View Full Version : Gravatational pull
just curious, and fully expecting a logical answer, ( I see cog is still about 8) )........if teh moon at 1/6 our gravity has the abillity to move our oceans (tides) to the degree it does, would you not expect the Earths gravatational pull, especially at times when the sun is also attracting from a position in-line behind the earth, to create a force strong enough to dislodge areas of the ultra fine, (and very annoying, according to NASA) "dust" that covers the lunar surface?
Interesting questions. Wouldn't liquid vs solid make a big difference.
Edit:
Wouldn't the pull be equal for both bodies.
Interesting questions. Wouldn't liquid vs solid make a big difference.
Edit:
Wouldn't the pull be equal for both bodies.
I think it must do HP, but thought maybe the dust being very loosely bonded to the lunar surface, might allow for some leeway?, and your second point also, VG, its where my minimal understanding leaves off, cog hopefully will shed some light'
GeneralStriker
07-02-2009, 10:33 PM
Maybe that's why it's so fucking dusty in New Zealand. Ever consider that smarty pants?
[offsite=http://cseligman.com/text/moons/earthmoongravity.htm:2tcab3ga]The Gravitational Force of the Earth and Moon on Each Other
According to Newton's Third Law of Motion, the Law of Action and Reaction, if the Earth exerts a force on the Moon, the Moon must exert an equal and opposite force on the Earth. Newton's Law of Gravity implies the same thing, as its mathematical formula,
F = G m M / r2,
in which F is the gravitational force between the two bodies, m and M are their masses, and r is the distance between them, yields the same value regardless of which object is thought of as pulling on the other.
In other words, both Laws say that the force the Earth exerts on the Moon is numerically identical to the force the Moon exerts on the Earth. The only difference is that the Moon pulls the Earth toward the Moon, while the Earth pulls the Moon toward the Earth -- that is, the force on each object is toward the other object, and therefore in the opposite direction.[/offsite:2tcab3ga]
Maybe that's why it's so fucking dusty in New Zealand. Ever consider that smarty pants?
thats a cunning plan to slowy steal the Simpson dessert from Australia, couple a ton a year, we are very patient,EL NINO is our friend, thanks for your input
8)
So I suppose the next question is what difference an atmosphere would make in particle movement.
GeneralStriker
07-02-2009, 10:54 PM
thanks for your inputalways at your service, mate.
[offsite=http://cseligman.com/text/moons/earthmoongravity.htm:i0cqbvu7]The Gravitational Force of the Earth and Moon on Each Other
According to Newton's Third Law of Motion, the Law of Action and Reaction, if the Earth exerts a force on the Moon, the Moon must exert an equal and opposite force on the Earth. Newton's Law of Gravity implies the same thing, as its mathematical formula,
F = G m M / r2,
in which F is the gravitational force between the two bodies, m and M are their masses, and r is the distance between them, yields the same value regardless of which object is thought of as pulling on the other.
In other words, both Laws say that the force the Earth exerts on the Moon is numerically identical to the force the Moon exerts on the Earth. The only difference is that the Moon pulls the Earth toward the Moon, while the Earth pulls the Moon toward the Earth -- that is, the force on each object is toward the other object, and therefore in the opposite direction.[/offsite:i0cqbvu7]
thanks HP, I can read all that, I could commit it to memory and repeat it verbatim, but to "understand" it is another story :)
The formula must be correct, the equation is proof of that, I dont know how, but put my trust in the people here who do know their shit,then again there is the opinion that the data and technique used to calculate the mass is not as infallible as we are led to believe. Will not be dragging out Pari Spolter as I understand her theories as much as I do the Newtonian version above.All I want is a personal level of understandig and hope the formula can be explained to me in such a way that I can get a grasp of it,have always shyed away from quantum mechanics and the higher lavel maths as it seems to require a method of "operation" that is the domain of only a few .It scares most people off by its very nature,...end result I end up asking what must seem stupid questions, because I am not trained in any of this, I tend to view these things from a point of,"does this make sense?" in its entirety, I do know that in binary star systems the big star strips the smaller one of its literal surface,eventrually eating it totally up? I know the earth and moon are not stars and there will be reasons why it is incorrect to assume as I do, any duality between the two events, but if all the forces, star-to-star, and earth-to-moon, are in calculated in the same way, (once again Im only assuming the same formula applies to stars as well? ) then should the attraction between the two stars not become equal as well?
GeneralStriker
07-02-2009, 11:31 PM
This little know fact from Apollo 11: Buz Aldrin reported that during his space walk the force of Earth's gravity caused his pubic hair to straighten out. That's why Newton ended his career selling cookies. Don't listen to HP.
I see your point about gas and stars. The center of mass or barycenter is closer to the bigger object so i suppose that explains it.
More on the equality.
[offsite=http://cseligman.com/text/moons/earthmoontides.htm:ejd38swa]The Gravitational Force of the Moon on Objects on the Earth
Just as the Earth pulls on the Moon, the Moon pulls on the Earth, and everything else in space. The strength of the Moon's gravitational force is given by Newton's Law of Universal Gravitation
F = G m MMoon / r2Moon ,
where G the gravitational constant, m is the mass of the object being pulled on by the Moon, MMoon is the mass of the Moon, and rMoon is the distance between the Moon and the object. A similar force acts between the Earth and various objects, except that we use the distance to the Earth, rEarth, and the mass of the Earth, MEarth, in place of the lunar values. Since the Earth's force on something is the object's weight, W, we can write
W = F = G m MEarth / r2Earth .[/offsite:ejd38swa]
This little know fact from Apollo 11: Buz Aldrin reported that during his space walk the force of Earth's gravity caused his pubic hair to straighten out. That's why Newton ended his career selling cookies. Don't listen to HP.
little known fact about kiwi, I am related to Buzz Aldrin 8)
GeneralStriker
07-03-2009, 12:12 AM
No fucking way! Really?
yeah mate, through my grandad, ted Pickett
GeneralStriker
07-03-2009, 12:19 AM
That's great! Buz is a hero of mine. Here's a picture of Niel and Buz discussing they landing site as the descended in the LEM. I don't share this picture with everybody.
http://www.dvdtimes.co.uk/images/airplane7.jpg
GeneralStriker
07-03-2009, 12:21 AM
http://www.dvdtimes.co.uk/images/airplane7.jpg
If you hit the re-dial on that phone would you get Nixon or Walt Disney?....just curious
GeneralStriker
07-03-2009, 12:28 AM
I think you get Mission Control.
GeneralStriker
07-03-2009, 12:30 AM
God I love those two guys. I could watch that movie a thousand times and laugh my ass off every time.
I think you get Mission Control.
"mission control"...it sure was
If you think about it for a minute, the moon is egg shaped and only one side ever faces the earth. For some reason, all the loose material may have shifted to one side over time and has reached the point that it can't move any more. Since water is fluid, it can move all the time and can't reach an equilibrium as long as a constantly changing external force is exerted on it.
If you think about it for a minute, the moon is egg shaped and only one side ever faces the earth. For some reason, all the loose material may have shifted to one side over time and has reached the point that it can't move any more. Since water is fluid, it can move all the time and can't reach an equilibrium as long as a constantly changing external force is exerted on it.
There was a lot of observational work done on the Moon with big scopes in the 50's, a lot of shifting was observed on the mares (I will post some detail, have to type it out from H.P Wilkens Phd F.R.A.S, " Mysteries of Space and Time" 1955) if there is a water component involved, ( although thats ice trapped in methane?) I wonder if it might not act ( the mix of dust and ice) like a non-newtonian fluid?, would a low gravity enviroment allow this?
If you think about it for a minute, the moon is egg shaped and only one side ever faces the earth. For some reason, all the loose material may have shifted to one side over time and has reached the point that it can't move any more. Since water is fluid, it can move all the time and can't reach an equilibrium as long as a constantly changing external force is exerted on it.
There was a lot of observational work done on the Moon with big scopes in the 50's, a lot of shifting was observed on the mares (I will post some detail, have to type it out from H.P Wilkens Phd F.R.A.S, " Mysteries of Space and Time" 1955) if there is a water component involved, ( although thats ice trapped in methane?) I wonder if it might not act ( the mix of dust and ice) like a non-newtonian fluid?, would a low gravity enviroment allow this?
I can't see why not, but it wouldn't necessarily have to be water, any liquid should work.
cool stuff a MBF
l]3zoTKXXNQIUl]
this is a bit of humour, just corn-starch and water
3]f2XQ97XHjVw3]
Cogburn
07-03-2009, 05:10 AM
The inverse square law doesn't seem to make much logical sense when applied to celestial bodies, but logic need not apply if that is what the universe is actually doing.
Remember, fallout from Einstein changed science in the 20th century forever... we stopped trying to explain the universe because quantum physics told us that all our explanations were subjective.
Science in general, and physics in particular, resigned itself to the fact that the best they could ever hope for was an accurate description of what was being observed.
Honestly, astrophysics confuses me much more than quantum physics. Subatomic particles are much more well behaved and orderly than the planets, moons, and stars.
smite.....well put cog, not a submission we will hear anytime soon from the establishment, the fact that they are not entirely sure of their ground
maybe logic needs to lighten the fuck up, do we have another addition to the "Urban Dictionary"?.............how does "Cogic" sound ? 8)
Cogburn
07-04-2009, 04:00 AM
Ouch. No. No more. My wife will not stand for any more inflation of my ego via the internet, thank you.
Honestly, thanks for the praise, but visit any physicist in any university in any country around the world and they will tell you exactly the same thing.
Some have gone so far as to philosophize that it was Einstein that set the western world on it's current course of decay... he knocked the legs out of everything western culture had relied upon for the past 1,000 years because he said that nothing was real... but we kept hoping that somewhere... eventually... there has to be an absolute.
We've been twisting in the wind trying to find terra firma ever since.
Notice it didn't upturn the Chinese or the Indians too much? That's the difference in world view. It destroyed ours, it reinforced theirs.
Ouch. No. No more. My wife will not stand for any more inflation of my ego via the internet, thank you.
Honestly, thanks for the praise, but visit any physicist in any university in any country around the world and they will tell you exactly the same thing.
Some have gone so far as to philosophize that it was Einstein that set the western world on it's current course of decay... he knocked the legs out of everything western culture had relied upon for the past 1,000 years because he said that nothing was real... but we kept hoping that somewhere... eventually... there has to be an absolute.
We've been twisting in the wind trying to find terra firma ever since.
Notice it didn't upturn the Chinese or the Indians too much? That's the difference in world view. It destroyed ours, it reinforced theirs.
agree cog, our western desire to "box" everything up has turned our science into a virtual prison camp, Velikovsky battled with the establishment all his life , he of course comitted the ultimate sin by crossing the boundries of his expertise into other fields of science, I think the compartmentalizing of scientists to their particular disciplines has retarded our progress on most fronts, I like V's answer when challenged by Einstien on their first meeting.....
It was August 1952, eight or ten weeks after we moved to Princeton. Elisheva and I sat on a bench at the boathouse on the shore of Carnegie Lake, which sprawls in the valley only a few minutes walk from our home, and talked with the boatman. We saw a tiny boat with a sail approaching the anchorage. An elderly man with his head covered by a wide brimmed hat against the rays of the setting sun, came from the boat and,going towards the boathouse, looked at us with his friendly smile. Only now I recognized Einstein. I approached him and named myself.
“ Ah, you are the man who brought the planets into disorder,” said he in german, and the smile disappeared from his face. He was carrying the oars into the boathouse,.I made a move to help him, but he kept the oars. I heard a challenge in this greeting and said:
“ I would like an occasion to meet you and discuss….”
“ But what do you know of astronomy?” he said dryly.
“ I know to put questions,” I said, or only thought so.
“ Not one of these days, sometime later,” he said.
“May I write you?”
“ Do it,” he said and was already a bit impatient to be on his way, his home is at the other end of town. His car moved on the unpaved road that runs along Carnegie Lake, and Elisheva and I went home, uphill, only several hudred feet from the mooring platform.
Cogburn
07-04-2009, 06:06 AM
LOL two years after Worlds In Collision was first published... No wonder Einstein was so curt.
Sagan had him for lunch and to be fair, Worlds was on pretty shaky scientific ground and it deserved all the derision it received.
I know you're a Velikovsky fan, but his works on the revised timeline of Egypt are far more compelling.
His work links the 21st and 22nd dynasties very nicely into Egyptian Cabal conspiracy theory.
LOL two years after Worlds In Collision was first published... No wonder Einstein was so curt.
Sagan had him for lunch and to be fair, Worlds was on pretty shaky scientific ground and it deserved all the derision it received.
I know you're a Velikovsky fan, but his works on the revised timeline of Egypt are far more compelling.
His work links the 21st and 22nd dynasties very nicely into Egyptian Cabal conspiracy theory.
first book I read of his was Ages in Chaos..........Ive brought it up before on this forum, the only real comment was from Mojo, who has a interest in our ancient past. His opinion was that the work was not really worth considering as it was based on myth and fantasy, the collective memories of all races that lead back to a common global catastrophe scenario.
To counter the out of hand dismissal he wrote Earth in Upheaval, where he sets about to back up his ideas with a presentration of a geological record that points to evidence that supports (recent as well as ancient) catastrophism
I believe it was not until our two long discussions accompanying the reading of my paper “ On the Four Plans of the Universe” less than seven weeks before his death that my opponent fully comprehended my stand. By that time he had read “ Worlds in Collision “ for a second time, with a decidedly different reaction.
here is his letter to Einstein,soon after the meeting at the lake
Dear Professor Einstein:
When, by chance, we met last week at the lake, I became aware that you are angry with me personally for my “ Worlds in Collision” . From you I have not expected this reaction.
I have written a cultural-historical book. A physicist cannot prescribe to an historian, what he is allowed to find in the past, even if he finds contradiction between the alledged historical facts and our understanding of natural laws. There are facts a physicist observes daily, which are in conflict with the laws he formulated; one such case is the keeping together of positive elements in the nucleus of an atom; he accepts the fact though it contradicts the law,and he looks for some explanation.
Two facts appeared to the scientists as fallacious in my book: 1. No forces in the celestial sphere, but a head on collision, , could retard the earth in its rotation, or incline its axis into a different astronomical position, and in such , our earth would have perished; 2. No planet ,could have come to its orbit, as recently as a few thousand years ago, and therefore, Venus could not have travelled on a cometary orbit in historical times.
These two assertions are true only if gravitation and inertia are responsible for planetary motions, a notion subscribed by every “ vernunftigen physiker”. Here, though no physicist or astronomer, I am provoked to disagree.
The sun has a general magnetic field, the solar spots are magnets, then solar prominences return on an oblique line to the place on the solar surface , from where they erupted, the cmetary tails are repelled by the sun, in a manner , and with velocities , which the pressure of light cannot explain; the earth is a magnet, the Ionisphere, the polar light, the ground currents, the terrestrial magnetism reacts to solar disturbances; cosmic rays are charges that travel in magnetic lines of force; meteorites come down in a magnetic state; the position of the moon influences the radio reception ( Stetson ); the position of the planets influences the radio reception ( Nelson of RCA ); the fixed stars are strong magnets ( Babcock ) .In the face of all this , is it true or wrong to insist that that only gravitation and inertia act in the celestial sphere? And if the electromagnetic fields,are not invented by me, for the solar system ad hoc, in order to explain the phenomena and there interpretation as found in “ Worlds in Collision”, then may I ask : Who is in conflict with observed facts?, the astronomers that have all there calculations concerning the planetary motions, perfect in the assumption that there are no electromagnetic fields in the solar system?, or the author of “ Worlds in Collision” ?
Venus could come to a circular orbit and the earth could be retarded in its rotation, or have its axis inclined, under the influence of electromagnetic fields. Such fields exist; at close distances they would act strongly.I believe, therefore, that not only the historical phenomena that I describe in my first book could have happened, but also that celestial mechanics, that has all its motions explained without taking into account the electromagnetic fields in the solar system, is in conflict with facts.
I have read a book of a prominent astronomer of this city, who says that nothing could take place in the celestial sphere, which conflicts with the words of Jesus of Nazareth, as preserved in theGospels. Thus he has two world conceptions that live side by side in his mind, one of mathematics, the other of faith. But the rest of astronomers are like him: they acknowledge the magnetic and electrical properties of the sun and its spots, or of the fixed stars, of meteorites, of cosmic rays, occasionally also of cometary tails, and they do not deny the earth is a magnet,and that the sun, the moon, and the planets, influence in some way, the ionosphere; but as soon as it comes to the celestial motions, they still keep to pre-Faraday, Laplace and Lagrange, and actually postulate sterile electricity and impotent magnetism, which do not act at distances, and which do no more than offer a Zeeman effect.
In my debate with Prof.J.Q. Stewart of Princeton Observatory, in Harpers Magazine, he presented the common view, by asserting that electromagnetic forces have no part in the planetary relations. I, on the other hand, have written that the general magnetic field, discovered by Hale ( 1912 ) was often denied to exist ( Menzel). “ Has not a basic mistake in observation or interpretation been committed?” Now this April, the same Menzel announces that the sun must have a very strong magnetic field, and that there was a difficulty of finding it because of the angle of observation.
For over two years I have been a target of abuse and calumny. When did it happen that a spurious book caused such a fury in the minds of the contempory scientists?
I have taken too much of your time. I wish you everything best
Cordially,
Immanuel Velikovsky
cool stuff a MBF
x]3zoTKXXNQIUx]
Yes it is. Very interesting to watch.
and Carl Sagan
http://www.grahamkendall.net/Unsorted_files-2/A352-Immanuel_Velikovsky.txt
In 1950, Immanuel Velikovsky published Worlds in Collision, a book which
attempts to explain certain Biblical events by proposing a theory of the
origin of the planet Venus, among other things. Twenty-nine years later, the
astronomer Carl Sagan published a critique of Velikovsky's central
claims.[Sagan, pp. 81-127]. Velikovsky asserts that around 1500 B.C. the
planet Jupiter erupted and sent forth a huge comet which grazed Earth
(perhaps twice grazed the earth--the text isn't clear), continued on and
nearly collided with Mars which was in turn knocked out of orbit and sent
flying toward Earth. Mars then also grazed Earth twice and continued on
until it settled into its current orbit. The giant comet, meanwhile, ended
up orbiting the Sun and became the planet Venus.
Velikovsky made the above claims in order to explain certain events in the
Bible. The comet, he says, caused the plagues of flies and frogs on the
Egyptians described in Exodus. The comet also caused the Nile to turn red,
and produced earthquakes that leveled Egyptian (but not Hebrew) buildings.
The comet also caused the Red Sea to part when the Israelites were being
chased by the Egyptian army, allowing the former to escape. The comet also
left a trail of hydrocarbons or carbohydrates (the text differs from place
to place) in the sky, which fell on the desert for forty years, providing
the wandering Jews with either bread or motor oil as their `manna' from
heaven.
According to Velikovsky, the comet also caused the Earth to stop rotating
(when Joshua said the sun stood still), assisting Joshua in battle. The
movement of Mars accounts for the destruction of the Assyrian army by the
Israelites. Then, somehow, the Earth began rotating again exactly as before.
Some of Velikovsky's claims violate principles of Newtonian dynamics, laws
of conservation of energy and angular momentum--all of which are rather
firmly established in modern physics. Sagan refutes Velikovsky's claim that
Jupiter ejected a comet which became Venus by examining the amount of
kinetic energy needed for a body with the mass of Venus to escape from
Jupiter's gravitational field. Sagan showed that the kinetic energy needed
would heat the comet to several thousands of degrees. The `comet' never
would have gotten off the launching pad; it would have melted! If the melted
`comet' had been ejected into space, it would have been as a rain of "small
dust particles and atoms, which does not describe the planet Venus
particularly well."[Sagan, p. 97] Sagan also points out that escape from the
gravitational field of Jupiter requires a velocity of at least 60 kilometers
per second. But if the velocity is greater than 63 km/sec, the comet will be
hurled out of our solar system. "There is only a narrow and therefore
unlikely range of velocities consistent with Velikovsky's
hypothesis."[Sagan, p. 98] Such energy is "equivalent to all the energy
radiated by the sun to space in an entire year, and one hundred million
times more powerful than the largest solar flare ever observed....We are
asked to believe," says Sagan, "without any further evidence or discussion,
an ejection event vastly more powerful than anything on the sun, which is a
far more energetic object than Jupiter."[Sagan,m p. 98]
here is a reply to the article
Just a couple of quibbles about the Velikovsky entry:
Sagan misrepresents Velikovsky who never wrote that the comet and the Earth
graze. The comet makes a close approach.
"According to Velikovsky, the comet also caused the Earth to stop rotating."
Velikovsky quotes many ancient texts recording that the movement of the Sun
and Moon appeared to stop in the sky. Velikovsky himself says "..there are
physical problems.. the actual results of such a slowing down of the angular
momentum of rotation would depend on the manner in which it occurred." It
was Peter Warlow who showed how the Earth's rotation could be apparently
reversed without the Earth stopping, using a similar mechanism to a 'tippe
top' (SIS Review, Vol III No 4, Spring 1979, page 100). Even Sagan himself
says '..it is easy to see that a gradual deceleration of the Earth's
rotation at about 10(^-2)g could occur in a period of less than a day.'
"Sagan refutes Velikovsky's claim that Jupiter ejected a comet which became
Venus by examining the amount of kinetic energy needed."
Sagan forgets to include in his calculations the rotational speed of
Jupiter. Sagan also forgets to include the difference in rotational speed of
Jupiter now, and at the time of ejection, which would have caused Jupiter to
slow (conservation of angular momentum). Sagan mistakenly uses an escape
velocity for an object reaching an orbit extending to infinity, rather than
one required to produce an elliptical orbit (71% less). All these factors
substantially reduce the energy required.
--Ian Tresman
peter Warlow mentioned in the letter from Ian Tresman above got it wrong apparently, I'll see if I can find the doc
and another view
20 Nov 1996
On Velikovsky - I support entirely your comments about Velikovsky's lack of
scientific rigour. There is no possibility of Venus coming from Jupiter. But
if you read Velikovsky - that is only one interpretation of what happened
from the accounts he reports. He got it wrong; but don't ignore the
evidence, just his interpretation.
A far more logical interpretation to my mind is that a large comet had a
close encounter with Jupiter which swung it in our direction. It then came
toward earth with a very bright coma. It passed earth close by, and went
away (with all reported effects). 52 years later it returned, came past
earth and hit Venus. Venus then went from dull to very bright, and has been
slowly dimming since.
That is still an awful lot of close encounters in a very short space of time
- and is a highly improbably scenario - but sometimes shit happens. It is,
at least, consistent with the laws of physics as we know them, and with
reported phenomia.
Worth a thought perhaps ?
Ted Howard
New Zealand
Yes it is. Very interesting to watch.
this is cool MBF
3]k5h_qoHCn7k3]
torbjon
07-05-2009, 02:28 AM
okay, you guys have kinda shifted a bit... but I found this at SDC:
And Earth's gravity lifts tides on the Moon, raising relatively small bulges in the seemingly solid satellite.
http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/moon_mechanics_0303018.html
trying to find stuff out about tides ON the moon is like trying to find hens teeth.
But anyway, yes, these people seem to think that the Earths gravity moves stuff on the moon... which was your original question, yes?
nice one Torb, here is an excerpt from your link
Gravity is said to be the weakest of all the fundamental forces. But one aspect of it is very consequential: Gravity never goes away. It weakens with distance, but it is always at work. This fact is the primary driver of tides. The side of Earth nearest the Moon always gets tugged more than the other side, by about 6 percent.
and a piece from Ellenberg, which may seem a strange ref from me as it is pointing out the limitations of Velikovsky,......it is to show the conflict I come across regarding some statements, not to mention what were the "generous assumptions" ?
http://abob.libs.uga.edu/bobk/vlesson.html
For years Velikovsky and his supporters, e.g., Lynn Rose in _Velikovsky Reconsidered_, claimed that at close distances electromagnetic forces could rival, if not dominate, gravity. Critics simply denied this. Velikovsky's intuition on this point, however, is not borne out, not even in his often-repeated example of 7,000 gauss magnetic binary star. Using generous assumptions, James Warwick recently [in 1984] showed that gravity overwhelms magnetism by a factor of over a billion. All this and more are explained in my articles in _Kronos_ X:1, X:3, & XI:1.
torbjon
07-05-2009, 03:20 AM
um... huh? From what I'm reading, this Velikosvsky person was / is a nut job, yes?
why are you trying to figure in his theories as regards to Earth induced tides on the moon?
um... huh? From what I'm reading, this Velikosvsky person was / is a nut job, yes?
why are you trying to figure in his theories as regards to Earth induced tides on the moon?
he has been dead 30 years, still/ is. read his work and see what you think then, no?
just pointing out the difference between the assumption of gravity being the "weakest" force, on one hand, and James Warwick's statement that it overwhelms magnetism by a factor of over a billion
Here is the year 1845, Leverrier in France, and Adams in England, out of perturbations of Uranus calculated, to the exactness of one degree of arc, the presence of a yet unseen planet. Both of them assumed that a planet of a size not larger than that of Uranus, travels on an orbit at a distance dictated by Bode’s Law. Neptune is actually of the size of Uranus, but the mean distance between their orbits is not ca. 1,750,000,000 miles, as Bodes Law required, but only ca. 1,000,000,000 miles ; thus the error is equal to ascribing to Neptune, a triple mass. The discovery of Pluto did not solve the conflict between the theory and the fact, and caused also conflicting estimates of Pluto’s mass. Thus the finding of the planetary stations in relation to a chart of fixed stars, is not enough; if the theory is true, the distances must also be correct. And still the discovery of Neptune is regarded as the strongest proof of the Newtonian theory of celestial motions
Now in the same year, 1845, the year of his triump, Leverrier calculated also, the anomaly of Mercury, and by this caused to think that the Newtonian law of gravitation, may be not precisely true. Leverrier first thought of some planet moving inside the Mercurial orbit, or of a possible unequal distribution of the mass of the sun. You have used the fact of the anomaly to prove that the space is curving in the prescense of a mass. About the same time, 1913, G.E.Hale published his paper on “ The General Magnetic Field of the Sun” (Contr. M. Wilson Obs.,71) , in which he estimated the general magnetic field of the sun as of 50 gauss intensity. At this intensity “ under certain conditions, electromagnetic forces are much stronger than gravitation” (Alfven). The last named author, in his “Cosmical Electro Dynamics” ( Oxford, 1950, p.2) shows that a hydrogen atom, at the distance of the earth from the sun, and moving with the earths orbital velocity, if ionized, is acted upon by the solar magnetic field, 10,000 times stronger , than by the solar gravitational field.
Cogburn
07-05-2009, 04:44 AM
The problem is the maths. There are none and there can be none given the laws of physics as they exist today.
Could the laws of physics have been different? No. Were that the case we would not be able to predict such things as Galactic Background Radiation, as it would behave in unpredictable manners because it, at one time, obeyed an alternate set of laws.
If physics has not changed then Velikosvsky's description of 3200 years ago cannot be correct.
Before you test physics, you must pass the logic test.
Fairness to Velikosvsky, we did not have quite the picture of the physics of the universe 1,000,000,000,000 years ago that we do now. His theories would have been more acceptable in the 1970s... but Sagan knew what was on the horizon and made a safe intellectual wager.
Cogburn
07-05-2009, 04:49 AM
KIWI, just to clarify, gravity is the weakest known force in the universe.
Want evidence?
Put two magnets together and only hold on to one of them and dangle them in the air. Does the magnet you are not holding on to fall to the ground or does it remain fixed to it's partner?
Foxtrot Oscar
07-05-2009, 04:55 AM
KIWI, just to clarify, gravity is the weakest known force in the universe.
No, that would be the French.
Carry on.
Fox
Cogburn
07-05-2009, 04:57 AM
Smite.
KIWI, just to clarify, gravity is the weakest known force in the universe.
No, that would be the French.
Carry on.
Fox
typical, win one game of rugby....... :shock:
KIWI, just to clarify, gravity is the weakest known force in the universe.
Want evidence?
Put two magnets together and only hold on to one of them and dangle them in the air. Does the magnet you are not holding on to fall to the ground or does it remain fixed to it's partner?
I see what you mean, good practical example, does local thermo-dynamic equilibrium have anything to do with it? could the magnets be considered a closed system?
the vid below cog, does this replace the idea of the ozone layer (depletion) being responsible for the observations in the past? if so, would the global warming fraternity have to readjust their "set" ?
w]br80pLpRWWEw]
boycotteverything
07-05-2009, 10:00 AM
...it was Einstein that set the western world on it's current course of decay... he knocked the legs out of everything western culture had relied upon for the past 1,000 years because he said that nothing was real... but we kept hoping that somewhere... eventually... there has to be an absolute.
We've been twisting in the wind trying to find terra firma ever since.
Damn! Where have we heard that before?
Now basically the derogative term "Jewish Physics" was used for modern physics, especially by some Nazi scientists, like Lenard, who simply could not understand relativity or quantum uncertainty. Had they had their way, German students would have learned only classical physics. ...However, the attempt to ban "Jewish Physics" ran up against some well known empirical facts, for example fast electrons are harder to accelerate than slow electrons due to the relativistic increase of the mass with energy. (Remember E = m c squared) Thus, perversely, if Jewish physics had actually been banned in Germany, it would have been extremely bad for Heisenberg and colleagues. In fact, it could well have wrecked Physics in Germany irreparably.http://www.physics.ucla.edu/~moszkows/np30/heisjp.htm
And from the Philosophers' Playground (great little blog- you could learn something there), this:
To call Einstein's theory of relativity "Jewish science" really was not terribly different than calling Darwin's theory "liberal science." The war against modern physics in Germany between the world wars was a part of the broader culture war, something that is eerily reminiscent of what we are seeing today. This is not to say that things here are exactly like they were there or that we are headed towards fascism or anything of the sort. But history is important and understanding what was happening on the ground is crucial if we take seriously the notion "never again."
Careful there, genius. Your terra firma may not be so firm.
Cogburn
07-05-2009, 07:27 PM
I generally don't read blogs as I like my opinions to be my own.
I see what you mean, good practical example, does local thermo-dynamic equilibrium have anything to do with it? could the magnets be considered a closed system?
the vid below cog, does this replace the idea of the ozone layer (depletion) being responsible for the observations in the past? if so, would the global warming fraternity have to readjust their "set" ?
Really nice find, KIWI. It may very well, however as the discovery is rather recent (this year, no?) I don't think enough time has elapsed to allow for physicists to begin to create models of how it effects the atmosphere.
I'd be willing to put good money on the fact that if it did we might never hear about it.
Only this year has solar activity been tied so closely to climate change. Someone turned an IR telescope towards the other planets in the solar system and, sunuvabitch, they were getting warmer, too.
My opinion at this point is that those who are banking on global warming being factually correct are scrambling to get whatever mindsets and legislation they desire in force before the bottom drops out on the whole debate.
...it was Einstein that set the western world on it's current course of decay... he knocked the legs out of everything western culture had relied upon for the past 1,000 years because he said that nothing was real... but we kept hoping that somewhere... eventually... there has to be an absolute.
We've been twisting in the wind trying to find terra firma ever since.
BE wrote
Damn! Where have we heard that before?
dont think any slur intended BE, when you see the allowances made for the observations to fit the theory,.....if you travel forward at 10mph and chuck a rock in the forward direction , and the rock is going 5mph relative to you the chucker, you are allowed to say the rock is travelling at 15mph.
turn the head-lights on in a stationary car, and the light is travelling forward at 186000mph (dont think that speed is correct but will do for this purpose) but if you accelerate the stationary car to 30mph, you are not allowed to then say, "the light is travelling at 186030 mph?, Ive had that explained as a "postulate" and that it is not supposed to make sense, rather it is there as a referenc point ,type of thing, which allows other observations to make more sense.........confused? I know I am :|
and wasnt E=Mc2 first used by Niels Bohr?
cog wrote
Only this year has solar activity been tied so closely to climate change. Someone turned an IR telescope towards the other planets in the solar system and, sunuvabitch, they were getting warmer, too.
some stunning vids about on solar activity.....here is Jupiter transiting March 09
a]foBUaOKsIZMa]
Heres a Google Tech-Talk on NASA's climate change policy, 49 min, so just the link
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C5E_pxytjh8&feature=related
a]bYaBU1XfmS4a]
the loops behave quite like the NN fluid on the speaker,
Cogburn
07-06-2009, 12:49 AM
That make sense... given it's basically ionized gas it would initially flow towards the force waves of the Sun's magnetic field... in a similar process to the other video that illustrates the "breaches" in the Earth's magnetic shield.
http://solarmuri.ssl.berkeley.edu/~fisher/public/documents/annual-report-2002/annual-report-2002_files/image005.gif