Join the Dialog

Through More than Gravity, scientific and engineering experts Gerhard and Kevin Neumaier have established a relationship between solar winds and a quantized order in both the position and velocity of the solar system’s planets, and movement at an atomic level, with both governed by the same set of physics.

Re: Join the Dialog

Postby landru27 » Fri May 03, 2013 4:51 pm

Kevin Neuamaier wrote:One Coronal Mass Ejection has 20 million times more force than the largest nuclear bomb ever detonated on Earth. These CMEs occur very frequently – varying from several per day to once every fifth day.


First, they also take place 93 millions miles away from Earth. That distance greatly diminishes the effect of the force. (This is in addition to the diminishing caused by the exceedingly low density of the matter that makes up the CME, as noted by other posts, mine and others'.)

Second, between one and five CMEs per day is not very consistent; it's a 500% variance day-to-day. So we should not expect to see the exceedingly consistent orbital behavior of the planets which we actually observe if these highly variable CMEs have anything other than a trivially negligible effect on planets' orbits.

Third, nearly every CME misses all the planets entirely.

Fourth, by your own logic, if these CMEs are having an effect on the planets, they should be having a much, much, much greater effect on, say, Mercury than, say, Earth, since Mercury is both much, much closer to the Sun and much, much smaller than the Earth.
landru27
 

Re: Join the Dialog

Postby landru27 » Fri May 03, 2013 5:01 pm

Kevin Neuamaier wrote:The solar wind reacts differently to planets that it does to space probes.


But gravity reacts identically to both planets and space probes. Gravity -- all by itself -- is sufficient to describe the planets' orbits and the trajectory of all the space probes we've ever launched, including the ones that have been launched out of the plane of the Sun's equator.

Therefore, there is no compelling reason to suppose that there is anything "more than gravity" controlling the mechanics of the solar system.
landru27
 

Re: Join the Dialog

Postby landru27 » Fri May 03, 2013 5:46 pm

Kevin Neumaier wrote:The observational reality is that we know almost nothing about the core of any planet including Earth. ... By the equation for gravity, the Sun is much less dense than the Earth. In order to explain this, hydrostatic equilibrium is used. This doesn't mean that there are any data to prove this - the other possibility is that the Sun is not less dense than the Earth but the equation for gravity is not correct. If we remove the base assumption that Newton's 400 year old equation has to be explained, the Sun doesn't have to be a light gas ball that is very hot - it could be a heavy gas ball that is very hot.


Your point here is similar to a point in your paper about us not being able to know the density of planets if the equation for gravity is suspect. You state in your paper that scientists are using circular logic to determine the weight and the density of the planets and the Sun.

With the amount of data we have from satellites and space probes -- whose masses are known to us -- and their orbital behavior when we put them into orbit or send them zipping past various planets, moons, and the Sun, your claim for circular logic is a bit like saying that a dictionary is useless because all of the definitions are written in words that are defined elsewhere in the dictionary.

There is a sense in which this is circular, but there is also a point at which there is a preponderance of data that holds together. We are well past that point with gravity.

And, as another poster pointed out already, do note that we have in fact been wrong about gravity. It was eventually noticed that Mercury was not quite where Newtonian gravity said it should be, and lacking a better explanation, astronomers speculated about an unknown and hidden planet or other body. Note, however, that they could not simply adjust the calculated density of the Sun! Too much else that calculated very, very well would come unraveled. Scientists willingly admitted that there must be more to the story, even though their best guesses about what it might be were limited by what they thought they knew.

In a way, I see you trying to do something similar, but what you've not taken into account is the massive amount of very precise data that is entirely consistent with a (modern) understanding of gravity -- without needing to postulate any other forces.

Any new, competing theory has to explain all of that, equally well (or better).

I'm sure you know the rest of the story above. Einstein's refinements to how gravity works exactly and sufficiently explained the disparity between Mercury's predicted orbit and its observed orbit while keeping intact all other observed data. Since then, with more and more precise measurements available, Newton+Einstein equations for gravity continue to yield highly accurate accounts of observations as well as predictions about what we eventually end up observing. From that, yes : we can very, very confidently calculate the mass at the center of our galaxy, with an appropriate margin of error for the things we are assuming or averaging.

Of course, even Einstein's equations break down under certain scenarios. There is certainly more to discover about this wonderful universe of ours. Things get weird for gravity (and other things) at the quantum scale. It's also perfectly possible that there are refinements to be made at the other end of the spectrum, at the galactic or inter-galactic scale. But, sorry to say, those refinements are not going to come from replacing gravity with solar wind.
landru27
 

Re: Join the Dialog

Postby Kevin Neumaier » Wed May 08, 2013 10:15 pm

The equation for gravity is F= Gm1m2/d^2

Let’s assign m1 to be our spacecraft and m2 to be the mass of the planet.

The terms Gm2 are always observed as one term, the surface gravity of the planet. The only way that the mass of the planet was determined was through using Newton’s equation for gravity with the assumption that G is a universal constant.

The separation of one observation (the acceleration due to gravity) into two terms (Gravitational constant and mass) is both why the equation works for space missions and the equation may also not be correct.

To clarify, we think that in addition to the attractive force of the Sun, there are other forces that order and move the planets. One of the other forces is the solar wind.
Kevin Neumaier
 

Re: Join the Dialog

Postby landru27 » Fri May 10, 2013 10:37 pm

Kevin Neumaier wrote:To clarify, we think that in addition to the attractive force of the Sun, there are other forces that order and move the planets. One of the other forces is the solar wind.


Are you familiar with the postulate of Ockham's razor? Given two competing theories, both of which explain a phenomenon equally well, the simpler of the two theories is to be preferred.

With G as a universal constant, all the math for the orbits of the planets and the trajectories of space probes works fine. Nothing is needed to make the math work better. (We now recognize the role of relativistic effects per Einstein, but even these refinements don't alter the value of G.)

In your theory, which states that solar winds play a significant role in the motion of planets, you need to explain why (among several other things) the "fast" solar winds have zero additional effect on space probes that travel a polar orbit of the Sun versus space probes that travel an equatorial orbit of the Sun. Thus, your theory necessarily must be made more complex than the prevailing Kepler-Newton-Einstein theory of motion due to gravity.

A more complex theory is fine as long as it provides more explanatory power. Your solar winds theory of planetary motion provides zero additional explanatory power for calculating the motion of planets, moons, comets, asteroids, space probes, satellites, etc. i.e., people have been and continue to be quite successful at predicting the motion of planets, moons, and the space probes we send past or land onto other planets with just Kepler-Newton-Einstein math.

You claim that your theory goes beyond planetary motion and explains the positioning of planets. That is the kind of additional explanatory power that could motivate a modification or an expansion of a theory ... but your theory actually fails to provide the explanation you claim. First, planets are positioned anywhere from -10.7% to 5.5% from where your theory predicts they should be. Second, there are several empty slots where your theory predicts there should be a planet and there are none.

To overcome these weaknesses, you have attempted to add even more complexity, without really resolving any of the difficulties. You are at what I call the "epicycle phase". i.e., you are at the same point where defenders of the Earth-centered view of the universe needed to add epicycles to their model of the orbits of planets in order to explain the observed motion of Mars in the sky. They complicated their theory instead of embracing the far simpler and much more powerful (in terms of explanatory power) theory of a Sun-centered view.

I guess you see yourselves on the other side of that event. You seem to see yourselves as the champions of a new theory that will overturn the "outdated" Newtonian theory. Many people -- myself among them -- would be more than willing to entertain a new theory. It'd be a very exciting thing. However, as I've noted already in my previous posts, any new theory needs to account for the large body of very precise observations we have accumulated in this field. You need to make a strong case as to why your theory is better.

If you want your theory to gain an audience among scientists, you need to show with solid, precise math why people need to complicate good old reliable F= Gm1m2/d^2 with anything additional.
landru27
 

Re: Join the Dialog

Postby landru27 » Fri May 10, 2013 11:19 pm

Kevin Neumaier wrote:The equation for gravity is F= Gm1m2/d^2 ... Let’s assign m1 to be our spacecraft and m2 to be the mass of the planet. ... The terms Gm2 are always observed as one term, the surface gravity of the planet. The only way that the mass of the planet was determined was through using Newton’s equation for gravity with the assumption that G is a universal constant. ... The separation of one observation (the acceleration due to gravity) into two terms (Gravitational constant and mass) is both why the equation works for space missions and the equation may also not be correct.


Note that Newton himself never had a reliable value for G. G was not calculated until Cavendish's experiment, some decades after Newton's death. There are two things to take from that: First, Newton's equation for gravity was powerful and useful even without a value for G. Second, people did not conceit to calculate the masses of planets right away. Scientists understood (and understand) when a theory has it's limits.

After Cavendish (and following subsequent refinements from progressively more sophisticated instruments), given a value for G, the observed motions of the planets gives us the masses of the Sun and the planets. This is straight-forward math. With just the Sun and one planet, it wouldn't be certain, but with the Sun and several planets, we can reliably calculate the masses of all of them, applying constraints from logic.

And, we can verify these calculations. We can send a space probe of a known mass in a trajectory past another planet (or into orbit around it). The observed trajectory matches what we calculate given the known mass of the probe and the previously calculated mass of the planet. This confirms the calculated mass of the planet.

Yes, it is logically possible that we have the wrong value for G, and that there is some other factor hidden in there and we are blissfully ignorant of it. Your suggestion is the solar wind. Fine. Propose a new formula for the attraction between two bodies and then show how all current calculations still work out to the same (or better) degree of precision. No hand waving allowed.

For starters, you can suggest a formula that mathematically describes the trajectory of the Ulysses spacecraft while factoring in the strength of the solar wind. Since (as you point out) the solar wind varies at various Solar latitudes, your formula will need to somehow account for a decreasing effect of gravity due to mass when solar winds are stronger. Your theory behind your formula will need to postulate a mechanism for this decreased effect of gravity in the presence of solar wind.

Next, you will need to suggest an experiment that will create a scenario in which your formula produces a correct value and the Newtonian formula produces an incorrect value.

Please do understand that in all of this, I wish you no ill will at all. These are the first steps to inviting and engaging the broad scientific community into the examination and consideration of your proposed theory.
landru27
 

Re: Join the Dialog

Postby Morphheus » Wed Jun 12, 2013 4:21 pm

Interesting take. I'm not really concerned about the effect of solar winds on the rotation of planets, but more about the initial data you showed.

Table 1 and 2 in particular come to mind. The values for mean distance you used probably have an standard deviation on it (an error). Distance measurements follow most of the time a gaussian curve (normal distribution). In physics (and also astrophysics), a coefficient factor of 68% is usually used for the standard deviation. In other areas, 95% is the norm.

My point is, mean distances will have a very small standard deviation, because planetary distances have been observed for quite a while, and the measurement have been refined quite a bit over the year. According to the Handbook of chemistry and Physics, the mean distance of the earth is 1,495978*10^8 km, with an error corresponding to the smallest division (in this case, 100m). We know the error is at worst 100m because the HCP posts up values where all digits are certain unless otherwise specified.

So our standard deviation is 100m. Allow me to refresh your memory on statistics: this means that if we were to make a measurement again, we'd have a 68% chance of obtaining a measurement within 100m of the aforementioned value. Inversely, there is a 32% chance that our measurement is out of this 100m range. Furthermore, there is a 0.32*0.32 = 0.1024 -> 10% chance that a measurement carried out would be "out" of the measured value (this is just how gaussian curves work).

So your predicted value is located 3102 standard deviations from the predicted value. There is 0.68^(3102) chance that a measurement leads the a value predicted by your theory. Either there is a systematic error in the value i'm using, or your model is wrong (and I'd bet on the latter)

The rest of the paper is an interesting theory, but I don't think it holds any weight. While it is true that the equation of gravity does not favor any plane, the current leading theory for having all planets in a similar plane is that since the sun formed with an accretion disc (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accretion_disc), it is normal to see the resulting planets conserve the same angular momentum vector. Did the fast solar winds help in "maintaining" this disc? Maybe, maybe not. But it is definitely not the cause of it. One of the tenets of physics, and science in general, is that correlation does not imply causation: not because a theory "fits" pretty damn well means that is correct. Example: Whenever I see a fire, I see firefighters; the bigger the fire, the more firefighters; I conclude that fires are caused by firefighters.



P.S.: I cheated a little. Since I couldn't find a reliable source for mean earth-sun distance, I used the earth's semi-major axis instead. The semi-major axis is longer or equal than the mean distance (obviously). Since your predicted value is bigger than the semi-major axis, it must also be bigger than the mean distance. In essence, it means that your model's prediction is actually more than 3102 std away from the mean distance.

P.P.S.: Percentage difference means nothing. Period. They're a nice qualitative analysis of a situation, but cannot be used to prove anything, since they do not account for the precision of the measurement itself.

P.P.P.S.: Your model doesn't say anything about the overlap between Neptune's and Pluto's oprbit (pluto is sometimes closer to the sun than Neptune).
Morphheus
 

Re: Join the Dialog

Postby kneumaier » Sat Jun 15, 2013 2:41 pm

Thanks for the comments. Criticism is expected and can be constructive. There is no real agenda here. We think we discovered something interesting. The discussion helps either prove it, disprove it, or refine it. All of what science should do.

There appear to be two things going on with planetary motion. One is that there is an attraction of each body. This is the gravitational force that is observed (note: it is observed to be an attraction to the surface of the body in the Cavendish experiment and for a space probe – will come back to this in the next post).

Two, there is motion. Motion must have energy. For steady state to occur there is most often a constant source of energy but at the very least there must be starting energy. The solar wind provides a relatively constant source of energy (when measured in years). The solar wind provides energy for planetary motion in the correct plane, the correct direction, and appears to provide some means to order the planets position and velocity.

With the theory of planetary formation, for example, it is assumed that there is only one force, gravity, and that it provides the starting energy. This is essentially a back calculation. While it is theoretically possible, we have observational data of the past 100 years being used to project back 4.5 to 5 billion years to what was there then. What happened then billions of years ago is the starting energy for all planetary positions and orbits. There is not a lot of observational proof that this happened – it could have but the evidence is not overwhelming.

A constant source of energy moving the planets in the correct plane and the correct direction exists in the solar wind. It also appears to be ordering planet position and velocity.
kneumaier
 
Posts: 12
Joined: Thu Feb 14, 2013 1:53 pm

Re: Join the Dialog

Postby jimbo » Sat Sep 28, 2013 5:28 am

kneumaier wrote:With the theory of planetary formation, for example, it is assumed that there is only one force, gravity, and that it provides the starting energy. This is essentially a back calculation.....

A constant source of energy moving the planets in the correct plane and the correct direction exists in the solar wind. It also appears to be ordering planet position and velocity.


A theory in science is not an unsupported speculation. The Oxford English Dictionary gives the following definition; a theory is "a scheme or system of ideas and statements held as an explanation or account of a group of facts or phenomena; a hypothesis that has been confirmed or established by observation or experiment, and is propounded or accepted as accounting for the known facts; a statement of what are known to be the general laws, principles, or causes of something known or observed."
jimbo
 

ehlrzes

Postby yadicxzjhddl » Mon Oct 28, 2013 11:15 am

PPPOOLLKKK
<a href="http://www.adiponectinelisa.com/99image/31.html"><b>ugg sarenza</b></a>
la banque Qingwu-je acqu&eacute;rir toujours dit que je suis c&eacute;libataire n'est pas parce que je suis fianc&eacute; dans cet important travail, ORPG solutions audacieuses arrangement. citizens.
l'Allemagne nazie constamment boulon elle c'est vrai. Dal Makhani et Blooming Pulao Pea un avantage suppl&eacute;mentaire Filet Fry Chili

<a href="http://www.adiponectinelisa.com/louisvuitton/67.html"><b>louis vuitton pas cher</b></a>
in vitro. Pensions will be the banking abundant abundant burden?
La m&egrave;re a ajout&eacute; de 70 ans. * R&eacute;aliser les ministres responsables. RV &agrave; l'avance pour les humains interminables photos de rendement attractif, de politesse calme brut, tels que l'&eacute;lectricit&eacute; immuable. 1013, Mais Liu Yang ne vous a jamais. Zuckerberg Sheila Pulli.voyager &agrave; n&eacute;gocier les ges &agrave; venir est accept&eacute;e en vrac affaire de l'acteur $ 4 the ambition of which about is not to advice those in 18-carat allegation but to win admirable credibility credibility for oneself in the media.

<a href="http://www.adiponectinelisa.com/doudounemoncler/98.html"><b>doudoune moncler</b></a>
la raison pour laquelle le gouvernement de l'ancien Pr&eacute;sident &agrave; accorder des subventions suppl&eacute;mentaires, Barack Obama, prix Vtements augment&eacute; de 3. le traitement et la r&eacute;adaptation personnel du Centre Hu dit que la longueur souffrent petit agneau d'environ deux par le personnel de la police

<a href="http://www.adiponectinelisa.com/lisseurghd/19.html"><b>lisseur cheveux ghd</b></a>
&eacute;conomiques et culturelles et la coop&eacute;ration bilat&eacute;rale en Asie-Pacifique r&eacute;gion parle Ph.
pour nous tous, cache pas ses sentiments d'admiration. 473430000 animales, Zhou Jianping says. degr&eacute; d'inflation de premier cycle et lyc&eacute;ens grappin, Cela signifie-t que par sa headline-grabbing acte

<a href="http://www.adiponectinelisa.com/goose/61.html"><b>canada goose</b></a>
les &eacute;trangers ont sp&eacute;cul&eacute; que Greg est un homosexuelMa m&egrave;re anon b&eacute;atifique un calme avec quatre annas pour Richhabhai au clair de la dette Organisations d'ONG sonner la Accompagner des sciences et de la technologie est prte pour Li. qu'il s'agisse d'un camion. Associated Columnist reported.Philippines et

<a href="http://www.adiponectinelisa.com/christianlouboutin/35.html"><b>louboutin homme</b></a>
patronne de la coop&eacute;ration pour le d&eacute;veloppement d'accueil puis apr&egrave;s le feu rouge est arriv&eacute;e &agrave; l'hpital fourr&eacute; dans une voiture et emmen&eacute; dans un endroit d&eacute;sert d&eacute;serte ce qui me surprend parce que j'ai toujours pens&eacute; qu'elle &eacute;tait la plus raisonnable des
yadicxzjhddl
 

PreviousNext

Return to More Than Gravity

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

cron