Planetary orbits and spins

Historic planetary instability and catastrophe. Evidence for electrical scarring on planets and moons. Electrical events in today's solar system. Electric Earth.

Moderators: bboyer, MGmirkin

Locked
Grey Cloud
Posts: 2477
Joined: Sun Apr 13, 2008 5:47 am
Location: NW UK

Re: Titius-Bode law?

Unread post by Grey Cloud » Sun Jan 11, 2009 5:40 am

You might want to look at this:
http://www.spirasolaris.ca/sbb4a.html
If I have the least bit of knowledge
I will follow the great Way alone
and fear nothing but being sidetracked.
The great Way is simple
but people delight in complexity.
Tao Te Ching, 53.

User avatar
GaryN
Posts: 2668
Joined: Tue Apr 01, 2008 8:18 pm
Location: Sooke, BC, Canada

Re: Titius-Bode law?

Unread post by GaryN » Sun Jan 11, 2009 6:12 pm

Re: spirasolaris. Had a look at that GC. Looks like ES and EM have no function in the structure or motion of the Solar system? :cry:
In order to change an existing paradigm you do not struggle to try and change the problematic model. You create a new model and make the old one obsolete. -Buckminster Fuller

User avatar
GaryN
Posts: 2668
Joined: Tue Apr 01, 2008 8:18 pm
Location: Sooke, BC, Canada

Re: Titius-Bode law?

Unread post by GaryN » Mon Jan 12, 2009 12:02 pm

Oh, wait, it's OK, I just didn't understand. :D
For example, sound is not a vibration of the air. A sound wave, we know today, is an electromagnetic process involving the rapid assembly and disassembly of geometrical configurations of molecules. In modern physics, this kind of self-organizing process is known as a "soliton." Although much more detailed experimental work needs to be done, we know in principle that different frequencies of coherent solitons correspond to distinct geometries on the microscopic or quantum level of organization of the process. This was already indicated by the work of Helmholtz's contemporary, Bernhard Riemann, who refuted most of the acoustic doctrines of Helmholtz in his 1859 paper on acoustical shock waves.
http://www.schillerinstitute.org/fid_91 ... _tune.html
In order to change an existing paradigm you do not struggle to try and change the problematic model. You create a new model and make the old one obsolete. -Buckminster Fuller

Grey Cloud
Posts: 2477
Joined: Sun Apr 13, 2008 5:47 am
Location: NW UK

Re: Titius-Bode law?

Unread post by Grey Cloud » Mon Jan 12, 2009 4:39 pm

Hi Gary,
Glad you fettled it. That was a great article at that link you posted. Music to my ears.
If I have the least bit of knowledge
I will follow the great Way alone
and fear nothing but being sidetracked.
The great Way is simple
but people delight in complexity.
Tao Te Ching, 53.

psi
Posts: 34
Joined: Thu Jan 22, 2009 7:29 pm

Intriguing discussion on the role of planetary mechanics

Unread post by psi » Thu Jan 22, 2009 7:38 pm

in sunspot generation:

"When the sunspot cycle was discovered and for almost a century thereafter, the planetary influence theory was the leading theory for the cycle. Here is a good paper on the history of the theory:
http://www.leif.org/research/Rise-and-Fall.pdf

Thanks for the article link. I have red it 2-3 times over last 12 months, one reason why I do not favour gravitational tides and torque theories. However, it was all written before Dr. S. and colleagues discovered heliospheric current, before the Alfven’s current existence was confirmed, before we knew of the full significance of the polar field at minima, before true properties of the heliosphere were fully known and before, as NASA keeps regularly telling us, about all kinds of interaction between planetary magnetospheres and solar originated magnetic fields and currents.
Way forward is the solar fields/currents interaction with planetary magnetospheres feedback."

See:
http://www.vukcevic.co.uk/combined.gif

The full discussion here:

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/01/19/w ... ment-76146

Has Svenmark's work been discussed here?

Steve Smith
Guest

Re: Intriguing discussion on the role of planetary mechanics

Unread post by Steve Smith » Thu Jan 22, 2009 8:43 pm

Svensmark has a documentary available about his cosmic rays/clouds/climate theory:

http://www.thecloudmystery.com/Get%20the%20DVD.html

It's in English and costs 35 euro.

Steve

psi
Posts: 34
Joined: Thu Jan 22, 2009 7:29 pm

Re: Intriguing discussion on the role of planetary mechanics

Unread post by psi » Sat Jan 24, 2009 10:35 pm

Or if you are cheap like me, you can utube it:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n1qGOUIRac0

There are five parts. Highly recommended. I believe Svensmark is onto the real causes of global warming/cooling cycles.

I'd like to acknowledge that it was due to reading skeptical posts on this forum that I have subsequently investigated much more seriously the whole AGW theory and have totally switched my opinion on this matter. Now I'm interested in how the real causes of global climate shifts are related to the EU paradigm. Anyone venture to speculate?

LAShaffer
Posts: 18
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2009 8:28 am

Re: Intriguing discussion on the role of planetary mechanics

Unread post by LAShaffer » Mon Jan 26, 2009 3:00 pm

I, too, have been doing a lot of research on planetary mechanics, solar physics, and "global warming". I may have stumbled onto something just recently due to several of NASA's recent "shocking", "unexpected", and "surprising" discoveries made due to all of the new spacecraft launched during the last decade. Of course they are only surprised because all of the standard theories are being sorely tested.
Specifically, these 2 stories;

http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/stere ... prise.html
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2008AGUFMSH11A..02M
and
http://www.astronomynow.com/080703STERE ... light.html

I included the link to the abstract prepared for the Astrophysical Union meeting with the first NASA release because it is not nearly as definite about where the ENA's came from compared to the official press release. "...within 10 degrees of the sun" does not exactly impress me as being pinpoint accuracy. At the time, the stereo craft were still in earth orbit and not in their final intended orbits. Also at the time, the earth was almost opposite the solar apex.So,if the stream of ENA's actually came from the solar apex, what effect would this have had on the plasma in the solar atmosphere? Could it be what caused the solar flare in the first place? Simple convection currents? Does anybody here know?
Once the ENA's reached earth what happened to them? Whether or not they came from the sun, if they could blow right through the suns magnetic field, wouldn't they have even less problems passing through the puny (by comparison) magnetic fields around our planet? Then what? Atomic hydrogen may be electrically neutral, but chemically, it is just the opposite. The first thing it would run into in the thermosphere is oxygen of every flavor (ionized, molecular, and atomic). What are the implications of new water in the atmosphere for global temperatures? Could this be the explanation of where all of the earths water came from, without having to resort to ridiculous theories about massive bombardments by dirty iceballs?

Which got me thinking about the solar apex - more research (ongoing) and more questions.

So far I have made several observations, one being that the orbits of the outer planets all appear to reach their northernmost point above the ecliptic, as well as their closest approach to the sun, at the point of their closest approach to the solar apex, which is south of the ecliptic. This effect is not apparent in the inner planets. Is this is due to the pressure from the incoming interstellar material? It has been known for some time that the pressure from the interstellar material and the pressure of the solar wind equalize at or close to the orbit of Jupiter. This would seem to be an almost too obvious reason for the outer planets atmospheres being composed mostly of, what else, hydrogen. Not to mention being an explanation of them decreasing in size as you travel outward from Jupiter.

IMHO, with the gravity models recent predictive failure rate, I would tend to discount barycenter theories almost out-of-hand. As for the cosmic ray theory, well, it's hard to discern corollary from causal until you know every input variable, and we don't seem to be at that spot quite yet.

mharratsc
Posts: 1405
Joined: Mon Jan 26, 2009 7:37 am

Re: Intriguing discussion on the role of planetary mechanics

Unread post by mharratsc » Wed Jan 28, 2009 11:33 am

So, for those of us not so well-versed on this, can you recap the recently observed phenomena from a plasma dynamics perspective? How this fits into the plasma-centric solar model?

Mike H.
Mike H.

"I have no fear to shout out my ignorance and let the Wise correct me, for every instance of such narrows the gulf between them and me." -- Michael A. Harrington

psi
Posts: 34
Joined: Thu Jan 22, 2009 7:29 pm

Re: Intriguing discussion on the role of planetary mechanics

Unread post by psi » Sat Jan 31, 2009 6:52 am

LaShaffer--

I am a humanist interloper here, with a good understanding the principles of science but without any specialized training since my freshman year in College, so I am unable to engage at a detailed level on many of these questions. However, this jumped out at me from your post:
What are the implications of new water in the atmosphere for global temperatures? Could this be the explanation of where all of the earths water came from, without having to resort to ridiculous theories about massive bombardments by dirty iceballs?
As an "aha" moment. Makes a lot more sense than dirty iceballs. On that score, at least, you might be on to something really important.

Thanks for posting.

-psi

Steve Smith
Guest

Re: Intriguing discussion on the role of planetary mechanics

Unread post by Steve Smith » Sat Jan 31, 2009 5:00 pm

Psi thanks for putting the UTube link up. Everyone here and all the people they know need to watch it so that they can gain perspective on what's going on in the atmosphere.

It's interesting, but before I knew of Henrik Svensmark, the concept of ions and clouds seemed important. Since water is a dipolar molecule, the effect of ions as attractors for water vapor was evident. That and Wal Thornhill's information about thunderstorms acting as "leaky capacitors" led me to respond to the information that there are enormous fields of ions in transparent haloes around clouds:

Electric Clouds

It is now evident that those ion fields are linked to the cosmic ray connection illustrated by Svensmark.

The only thing I disagree with in his and Nir Shaviv's analysis is the time scales and the radiogenic dating methods. Since the Earth was bombarded by electrical impulses from space (5000 years ago) beyond anything witnessed today by many orders of magnitude, then the dating of the rock strata and the "millions of years" of climate records that they say exist is open to question.

As been discussed elsewhere, cosmic rays alter the isotopic ratios -- for example creating more C-14 than should exist -- so the data from rock layers is insubstantial.

Steve Smith
Guest

Re: Intriguing discussion on the role of planetary mechanics

Unread post by Steve Smith » Sat Jan 31, 2009 5:13 pm

I have a suggestion re: the "new water" on Earth. Since Saturn is composed of hydrogen and small percentages of other elements (similar to a "cold star"), then the disruption of the Saturnian Configuration could have provided plenty of hydrogen to interact with the oxygen on Earth. Voila, a Great Deluge accompanied by terrifying global electrodynamic effects.

Actually, this isn't a new idea. It was proposed by Dr. Velikovsky almost 60 years ago.

There's no telling when this took place. It might have been during the last Event, but could also have been earlier. Unfortunately, due to an almost complete resurfacing of the Earth from electric discharges in the recent past, there are no "clocks" to use anymore that can accurately provide dates for anything. No gradualism=no reliable dating methods.

Lloyd
Posts: 4433
Joined: Fri Apr 04, 2008 2:54 pm

Re: Intriguing discussion on the role of planetary mechanics

Unread post by Lloyd » Sat Jan 31, 2009 5:23 pm

Steve said: As been discussed elsewhere, cosmic rays alter the isotopic ratios -- for example creating more C-14 than should exist -- so the data from rock layers is insubstantial.

Steve, what about neutron capture, as discussed at http://www.newgeology.us/presentation41.html, as a way to get rapid radioactive decay, as an alternative pathway, instead of alpha or beta decay?

Steve Smith
Guest

Re: Intriguing discussion on the role of planetary mechanics

Unread post by Steve Smith » Sat Jan 31, 2009 6:12 pm

So you made me read it all the way to the bottom...

As you know, I don't subscribe to the idea that the continents were "fractured" and drifted apart. Plates (as in tectonic plates) are theoretical constructions that don't exist. If there was a single continent at one time, it is still with us -- it has simply been cut to pieces and maybe, in some instances, masses of stone as big as Australia might have been thrown from where they were once located.

Because many giant landforms (Chief Mountain, the Matterhorn) are hundreds of miles from where their bedrock "roots" are located -- the Matterhorn is upside down compared with the strata surrounding it-- it seems plausible that explosive discharges could have tossed some of the land masses around. However, the major geological features like the continental shelves, the mid-ocean ridge, the arc-shaped archipelagoes, fjords, Chesapeake Bay, bathymetric seamounts on long sinusoidal curves, etc. show me that there was something else involved.

I see what's happening in the minds of many of the forum members: the scale of these cataclysms is too vast. The entire planet experienced electrodynamic forces sufficient to wrench it out of its rotational alignment, push it into a higher orbit (from 360 days to 365.25 days), invert the magnetic field more than once, change the climate, destroy both high latitude hemispheres, and obliterate thousands, if not millions of species.

Oceans were created, oceans were evaporated, continents were sterilized, the atmospheric chemistry was changed. Considering that it was electrical activity that did this means that there's no need to resort to other mechanisms with theoretically undemonstrable forces.

If there were "mantle plumes" shallow or deep, they were caused by the secondary discharge pathways erupting out of the Earth to meet the oppositely charged leaders descending from the planet, or plasma cloud, or Birkeland current that was the initiator.

Lloyd
Posts: 4433
Joined: Fri Apr 04, 2008 2:54 pm

Neutron Capture?

Unread post by Lloyd » Sat Jan 31, 2009 6:44 pm

* Steve, you answered everything except the question I asked.
* Do you agree with NewGeology's claim that neutron capture could be how most radioactive decay occurs and that it can occur very rapidly, instead of over billions of years?
* I didn't mean to make you read the whole NewGeology page that I linked to. You can press "Ctrl" "F" on your keyboard on most webpages, then type in the word you're looking for, like "neutron", then press "Enter" and it'll take you right to that word.
* You have some misunderstandings of Shock Dynamics, but I'll discuss that on the other thread "Breakthrough on How Continents Divided". I hope you can discuss over there, if you have time.
* I think we need to make a chart for comparing theories like Juergens did for showing that lunar rilles are likely formed electrically.

Locked

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests