fafalone Posted August 19, 2002 Share Posted August 19, 2002 The way you showed it involved a form of Keplers Law that is flat out not equivalent. Furthermore, while it is not dependent on mass, this not at all point to a vortex shape. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zarkov Posted August 20, 2002 Author Share Posted August 20, 2002 " this (does) not at all point to a vortex shape" It is mandatory that in a vortex, a swirling whirlpool, that mass in not instrumental in the speed of motion. All bodies will given time go at the speed of the rotation! :) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fafalone Posted August 20, 2002 Share Posted August 20, 2002 This would imply a change in the orbital velocity of planets, this simply has no evidence. Velocities are also not proportional to distance from the center; their orbital periods are different because of distance, not velocity. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zarkov Posted August 20, 2002 Author Share Posted August 20, 2002 Fafalone, the period comes from the orbital velocity and the distance from the centre. The solar system does not have a flat rotation, it's speed of rotation is solely dependant upon the distance from the centre. This would not be expected in any system other than a spiralling field Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fafalone Posted August 20, 2002 Share Posted August 20, 2002 Again, this does not even remotely indicate a significant shift in z-axis as would be the case in a vortex. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zarkov Posted August 21, 2002 Author Share Posted August 21, 2002 What does the speed and distance relation that is constant (and not dependant upon mass) mean to you Fafalone? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fafalone Posted August 21, 2002 Share Posted August 21, 2002 It means the solar system rotates predominantly in 2 directions, not 3. ---------o--------- not \ / \/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Radical Edward Posted August 21, 2002 Share Posted August 21, 2002 Originally posted by Zarkov Fafalone, the period comes from the orbital velocity and the distance from the centre. The solar system does not have a flat rotation, it's speed of rotation is solely dependant upon the distance from the centre. This would not be expected in any system other than a spiralling field that's bollocks. one would expect the orbital period to have nothing to do with the masses of the objects, except the central one around which everything is orbiting (well okay, the centre of mass, but we'll let that slip as an approximation) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zarkov Posted August 22, 2002 Author Share Posted August 22, 2002 Why, Rad E? Fafalone, yes you --------0------ is correct, but why the 0 ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Radical Edward Posted August 22, 2002 Share Posted August 22, 2002 because there is no good reason that it should. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fafalone Posted August 22, 2002 Share Posted August 22, 2002 The o represented the sun. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zarkov Posted August 24, 2002 Author Share Posted August 24, 2002 The O is the Sun, but the mass of the Sun, is not material to the orbital speed and distance of planets from the Sun, but the Sun is a mass and as such it induces a magnetic field, which sets ups the field vortex for the solar system. BUT mass is is not attracting or repelling in any case. It is spin gravity that is in operation. Tell me what you think. :) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fafalone Posted August 25, 2002 Share Posted August 25, 2002 Your observations must be alot better than everyone elses, since not only does no one else observe this, but you've observed that despite the fact dipole spin gravity couplings violate parity symmetry in the Dirac equation, it's still the acting force. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zarkov Posted August 31, 2002 Author Share Posted August 31, 2002 I was just looking at satellite data, on altitude and velocity. The figures given obey the rv^2 =K rule. so v = (K/r) ^0.5 So all satellites, artificial or natural, and all planets obey this rule! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fafalone Posted August 31, 2002 Share Posted August 31, 2002 That has nothing to do with your theory of spin gravity, and doesn't even remotely address my last post. Furthermore, earlier you said K=1/4pi. rv^2 will not always equal 1/4pi. In fact, in order for that equation to be true, r or v would have to be infinitesimal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zarkov Posted September 1, 2002 Author Share Posted September 1, 2002 Artificial satellites! http://spaceboy.nasda.go.jp/note/eisei/e/eis03_e.html altitude (kms) speed (kms/sec) 0 7.906 200 7.778 500 7.612 1000 7.350 5000 5.918 10000 4.934 30000 3.310 40000 2.932 rv^2 = K = 4 X 10^ 5 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fafalone Posted September 1, 2002 Share Posted September 1, 2002 0*7.906^2 = 0 200*7.778^2 = 12099.4568 500*7.612^2 = 28791.2762 etc. These all do not equal a constant, and certainly not 1/4pi or 4x10^5 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zarkov Posted September 1, 2002 Author Share Posted September 1, 2002 You have to add 6400 km to the altitude, this is the radius of the Earth! It seems that this equation is fundamental to the Universe. Ksun = 1.327 X 10 ^11 Kearth = 3.99 X 10^5 K neptune 6.8 X 10 ^6 With these figures you can calculate either the velocity or the distance from the centre of ant body orbiting the central body. This is all I have found so far. There is much more to this....I will let you know :) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fafalone Posted September 2, 2002 Share Posted September 2, 2002 Ok and this relates to a unproven force which violates the Dirac equation in what way? What you are talking about are parts of well established classical mechanics, not "spin gravity" as the only force there is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zarkov Posted September 2, 2002 Author Share Posted September 2, 2002 . Central Body ..... Mass X 10^24 kg ...... K/m X 10^-20 ... Earth ............ 5.97 ............ 6.683 ....Mars............. 0.642 ............6.6978 .... Jupiter........102 ................. 6.6666 .... Saturn .......568 ................6.6877 .....Uranus.........86.8..............6.690 .....Neptune ....102.................6.6978 .....Pluto............0.0125..........8.32 r m v^2 = Kuniversal = 6.6826 X 10^20 (Newtons Gravitational constant = 6.672 ) for any body, where v is the orbital velocity at the distance r, to the central mass. KE = r v^2 but v = w r so KE = r^2 w^2 so the energy required falls off at 1/r^2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fafalone Posted September 2, 2002 Share Posted September 2, 2002 Originally posted by fafalone Ok and this relates to a unproven force which violates the Dirac equation in what way? What you are talking about are parts of well established classical mechanics, not "spin gravity" as the only force there is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aman Posted September 2, 2002 Share Posted September 2, 2002 Thanks Fafalone. You are handling this very well. I'm trying to follow it all and your last argument is valid as far as logic and obwervation. I'm open to any evidence of spin-gravity relevance. Just aman Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zarkov Posted September 2, 2002 Author Share Posted September 2, 2002 So you are following this Fafalone! good From the last set of data you will see that Pluto is about to leave the solar system. Throught this approach I can say with accuracy (if I had the data) just how stable the various orbiting objects are in their orbits. You may also notice that the mass of the orbiting object is not relevant, it is only the central mass that is material to these calculations. The calculations employed averages and assumed circular orbits. The whole solar system is a wheels within wheels set up Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fafalone Posted September 2, 2002 Share Posted September 2, 2002 Again, Originally posted by fafalone Ok and this relates to a unproven force which violates the Dirac equation in what way? What you are talking about are parts of well established classical mechanics, not "spin gravity" as the only force there is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sayonara Posted September 3, 2002 Share Posted September 3, 2002 Originally posted by Zarkov From the last set of data you will see that Pluto is about to leave the solar system. When, exactly? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now