting stronger, which might off-set some sun action, but also is getting weaker.

Simple experiment -- take 4 magnets of differing strength. Take the strongest two and push them together. Measure the distance of the point where your pushing stops and the magnets themselves fly across and attach to each other. Now repeat this experiment with two weak magnets. You will find the distance of attraction is greater between the two stronger magnets. And of course shorter between the two weaker magnets. In your hypothesis somehow the planets don't do this they're able to stay in the same orbit?

Quote:

Quote: Point to one peer-reviewed simulation of gravity that shows this! You can do this with any PC like I did years ago when I made my own space war type game.

A simulation is a representation of the system. I highly doubt you programed all force vectors, speeds, masses, magnetism of every body in our solar system in your 'simulation'. Your simulation is hardly a peer-reviewed accurate representation of the solar system.

@BrianK

Quote:

BrianK wrote: @Lou A simulation is a representation of the system. I highly doubt you programed all force vectors, speeds, masses, magnetism of every body in our solar system in your 'simulation'. Your simulation is hardly a peer-reviewed accurate representation of the solar system.

Because measurements of magnetism are net and not relative.
Relatively speaking the earth will orbit the sun but into this solar system another magnetic force is having influence on the solar system as a whole. That is what Nibiru does. It's having the effect of accelerating a pole shift...or haven't you noticed?

Quote:

Associated theories of geomagnetic pole reversals are similarly flawed. For example, Hoffman [1] suggests that “the reversal phenomenon may be triggered when something disturbs the convection pattern of the core fluid, and with it the magnetic flux” [emphasis added]. This “something” might derive from what some theorists conjecture to be the outer core of the Earth forming a chaotic system, and out of the chaos arising periodic geomagnetic reversals [3]. ... At the time it was initially proposed, a basic assumption in the outer-core-generated geodynamo theory was that there were no other planetary or solar system induced electromagnetic fields which, in turn, could account for the cause of the geomagnetic field. In effect, the theory was proposed prior to the discovery that the solar system is literally awash in electromagnetic forces. These forces include: the interplanetary magnetic field, the Sun's magnetic field (and its continually progressing reversal every 22 years or so), the solar wind, and the magnetospheres of various planets (including the Earth).

Last edited by Lou on 03-May-2011 at 06:04 PM.

@BrianK

Quote:

You've explained that the orbits of the planets are due to the sum of the magnetic fields. We see the sun has halfed it's magnetic field. So why don't we see any changes in planetary orbits?

Why would you see a change in orbits? I asked this before and haven't gotten a real reply to this.

The decrease of the magnetic field regards the concentration of field lines. I have gone into greater depth before, but one simple example.

Let's assume you are hanging on a very thick rope, this rope is replaced by a half as thick rope (or half as dense rope), but it's strong enough to carry you. Wil your position change?

I'll answer this for you: Of course not.

Last edited by MikeB on 03-May-2011 at 06:29 PM.
Last edited by MikeB on 03-May-2011 at 06:07 PM.

@Lou

Quote:

Relatively speaking the earth will orbit the sun but into this solar system another magnetic force is having influence on the solar system as a whole.

Yes the solar system is connected with other stellar systems and an enormous magnetic field in the center of our galaxy.

But the way I look at it the orbittal pattern is due to sun's magnetic current making *everything* (not only the planets but also all things in between, this from big to tiny asteroids to the extremely lowest concentrations of molecules which are aligned to this field in between) flow in orbit as it does. The speed of the sun's rotation remains as good as constant, thus rotation of everything remains pretty constant in this spiral flow (which steadily weakens further away from the sun).

I think if you look at 1 cubic meter of molecules inside near vacuum (let's say there are only 1000 molecules in this "vacuum") you will notice it moves around the sun with as similar behaviour as the planets do at their distance.

This could not be true with universal gravity as a molecule weigh much less than a planet (and science's current understanding is solely based on gravity). In my model if the earth would suddenly stop moving it will be hit by an enormous wall everything that flows within its orbit. The earth would suddenly light up as a comet. This pressure (its speed being entirely different than everything else within its orbit) will steadily put the earth into motion.

Last edited by MikeB on 03-May-2011 at 06:36 PM.
Last edited by MikeB on 03-May-2011 at 06:34 PM.
Last edited by MikeB on 03-May-2011 at 06:32 PM.

@BrianK

Based on gravity why is our inner solar system shaped as a pancake?

Based on magnetism this can be explained, but why would this be the case based on just gravity.

Really, just think about this deeply. Think in terms of both magnetic field lines bein dominant and straight gravitational pulls towards the sun. Why is our solar system and even our whole galaxy shaped as a (spiral) pancake?

@MikeB

Quote:

Quote: You've explained that the orbits of the planets are due to the sum of the magnetic fields. We see the sun has halfed it's magnetic field. So why don't we see any changes in planetary orbits? Why would you see a change in orbits? I asked this before and haven't gotten a real reply to this.

Lou's statement was that the planets are in their position due to magnetic forces and that these forces are somehow the sum of all magnetic fields in the point mass, aka atoms. It's logic that says if force of X is required to make effect Y then at a certain point (X/2 seems fairly signficant) Y is no longer the case but Z will be.

Quote:

The decrease of the magnetic field regards the concentration of field lines. I have gone into greater depth before, but one simple example.

'Field lines'? Before we go too much farther I want to check and make sure you know that field lines don't exist. You realize that don't you?

Quote:

Let's assume you are hanging on a very thick rope, this rope is replaced by a half as thick rope (or half as dense rope), but it's strong enough to carry you. Wil your position change? I'll answer this for you: Of course not.

Huh? You do realize that Magnetism is a force correct? Thus the object is not hanging onto anything. The object is being pushed or pulled depending upon the forces acting onto that object. Unless you somehow have magnetic force w/o the force this example is fairly worthless.

Quote:

The speed of the sun's rotation remains as good as constant

Ouch again observation is opposite to your claim. The sun is a plasma this allows the rotation rate at the poles to be faster than the rotation rate at the center. It's this differential rotation of mass that creates a magnetic field. In this case it's force of gravity (acceleration of mass) that creates the EM. (Hmm perhaps your guess is 180 degrees in the wrong direction. )

Quote:

my model if the earth would suddenly stop moving it will be hit by an enormous wall everything that flows within its orbit. The earth would suddenly light up as a comet

Yeah it was also your model that claimed that no one on earth would notice we stopped. And that was a failure.

Quote:

Based on gravity why is our inner solar system shaped as a pancake?

While all planets are nearly in the same plane they aren't exactly in the same plane. Mercury is 7 degrees off of earth's elliptical orbit. Venus off by 2 degrees. Because of this and the differing speeds of orbit ensuring all planets are in a true alignment, aka on the same plane and one in front of each other, is fairly astronomical (pun intended) or about once ever 5 Billion+ years. Throw the moons needing to be in alignment and the odds are so high it's small enough probability that we'd round a bit and say it'll never happen.

Quote:

Based on magnetism this can be explained, but why would this be the case based on just gravity.

This is your thought but definitely not a proven that EM explains it all. You provide no equations for us to test this and no data to base this on. Again conjecture is not conclusive.

Again a similar example is science doesn't have a dominate theory caused non-life turn into doesn't mean the force for why creatures exist the way they do is because of evolution must be false. We can observe creatures now, and millions of years ago, and determine the forces at work in the present system. .... While we don't have a dominant theory we can, and do, observe the universe now, and millions of years ago, and determine the forces at work in the present system.

@BrianK



I don't care if you see the relationship or not.

The sun is a huge rotating magnet just like the even more so center of our universe. That's why planets are orbitting around the sun and that's why our sun is orbitting around the center of our galaxy.

You haven't provided a better model (which the wrong universal gravity model most certainly doesn't provide). From the grand perspective this is the main force. Of course gravitational force does exist and so do endless other factors, this is what I stated before already.

Quote:

You provide no equations for us to test this and no data to base this on.

I stated the opposite. There is no exact one simple one-dimensional equation!

For the inner planets the gravity equation can be used as the "gravitational" constant here is based on observation. This constant can thus be used for practical purposes (and only for our inner solar system, it will not even be representative of the situation for the inner stellar system with orbitting planets of nearby stars!). However to actually attribute this constant to actual gravity is false! Understand?

You want something that does NOT exist! A true simulation of our galaxy would account for many different complex equations and would require a computer system by far more powerful than all our computer systems on earth combined!

So please stop asking me for this.

Last edited by MikeB on 03-May-2011 at 08:12 PM.
Last edited by MikeB on 03-May-2011 at 08:11 PM.
Last edited by MikeB on 03-May-2011 at 08:08 PM.

@BrianK

Example field lines:
http://www.ast.obs-mip.fr/users/donati/press/images/moira_mov.gif

@BrianK

You have stated there are theories on why the magnetic field between the planets and the sun is weakening.

Have you thought about the possibility that maybe a big magnet (for example a brown dwarf star / massive jupiter-like planet) is approaching? So the sun isn't really quickly becoming a weaker magnet, but is actually interacting with something else as well as it draws closer?

Last edited by MikeB on 03-May-2011 at 08:43 PM.

Quote:

Based on gravity why is our inner solar system shaped as a pancake? Based on magnetism this can be explained, but why would this be the case based on just gravity.

Since there are no anwsers for basing this on gravity and everyone still reading would probably want to know how our solar system (and through very complex extra extrapolation a great deal of the universe) could work through magnetism playing the central role.

Theory:
Imagine space-time doesn't actually bent like Einstein theorized. Light is actually bent through magnetism. As we know the sun exerted billions of tons of magnetic material. This magnetic material aligns itself with the magnetic field. The magnetic field is denser at certain points than at other points.

Like the sun, the planets were once just stardust (all matter is more or less magnetic) made up of the same stuff as our sun and are thus small magnets as well (earth's inner warm core and also the moon's cold core, but disregard all moons for now) . Draw the shortest line between all bigger magnet cores and that's an area of overall very dense magnetic lines. Magnetic clouds would like to align within these dense magnetic field lines and as well does light. This middle plateau is where matter is more dense. The earth and all the planets are actually floating on this "pool" / plateau.

Just imagine the Earth floating on water. But the water narrows right in the middle (imagine just water band in the middle). This is why the inner planets are orbitting as on one plateau. The earth is also in its own little atmospheric bubble, along these lines a magnetosphere with lines from South and North Pole is created (hence a compass works). Light is also strongest within this plane (light is magnetic and will bent along with this). Now make everything rotate by rotating field lines.

Ideas? Just ravings?

Last edited by MikeB on 03-May-2011 at 10:31 PM.
Last edited by MikeB on 03-May-2011 at 10:21 PM.

@MikeB

Quote:

I don't care if you see the relationship or not. Example field lines:

The first image appears to be metal filings within a magnetic field. The reason the filings line up and appear to make lines is because magnetic fields induce a current which induces a magnetic field. The space between the metal shavings is an induced effect which is repelling each other which creates artifical space. If there were no shavings the space wouldn't be there. There are no magnetic lines. It's a field.

The 2nd one was a drawing. Drawings are used to represent the direction and reach of a magnetic field. The 'lines' aren't there in the real world. The lines are used to show a direction vector of the field.

Quote:

Quote: You provide no equations for us to test this and no data to base this on. I stated the opposite. There is no exact one simple one-dimensional equation!

This isn't the opposite. This is an excuse on why you can't provide a formula. And again complex multi-dimensional equations are within the realm of mathematics. For example, Einstein's gravity field equation is such a thing. His equation assigns a tensor to each point in a 4 dimensional manifold. We used the older Newtonian equation here and often in the real world because it saves pages and pages of calculations to get to an answer.

Quote:

You haven't provided a better model

A model that makes more correct predictions is a better model. The 'I told you so' of your EM hypothesis doesn't count as an accurate predictor.

Quote:

You want something that does NOT exist! A true simulation of our galaxy

It's not me. It's Lou telling us he rejects gravity because his computer simulation didn't need it. The answer here is his simulation needs what his simulation needs.

Quote:

You have stated there are theories on why the magnetic field between the planets and the sun is weakening

The reason why the magnetic field between the planets and sun is weakening is because the sun has lost half of it's magnetic charge in the last 30 years.

Quote:

Have you thought about the possibility that maybe a big magnet (for example a brown dwarf star / massive jupiter-like planet) is approaching? the sun isn't really quickly becoming a weaker magnet, but is actually interacting with something else as well as it draws closer?

Umm have you been out to lunch isn't that what this thread is about?

Going back to some of my first posts we don't see satellites detecting changes from a brown dwarf. We have satellites now viewing all of the sun for the first time in human history. We have satellites around the planet. NONE of them have detected a mass outflux of energy to some imaginary brown dwarf that we haven't found yet. Else we could follow the energy leaving. You want to claim this is happening and your claim has no observational evidence.

(Unless NASA is hiding all the data which is simply too crazy to even begin to address and expect a realistic response from someone that beLIEves this.)

Another related guess was this brown dwarf caused earthquakes to happen on the date of alignment. If this is all magnets cool. First, off we know for a fact they didn't happen on the date of alignment so that was a lie. Second, if it's a force acting on the ground then why weren't the objects that are easier to impact such as water and satellites impacted in any way. Observational evidence again conflicts your guess.

Again I'm happy to throw out gravity but you gotta bring evidence and predictability. Saying 'EM works better' is neither one it's a conjecture w/o support.

@BrianK

Quote:

The reason the filings line up and appear to make lines is because magnetic fields induce a current which induces a magnetic field. The space between the metal shavings is an induced effect which is repelling each other which creates artifical space.

Reread your own comments again carefully, I think you may be on track into understanding repulsion between planets.

@MikeB

Quote:

Based on magnetism this can be explained, but why would this be the case based on just gravity.

Umm no theory doesn't dictate that 'just gravity' is the case.

I'd prefer you use hypothesis instead of Theory. This confuses the issue as you mean Theory as 'to guess' as this clearly has neither observational support or predictive ability.

Here's my hypothesis.
The universe begins. A unified force breaks into different pieces. First is gravity which I think likely binds with spacetime itself. Then comes strong which is it's own action. Then finally weak and em break apart. When the universe was small the strong force would predominate and actually might have been helped by gravity (a property of spacetime itself) to easily overcome the weak and EM forces. This made the first atoms. In those 'atom' length distances the strong's magnitude drops off quickly. As spacetime was streching it also weakend the gravitational force but ensured it's effects remain infinite. This allows the EM force to come in and clump atoms into molecules and those molecules into more molecules. Now too many molecules ends up reducing the EM force external to the object. As we know particles can be viewed as waves and when waves intersect with other ways they nullify or amplify. LOTS of waves (aka particles) it's a statistical probability that the effects will be net negating and EM effects, on the whole, are nullified. So the 'volume' Lou is looking for is just as weak as the area. And even weaker as the effect decreases with distance. This allows the weaker, but ever present, force of gravity (a component of spacetime itself) come to the the main driving force on the compound structures and certainly on the astronomical structures (solar systems and planets).

And what we can confirm is we can measure EM fields and Gravitational fields around an object. Such as the sun. It's how we know the sun has very little charge (1microtesla). But, there are certainly objects with huge EM fields in our universe and at such distances that their EM field blends into the overall EM field of the background of the universe. As such can't dominate the activity within our solar system. Though I'd say EM might dominate in another system, we'd need to measure that system and find out if it does.

So as I've explained time and again the 'genesis' of a universe or solar system may have a different cause then the present measured effects of Gravity. It's simply not EM at present because that force is very tiny comparitively to that of Gravity.