Gravity, Mass and Charge during Earth's Yearly Orbit

Plasma and electricity in space. Failure of gravity-only cosmology. Exposing the myths of dark matter, dark energy, black holes, neutron stars, and other mathematical constructs. The electric model of stars. Predictions and confirmations of the electric comet.

Moderators: bboyer, MGmirkin

Aardwolf
Posts: 1330
Joined: Tue Jul 28, 2009 7:56 am

Re: Gravity, Mass and Charge during Earth's Yearly Orbit

Unread post by Aardwolf » Mon Nov 04, 2019 8:43 am

paladin17 wrote:
Aardwolf wrote:The information isn't available for anyone not just me, however, are you still standing by your comment that the moon and artificial satellites orbits never change?
I didn't say they never change. They do change, and there are plenty of known factors: tidal forces, disturbances from other planets, even solar radiation and solar wind pressure and atmospheric drag (for artificial satellites). What I did claim is that these changes are not caused by a seasonal charging and recharging of the Earth. Even more precisely: I did claim that there is no evidence for changes being caused by this.
No. You clearly stated that satellite orbits do not change as "proof" that the initial claim was wrong. Now you admit there are changes, some of which cannot be measured/quantified. So, your claim was wrong and changes in orbit could easily be affected by changes in charge along with all the other unquantified effects. The largest is obviously what you say is "disturbances from other planets". That could be conceivably be because of changes in their respective charges. Especially when you consider mass driven obit calculations have consistently failed their 350 year old theory.
paladin17 wrote:
Aardwolf wrote: And how exactly does GRACE measure the gravity of the Earth as a whole? Do you have any idea how this experiment works?
They don't measure it. They use an existing model. What they do measure is slight deviations (with respect to the existing model) of the orbits of satellites, caused by local gravitational anomalies.
Well, if they don't measure gravity as a whole please explain how are they able to confirm changes are only local and not changes to the whole? You're just assuming the changes are not on the whole planet without any proof at all.
paladin17 wrote:If the initial model would be incorrect (say, if the Earth suddenly became heavier), these changes would be a bit more than slight. I.e. the orbital parameters of both satellites would start drifting in a certain manner. Same is true for GPS satellites, geostationary satellites, Earth observing satellites in Sun-synchronous orbit etc. All of them would suddenly feel the increase in gravitational parameter of Earth.
They all drift randomly so what is the "certain manner" you could identify from random fluctuations, and how exactly would you determine the specific cause and isolate from the other causes?
paladin17 wrote:BTW, would this hypothetical mass increase affect us here on Earth? Maybe we shouldn't go very far and just measure the weight of something very precisely and see if something changes with the time of year - and by how much.
Can't be done. As I said gravity is constantly fluctuating. Anything you read anywhere about gravity is an average. In addition, the IPK is measured against replicas of itself and they all have differing weights over time and they are pretty much clueless as to why. If you knew anything about gravity measurement you would be fully aware of this.

Image

Interestingly the fluctuating instability of the IPK last for about 30 days after it's cleaned for "unknown" reasons. Clearly they haven't considered the effect of cleaning on the surface electrons. Obviously if the charge of an object was the real factor determining weight then disturbing the electrons would affect it's weight until it stabilises the electron balance again. Of course to suggest this to them would cause heads to explode so they'll have to stick with "unknown" reasons.

User avatar
paladin17
Posts: 175
Joined: Mon Jul 14, 2014 7:47 am
Location: Minsk, Belarus

Re: Gravity, Mass and Charge during Earth's Yearly Orbit

Unread post by paladin17 » Mon Nov 04, 2019 9:14 am

Aardwolf wrote:No. You clearly stated that satellite orbits do not change as "proof" that the initial claim was wrong. Now you admit there are changes, some of which cannot be measured/quantified. So, your claim was wrong and changes in orbit could easily be affected by changes in charge along with all the other unquantified effects.
They could, but they aren't.
Aardwolf wrote: The largest is obviously what you say is "disturbances from other planets". That could be conceivably be because of changes in their respective charges.
It could, but it isn't.
Aardwolf wrote: how are they able to confirm changes are only local and not changes to the whole?
Becuase the orbits of satellites don't change (except for reasons I've listed above). And the masses of the objects on the surface don't change to any noticeable degree.
Aardwolf wrote: They all drift randomly so what is the "certain manner" you could identify from random fluctuations, and how exactly would you determine the specific cause and isolate from the other causes?
Certain manner is the decrease in periapsis height (in all satellites simultaneously) because of increase in gravitational parameter of the Earth.
This is not observed.
Aardwolf wrote: the IPK is measured against replicas of itself and they all have differing weights over time and they are pretty much clueless as to why. If you knew anything about gravity measurement you would be fully aware of this.
I can see linear trends here. I don't see any random fluctuation. Nor a yearly oscillation which was suggested in the OP. So the idea is wrong.
There is a 5.9 year oscillation in gravitational constant measurements though. But all the observations indicate that gravitational parameter of the Sun stays the same - the planetary (and satellite) orbital elements do not demonstrate 5.9 year changes.

Aardwolf
Posts: 1330
Joined: Tue Jul 28, 2009 7:56 am

Re: Gravity, Mass and Charge during Earth's Yearly Orbit

Unread post by Aardwolf » Tue Nov 05, 2019 7:03 am

paladin17 wrote:
Aardwolf wrote:No. You clearly stated that satellite orbits do not change as "proof" that the initial claim was wrong. Now you admit there are changes, some of which cannot be measured/quantified. So, your claim was wrong and changes in orbit could easily be affected by changes in charge along with all the other unquantified effects.
They could, but they aren't.
Well, you’re entitled to your personal blinkered opinion as clearly you lack any evidence for this assumption.
paladin17 wrote:
Aardwolf wrote: The largest is obviously what you say is "disturbances from other planets". That could be conceivably be because of changes in their respective charges.
It could, but it isn't.
As above.
paladin17 wrote:
Aardwolf wrote: how are they able to confirm changes are only local and not changes to the whole?
Because the orbits of satellites don't change (except for reasons I've listed above).
None of your changes can be accurately measured or predicted. More blinkered assumptions that you simply just know they have estimated all the correct effects. Science always knows 100% about everything is observes does it? The charge effects on something as small as a satellite we're talking about here are tiny compared to the orbit drifts so it just isn't possible. GRACE detected seasonal variations which amount to a fraction of a hairs width. Orbit drag alone is exponentially much larger than that.
paladin17 wrote: And the masses of the objects on the surface don't change to any noticeable degree.
Yes they do. The IPK fluctuates for 30 days after it is measured. Also pick up a gravimeter and tell me how stable g is over a week. You’ll find it isn’t very stable at all. The paper below illustrates they can’t even get 3 gravimeters to agree to each other at the same time at the same place.
https://arxiv.org/pdf/1008.2884.pdf

Beside the OP was talking about evidence of an effect, which there is. Who determined the magnitude? You're just creating a straw man argument with your "noticeable degree" comment.
paladin17 wrote:
Aardwolf wrote: They all drift randomly so what is the "certain manner" you could identify from random fluctuations, and how exactly would you determine the specific cause and isolate from the other causes?
Certain manner is the decrease in periapsis height (in all satellites simultaneously) because of increase in gravitational parameter of the Earth.
This is not observed.
Most satellites are actively steered in position so you have no basis for that assertion. There is simply no way of telling. As GRACE has no thrusters to maintain altitude it has been decaying over its lifetime so that is exactly what has been observed. However, you said in a “certain manner”. There are other reasons they can decay so yet again you making untrue assertions.
paladin17 wrote:
Aardwolf wrote: the IPK is measured against replicas of itself and they all have differing weights over time and they are pretty much clueless as to why. If you knew anything about gravity measurement you would be fully aware of this.
I can see linear trends here. I don't see any random fluctuation. Nor a yearly oscillation which was suggested in the OP. So the idea is wrong.
How can you measure random/seasonal fluctuations when you only compare once every 30-40 years. As I stated, post cleaning they randomly change for up to 30 days after. The linearity is over a much longer term (and also completely unexplained and further evidence against mass as the driver of gravity).
paladin17 wrote:There is a 5.9 year oscillation in gravitational constant measurements though. But all the observations indicate that gravitational parameter of the Sun stays the same - the planetary (and satellite) orbital elements do not demonstrate 5.9 year changes.
Well if G oscillates then orbits should definitely change in accordance with that. So either mass fluctuates in accordance with the oscillations or small g fluctuates or the physical radiuses fluctuate or the theory is wrong. Which is it?

Also, as you brought it up, what do you suggest the 5.9 year oscillation of “constant” (lol) G is caused by?

User avatar
Solar
Posts: 1372
Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2008 3:05 am

Re: Gravity, Mass and Charge during Earth's Yearly Orbit

Unread post by Solar » Tue Nov 05, 2019 8:40 pm

JP Michael wrote:
The whole point of this discussion is to present a potential method by which Thornill and Scott's hypotheses can be empirically examined. If the earth's charge varies, however slight, season to season, there ought to be resulting changes in earth mass and gravity, however slight, season to season. The question then becomes a search to see if extant or new data supports or denies the hypothesis.
This will be problematic. Figuring out the appropriate terms under which these relationships might be cloaked would be the first problem. It appears that the "increase in mass" concept might be related to what geophysics and astrophysics sometimes refer to as "mass loading":

Solid Earth deformation and gravity changes due to surface loading: Status and scientific problems: H.-P. Plag, T. Van Dam

This "mass loading" concept is also applied to the electrical properties of comets:

Mass loading at 67P/Churyumov‐Gerasimenko: A case study: E. Behar et al

Here the "mass loading" concept is applied to Earth-Sun solar wind magnetospheric dynamics:

Energy conversion through mass loading of escaping ionospheric ions for different Kp values: Masatoshi Yamauchi et al

Then consider this:

When it comes to the Global Electric Circuit notice this entry on page 13:
Mass, momentum and energy transfer from the solar wind via the magneto-sheath can occur through the cusps as a result of a number of processes, of which magnetic reconnection is the most important. Lester and Cowley (2000) have discussed the role played by reconnection in the magnetospheric convection and its importance for space weather. There are two processes by which the solar wind plasma can cross the magnetopause… - The atmospheric global electric circuit: An overview Devendraa Siingh et al
There are also plenty of examples (papers) of the "mass loading" concept being used with "Vampire Stars" aka binaries, and with the accumulation of stellar disc. In either case it may be generally, and vaguely, stated that the accumulation of charge and/or "charge carries" can be associated with an 'increase in mass' and/or charge. On Earth the "energy transfer from the solar wind via the magneto-sheath" and the influence(s) that may be imparted to the Global Electric Circuit - as might be measured via the atmospheric potential gradient - correlated with the influences of Earth deformations is what it seems would be necessary to try and empirically examine even slight season to season changes.

There exist no such comprehensive model of the Global Electric Circuit to such extent that this can be assessed. Nonetheless, here is another paper that might have relevance to the GRACE paper. See Section 5 regarding seasonal thunderstorms over the eastern part of China:

Anomalous diurnal variation of atmospheric potential gradient and air-Earth current density observed at Maitri, Antarctica - K. Jeeva et al

But it does seems as if "mass loading" would be an interesting place to start because it is easy to parlay the concept into an "increase in mass". Maybe that's what the EU references to same has already considered?
"Our laws of force tend to be applied in the Newtonian sense in that for every action there is an equal reaction, and yet, in the real world, where many-body gravitational effects or electrodynamic actions prevail, we do not have every action paired with an equal reaction." — Harold Aspden

User avatar
paladin17
Posts: 175
Joined: Mon Jul 14, 2014 7:47 am
Location: Minsk, Belarus

Re: Gravity, Mass and Charge during Earth's Yearly Orbit

Unread post by paladin17 » Wed Nov 06, 2019 11:01 am

Aardwolf wrote: Well, you’re entitled to your personal blinkered opinion as clearly you lack any evidence for this assumption.
Certainly, it's only my opinion. It's also my opinion that one shouldn't seek the evidence of absence of something. Rather one should seek the evidence of presence. It's just a simple mental hygiene. Ergo, until I see the evidence of such global seasonal mass change, I assume it's not present. Very simple.
Aardwolf wrote: None of your changes can be accurately measured or predicted.
This is just plain wrong. In fact, all of them might be (and are) modeled and predicted.
Aardwolf wrote: Science always knows 100% about everything is observes does it?
Unless there are observable discrepancies, we might assume it does. No need to invent problems where there are none so far.
Aardwolf wrote:The IPK fluctuates for 30 days after it is measured. Also pick up a gravimeter and tell me how stable g is over a week. You’ll find it isn’t very stable at all. The paper below illustrates they can’t even get 3 gravimeters to agree to each other at the same time at the same place.
https://arxiv.org/pdf/1008.2884.pdf
Pick up an electric field meter and prove that these changes correlate with charge of the Earth. It's that simple.
Or develop a model that would show what exactly is happening - the one that would be able to predict something. And we'll see if you're right.
Aardwolf wrote:Most satellites are actively steered in position so you have no basis for that assertion.
No, you have no basis for the assertion that they are all steered in the same manner. It's just your fantasy. There are plenty of different orbit types, all of which require different station keeping procedures, performed at different times and with different amounts of delta-V. If you are able to show that the same disturbance (caused by an increase in gravitational parameter) occurs in all of them, then you're the boss. So far you're just trying to make me prove that something which is not observed, not observed. I don't care, frankly. Invisible pink unicorns are many, and I am alone.
Aardwolf wrote: Well if G oscillates then orbits should definitely change in accordance with that.
But they don't, so it's not G that oscillates, and something else (length of day has the same oscillation, so it might be connected).
I personally found that Jupiter is aligned with the Sun and Galactic center at maxima of G, and is perpendicular to this line at minima. Though if that even matters (or it's just a coincidence of periods) and how it might work - I can't tell. If this is some "new physics", perhaps the displacement of the Sun with respect to distant stars by Jupiter (and the following "post-relativistic" effects) would be the answer. But again - no idea how that might work.
Also, if you squint a little bit, you'd see a very similar (apparent?) dependence in neutron lifetime, so it might be related to something microscopic even.

User avatar
webolife
Posts: 2539
Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2008 2:01 pm
Location: Seattle

Re: Gravity, Mass and Charge during Earth's Yearly Orbit

Unread post by webolife » Wed Nov 06, 2019 12:14 pm

Hopefully without sidestepping the flow of this thread, I'd like to insert an observation about the general language of physics. What we observe in the cosmos are interactions between objects across space, be it the nano-spaces of the atomic or the vast spaces of the astronomic. To get a handle on these interactions, particularly as we observe the polity of one object over another, eg. the nucleus over the electron, the earth over the moon, the sun over the planets, the GC over the stars, etc. Because we regard these polity centers as special due to their positions with respect to their respective fields of influence, we ascribe properties to them to try to explain how they exert this influence upon other objects. Thus in the nanospaces we envision "charge", while in the vaster realm we describe "gravitation." The overarching and unqualified action we notice in all of the realms (even in the voids) is that centropic pressure is being applied in all spaces toward the geometric centroid of whatever field we are focusing on. In this thread discussion, another name for this pressure is "load". Interestingly, this is a definition/synonym for charge... also gravitation, and even the word "mass" applied as the nomination for the verb "amass" is another synonym for load. We begin to treat these effects at different hierarchies as though they were distinct phenomena; yet we thereby lose the functionality of elegance in doing so. It's not as though gravity were caused by charge, or vice versa, but that these are all effects of the overarching presence of centropic pressure. The homology of Coulomb's Law with Newton's Gravitational formula is one blatant consequence of this. Whether we refer to the center of mass, the center of gravity, "ground", or nucleus, we are observing the same universal phenomenon. Of further interest to me is the fact that we see objects bound to centroids of systems where no polity objects are seen, analogous to the center of gravity of a basketball being an "empty" space. To get a handle on what sort of activity could cause such a "binding" we invent WIMPs, black holes, and the like. Perhaps there is no "super-massive" object there at all... we merely are observing and measuring the amassing of the galactic citizens toward that "empty" locus. Many folks on these threads have other favorite aether hypothesies to try to object-ify or make these actions culpable, but since the time of Newton, no "feined hypothesis" or imaginary particles of any size have been able to comprehend the fundamental holding force of the universe. Our language is very restrictive, and probably so necessarily, but our minds must be open to understandings that encompass the whole picture. I applaud and try to weigh in on any attempts presented here to express unifying theories, and I have my own version, summarized numerous times elsewhere. But for now my suggestion is to recognize the unity of gravitation, mass, and charge, as manifestations of a single fundament. Maybe this will help us from bogging down in the details of restrictive language? :?: ;)
Relative to this dialogue, then, we can't avoid the effects of charge, mass, and gravitation at any hierarchy or order of magnitude, though the restrictive language of our physics tempts us to do so.
Truth extends beyond the border of self-limiting science. Free discourse among opposing viewpoints draws the open-minded away from the darkness of inevitable bias and nearer to the light of universal reality.

Aardwolf
Posts: 1330
Joined: Tue Jul 28, 2009 7:56 am

Re: Gravity, Mass and Charge during Earth's Yearly Orbit

Unread post by Aardwolf » Thu Nov 07, 2019 9:02 am

paladin17 wrote:
Aardwolf wrote: Well, you’re entitled to your personal blinkered opinion as clearly you lack any evidence for this assumption.
Certainly, it's only my opinion. It's also my opinion that one shouldn't seek the evidence of absence of something. Rather one should seek the evidence of presence. It's just a simple mental hygiene. Ergo, until I see the evidence of such global seasonal mass change, I assume it's not present. Very simple.
Strange twist of logic here. You’re the one argueing for the non-existence of a charge effect without evidence, ie fallacious evidence of absence. I’m saying it can’t be ruled out which is a perfectly acceptable absence of evidence argument. As far as evidence goes GRACE provided evidence that there are seasonal gravitational effects which cannot be confirmed to be localised.
paladin17 wrote:
Aardwolf wrote: None of your changes can be accurately measured or predicted.
This is just plain wrong. In fact, all of them might be (and are) modeled and predicted.
So you can predict n-body effects of the Earth/Sun/Moon, predict atmospheric effects, predict gravitational field asymmetries and predict solar radiation pressure? I think it’s clear to see you are making this stuff up to support your initial unsubstantiated rejection of potential charge effects.
paladin17 wrote:
Aardwolf wrote: Science always knows 100% about everything is observes does it?
Unless there are observable discrepancies, we might assume it does. No need to invent problems where there are none so far.
There are no problems in orbit mechanics? No flyby anomalies? No n-body problems? You really need to remove those blinkers.
paladin17 wrote:
Aardwolf wrote:The IPK fluctuates for 30 days after it is measured. Also pick up a gravimeter and tell me how stable g is over a week. You’ll find it isn’t very stable at all. The paper below illustrates they can’t even get 3 gravimeters to agree to each other at the same time at the same place.
https://arxiv.org/pdf/1008.2884.pdf
Pick up an electric field meter and prove that these changes correlate with charge of the Earth. It's that simple.
Are you being deliberately obtuse? Which of the 3 disagreeing gravimeters do you suggest we correlate against?
paladin17 wrote: Or develop a model that would show what exactly is happening - the one that would be able to predict something. And we'll see if you're right.
After you prepare a model to predict orbits using mass, which should be easy now you appear to have solved the n-body problem.
paladin17 wrote:
Aardwolf wrote:Most satellites are actively steered in position so you have no basis for that assertion.
No, you have no basis for the assertion that they are all steered in the same manner.
Another strange straw man / non sequitur. Please state the different manners in which satellites are steered.
paladin17 wrote: It's just your fantasy. There are plenty of different orbit types, all of which require different station keeping procedures, performed at different times and with different amounts of delta-V.
What pray tell do different orbit types have to do with steering? They’re all either steered (in which case proving anything about gravity is pointless) or they’re not and they fall out of the sky (in which case all we know is they are inherently unstable and their decay is entirely unpredictable, at least they are until you provide the answers to the n-body problem, predict solar maxima / minima, etc.).
paladin17 wrote:If you are able to show that the same disturbance (caused by an increase in gravitational parameter) occurs in all of them, then you're the boss. So far you're just trying to make me prove that something which is not observed, not observed. I don't care, frankly. Invisible pink unicorns are many, and I am alone.
As stated many times, planetary charge disturbances on a tiny satellite (you may not be aware but gravity is incredibly weak) are minute and would be overwhelmed by drag alone. Show me papers/links/reports that state the specific causes, effect and magnitude of satellite orbit drifts and we can rule out any charge effects.
paladin17 wrote:
Aardwolf wrote: Well if G oscillates then orbits should definitely change in accordance with that.
But they don't, so it's not G that oscillates, and something else (length of day has the same oscillation, so it might be connected).
I personally found that Jupiter is aligned with the Sun and Galactic center at maxima of G, and is perpendicular to this line at minima. Though if that even matters (or it's just a coincidence of periods) and how it might work - I can't tell. If this is some "new physics", perhaps the displacement of the Sun with respect to distant stars by Jupiter (and the following "post-relativistic" effects) would be the answer. But again - no idea how that might work.
Correlations apart, you say G is constant, so which of the following do you suggest is the actual 5.9 year variable.

Radius of the bodies
Mass / Density
g

You need to pick one.

User avatar
webolife
Posts: 2539
Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2008 2:01 pm
Location: Seattle

Re: Gravity, Mass and Charge during Earth's Yearly Orbit

Unread post by webolife » Wed Nov 20, 2019 11:15 am

We all based our claims on certain assumptions that drive our reasoning.
Only unstated assumptions are problematic for science discourse.
Aardwolf wrote:Correlations apart, you say G is constant, so which of the following do you suggest is the actual 5.9 year variable.
Radius of the bodies
Mass / Density
g
You need to pick one.
Why only these three? And why the need to choose only one?
In the real (un-idealized) universe, the operant describer of material objects is density, of which mass is only one player, the other being volume, a spacial "field" in which the object interacts with other object[s], eg. orbital dynamics. That interaction at whatever hieracrchy is "load" (as suggested earlier on the thread, by whatever name you refer it (gravitation, charge, nuclear force, "entropy" ;) ...); and the single parameter that must be used to derive any constants for that interaction is the relevant distance (along with direction of the change, ie. a vector), aka radius of the interaction field. Now I observe that any generalization that leads toward unification, or at least toward elegance, is to be respected. So again, why pick only one?
Truth extends beyond the border of self-limiting science. Free discourse among opposing viewpoints draws the open-minded away from the darkness of inevitable bias and nearer to the light of universal reality.

Aardwolf
Posts: 1330
Joined: Tue Jul 28, 2009 7:56 am

Re: Gravity, Mass and Charge during Earth's Yearly Orbit

Unread post by Aardwolf » Thu Nov 21, 2019 6:27 am

webolife wrote:Why only these three?
Because they are the elements to determine the fluctuating "constant" of G.

G = gr2/m
webolife wrote:And why the need to choose only one?
You don't need to pick one, that's just the minimum required for the measurements of G to make sense. However, I don't think there is any evidence that the density of planets or the radius fluctuates every six years which for me only leaves g as the fluctuating culprit.

Locked

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 15 guests