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 Steven K. » Thu Feb 28, 2013 1:58 am

Sorry, that you're should be a your.
Steven K.
 

Re: Join the Dialog

Postby n33 » Thu Feb 28, 2013 7:24 am

Steven K. wrote:You're point about the planets orbiting within 20 degrees of the slow solar wind is very wrong. Yes they are mostly within 20 degrees of the ecliptic but that's different. I'll draw a picture to help show this.Image

Now that Y distance is very large. That's the vertical distance from the sun's equator. You want to know what number that actual is? Well let's do some simple trig:

1.482×10^8 kilometers * sin(7.155 degrees) = 1.846×10^7 kilometers

That's about 27 times the solar radius. Now obviously this would be very small compared to the horizontal distance. But it is no where along the sun's equator. In fact it is about 13 suns up.

Now that's just one of the MANY issues with your "paper." There are way too many misrepresentations and misunderstandings present in your theory for me to go over. I suggest you take some time to learn a bit more about astronomy and physics. Because you have a long way to go.


add pluto with a 17° inclination. (which you included as a planet)

also an excentricity of 0.2 does not hold up well against a discrete solution.

basically the entire hypothesis loses ground and breaks down after you breach a certain granulatity.
n33
 

Re: Join the Dialog

Postby E. Stronge » Thu Feb 28, 2013 4:26 pm

Hey there, couple questions.

How does your theory explain formation of stars and planets? I noticed in your theory you said there was no explanation using gravity as to why planets orbit in the same plane. Secondly, how does your theory explain hydrostatic equilibrium of stars without using gravity?

Thanks in advance.
E. Stronge
 

Re: Join the Dialog

Postby Kevin Neumaier » Thu Feb 28, 2013 5:08 pm

Thanks for the comment.

All of the planets orbit the Sun in approximately the same plane which is 20 degrees on either side of the Sun's equator. The Sun is a sphere, so as one looks at 20 degrees out further into the solar system, it is a larger amount of space, but still 20 degrees out of 90.

The solar wind is also dramatically slower in region the 20 degrees on either side of the Sun's equator (we think it is very significant that ratio of the fast/slow solar wind speed is 1.387^2 - a power series of what orders the planets). The solar wind also goes out radially. There is a space at approximately 20 degrees where the fast and slow solar wind interact. The planetary orbits stay within this slow solar wind and don't go into the fast solar wind.
Kevin Neumaier
 

Re: Join the Dialog

Postby Kevin Neumaier » Thu Feb 28, 2013 5:27 pm

How does your theory explain formation of stars and planets?

- We don't really address how the stars and planets were formed. We really just looked at observational data and when one looks at the current data - there is a better explanation than current theory, which we think we offer. There is a theory that the planets rotate around the Sun in the same direction as a result of their formation and reaching steady state over 5 billion years. The problem we see with this is that there is no observational data to support this theory. So for the age old question of how and why the stars and planets were formed, for now, we still go with God. Now that the Sun and planets are here we see observational data that the planets in our solar system are ordered like an atom in they have discrete orbits that appear to be driven by the solar wind.
Kevin Neumaier
 

Re: Join the Dialog

Postby Kevin Neumaier » Thu Feb 28, 2013 6:41 pm

Thanks for your questions. Here is a try to answer your second one : Secondly, how does your theory explain hydrostatic equilibrium of stars without using gravity?

Again, we tried to make use of observational data to draw conclusions. In principle, hydrostatic equilibrium works but we we question the data that is used to determine if it in fact is at work as applied to the Sun and stars. The observational reality is that we know almost nothing about the core of any planet including Earth. Mankind has drilled down about 10 miles into the crust of our planet - about 1/4 of 1% of the way to the center of the Earth. We have much less real observation of every other planet and have never been on the Sun.

Much of the beliefs about what is in the planets core and the interior of the Sun are based on the equation for gravity. We think that there are a lot reasons why the 400 year old equation for gravity is wrong. 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.
Kevin Neumaier
 

Re: Join the Dialog

Postby physicsgrad » Thu Feb 28, 2013 10:25 pm

we learned in quantum feild theoty tat everythin iwth the ratio 1.38 is log of natural mechanics. i am graguate student in physics and wold love to compile with u
physicsgrad
 

Re: Join the Dialog

Postby Steven K. » Fri Mar 01, 2013 12:46 am

Kevin Neumaier wrote:How does your theory explain formation of stars and planets?

- We don't really address how the stars and planets were formed. We really just looked at observational data and when one looks at the current data - there is a better explanation than current theory, which we think we offer. There is a theory that the planets rotate around the Sun in the same direction as a result of their formation and reaching steady state over 5 billion years. The problem we see with this is that there is no observational data to support this theory. So for the age old question of how and why the stars and planets were formed, for now, we still go with God. Now that the Sun and planets are here we see observational data that the planets in our solar system are ordered like an atom in they have discrete orbits that appear to be driven by the solar wind.


We do though... It's called observations of other star formation. We see a protoplanetery disk around those stars. We also see planets forming in those disks.

The observational reality is that we know almost nothing about the core of any planet including Earth



Except we do have data... Have you ever heard of P and S waves from earthquakes. We know by how the waves are refracted what the earth is made of.

y the equation for gravity, the Sun is much less dense than the Earth. In order to explain this, hydrostatic equilibrium is used.


Except that is not why... It seems like you do not have a good understanding about the process. It is how the sun keeps itself from blowing itself apart from the energy released from fusion. Gravity is pushing back on this energy. Also how would you explain supernovae?

Another thing, how would you explain gravity maps of planets? And you still do not have a good explanation of orbits of satellites. Also you do not have a good explanation of retrograde motion. I hope that you see by the many holes in your theory you come to realize that just maybe you do not have a proper understanding of what has been, through the process of hard scientific studies, found accurate.
Steven K.
 

Re: Join the Dialog

Postby wat » Fri Mar 01, 2013 1:20 am

have you ever taken a physics course?
wat
 

Re: Join the Dialog

Postby wat » Fri Mar 01, 2013 1:47 am

Kevin Neumaier wrote:Much of the beliefs about what is in the planets core and the interior of the Sun are based on the equation for gravity.



Uh... not really. Spectroscopic methods return information about celestial objects. Especially for the sun's case the emission spectrum tells you about the composition. In fact, you can reproduce most of the known measurements for which you claim gravity is needed for using alternative methods... i.e. the equations of inertia and the other 3 force equations in the general matter case (they all have mass).

Through these measurements we find out that all the "m"s in these equations are identical (to a correcting factor). Literally day 1 of your first mechanics course you learn this...

So... you can sit down now :oops:
wat
 

PreviousNext

Return to More Than Gravity

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

cron