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.

Join the Dialog

Postby kneumaier » Thu Feb 14, 2013 1:55 pm

The More than Gravity team is inviting the broad scientific community to read the More than Gravity theory and join the dialog in exploring our concept of solar winds as it relates to gravity.
kneumaier
 
Posts: 12
Joined: Thu Feb 14, 2013 1:53 pm

Re: Join the Dialog

Postby ScottMC » Thu Feb 14, 2013 2:11 pm

The solar system has a trajectory, possibly an orbit(?), and travels through areas of space with different amounts of over-all charge. Think for example of the difference between the ISM charge at the centre of a galaxy and that at the outer rim. Smaller variations would occur at all scales. - Does a varied local charge environment affect the spiral?
ScottMC
 

Re: Join the Dialog

Postby kneumaier » Thu Feb 14, 2013 2:12 pm

Interesting thought Scott. We didn't really study the solar wind at the edge of the solar system or above the Sun's poles - there just isn't much observational data. It does seem that in the ecliptic region there is probably the most rotational energy, due to the frozen magnetic lines and the nature of CME pulses.

As we get closer to the Sun's poles, there is probably more constant force due to the faster solar wind. The solar wind would be pushing out and therefore repelling other solar systems. If the solar systems rotated around on the ecliptic regions, they might form bigger and bigger concentric circles.


Thanks for the comment,
Kevin
kneumaier
 
Posts: 12
Joined: Thu Feb 14, 2013 1:53 pm

Re: Join the Dialog

Postby KevinS » Thu Feb 14, 2013 2:13 pm

Have you guys ever heard of the Cavendish experiment? It's the experiment that accurately observed the gravitational constant. I wonder why you did not even mention it in your theory.

Also you said all the moons are tidally locked. This is not true. Hyperion for one is not and many of Jupiter's outer moons are not.
KevinS
 

Re: Join the Dialog

Postby kneumaier » Thu Feb 14, 2013 2:14 pm

The Cavendish experiment does a good job of measuring the small force that a couple big lead balls can exert on a smaller dumbell from a distance. It measures a force and from that determines a gravitional constant (based on the equation for gravity being correct). The idea that this experiment determines the density of the Earth is based on the equation for gravity being correct. And the idea that this gravitational constant is universal is just an assumption (which as you read in our theory, is one that we don't think is correct). To answer your question of why we didn't include this in the theory - mostly just one of space - there were lots of things that we could have added but we didn't want to make it too long. By the way, thanks for reading through it and commenting.

On the moons, we should say that all significant moons in the solar system are in locked orbit. Hyperion, as you mention, is something of an oddity among moons in our solar system in that it is not spherical and has a chaotic orbit. I've heard that although it has a chaotic orbit yet is more or less also in locked orbit. (I'm not sure if this is true - if you know or have a better source please let me know; Thanks).

The outer moons of Jupiter that have been found in the past few years are very small, often only several km or smaller in diameter - so the question of if they are really moons is somewhat open in my mind. The moons of Jupiter in locked orbit represent over 99.999% of the volume of moons that orbit Jupiter.
kneumaier
 
Posts: 12
Joined: Thu Feb 14, 2013 1:53 pm

Re: Join the Dialog

Postby KevinS » Thu Feb 14, 2013 2:15 pm

I thank you for responding to my comment. I have a few other things to bring up and expand on.

The outer moons of jupiter though making up a small amount of mass still orbit jupiter. How can orbits of these moons and different satellites be explained without gravity?

And what about bodies in the solar system that revolve around the sun in the opposite direction of the planets? Many comets for example follow this path including the famous Halley's comet.

You also bring up why planets would get more dense as they get larger. I would suggest further researching hydrostatic equilibrium for a good explanation.

I also have calculations for the amount of momentum that CME's impart on the Earth. (These are very rough calculations but it's to show the orders of magnitude). The average velocity of a CME is about 5*10^5 m/s. The average amount of mass is about 1.6*10^12 kg. This gives momentum of about 8 × 10^17 m kg / s. If this were modeled as a perfect collision with the earth weighing 5.97219 × 10^24 kg. This would just barely move the earth 1 x 10^-7 m/s. Or about 10 feet per year. This however is a perfect momentum transfer, the actual value would be much less as the CME doesn't actually hit the earth but is deflected around due to the magnetosphere.

It seems intuitive that these massive explosions contain massive amounts of energy. And they do, however the earth is big and massive.

You are however correct in assuming that Newton's Gravitational equation is wrong. It is wrong! It's a good approximation but nevertheless it is still wrong. This is where Einstein comes in with general relativity. Now this is a very complicated subject to explain in a comment so I urge you to further research it yourself. But I tell you it explains a whole lot elegantly. It is also backed up very well with evidence. Though we have not observed any gravitational waves this in no way discredits that these don't exist. Gravitational lensing is a really good and neat example of it.

You should also note that the neutrino traveling faster than light was due to a faulty cable. The cosmic speed limit is still in place.

Now before you discredit general relativity (which you do in your paper) I strongly urge you to read about the equivalence theorem and more on the basis of it. Especially the math of it.

What you did with planets being quantized looks to me as if you plotted the planets and then found a logarithmic relationship by fitting a curve and then using that very curve to "guess" where the planets would be. Your methodology seems to be flawed in this case.

In Conclusion: The universe is a wonderful weird place where understanding it is one of life's greatest odysseys. I love it when people devote a lot of time trying to understand it. However your paper has a lot of logical leaps that would not be accepted in any scientific review. In fact there are much more elegant ways to describe the universe that have been vigorously tested. Your paper fails to mention important scientific ideas and dismisses theories without going in depth into the math. You fail to bring up vital things about general relativity. I do not know if this was to save space or just a general misunderstanding of the theory. If it was to save space then I'm sorry, but you're going to have to go a lot further and make it long and discuss the true inner workings of general relativity and how it's wrong.

Also you are a wonderful person. Just a little misinformed. :)
KevinS
 

Re: Join the Dialog

Postby kneumaier » Thu Feb 14, 2013 2:16 pm

This may take a couple comments to respond to your questions, and maybe a couple days too. First, let me mention the moons and force at a distance. As we discussed partially, the Cavendish experiment determined a weak force at a distance. Coulomb later used the same equipment to measure the force at a distance from electric and magnetic charges. Here the charge is more observable than gravity and on the surface of the object. There is the same force relationship to the inverse square of the distance (by geometry). When an object has the same charge as the other body it repels and different signed charges attract.

When we found that all of the significant moons in the solar system are in locked orbits, this seemed to make a lot of sense. Since a steady stream of highly charged solar wind particles interact with the planets and the moons, it seemed logical that they would charge the planet and the side of the moon not facing the planet with the same charge. If the moon wanted to show its dark side to the planet, it would be repelled as it would have the same charge. The planet and the moon would also attract one another. We are at the limit of having good data on what is physically happening to the different sides of the moons, so this is our best guess.

We also found it surprising that pretty much the more moons a planet has, the faster it rotates. We guess that there is some sort of attraction of the moons and planets and the solar wind acts on the moment arm of the planet moon combinations. This is an area for some more research.

To find a number of very small moons orbiting Jupiter not in locked orbit quite a distance from the planet is not surprising. We believe in force at a distance (just not the equation for gravity). Since these moons are very small bodies and the distance from the planet farther than all Jupiter’s large moons, these would have much smaller attractive and repulsive forces that may be keeping the moons in locked orbit.

Thanks for your comments and the statement on the neutrino traveling faster than light (clearly an error on our part to still have that in there). We will take it out in the next version of the web site that will be up in a few weeks.
kneumaier
 
Posts: 12
Joined: Thu Feb 14, 2013 1:53 pm

Re: Join the Dialog

Postby kneumaier » Thu Feb 14, 2013 2:17 pm

On the subject of the influence of the solar wind and CMEs on planetary motion, there are multiple things at work. There is a steady solar wind constantly flowing to and around the planet (these follow the magnetic flux lines and travel in the direction of the orbit of the planets). There are CMEs that occur at varying times from several a day to once in 5 days and there are the interaction of high speed, very highly charged particles. If this interaction was simply a collision or billiard ball type reaction, you are right, it would have little impact on the orbit.

The particles in the solar wind are charged and it behaves like a compressible fluid. There are not direct particle collisions, but rather Coulomb interactions which are many orders of magnitude stronger in force.
kneumaier
 
Posts: 12
Joined: Thu Feb 14, 2013 1:53 pm

Re: Join the Dialog

Postby Susan Dunkle » Wed Feb 27, 2013 11:46 am

Kevin,
The new site looks great. I am enjoying re-reading your work.

Best,
Susan
Susan Dunkle
 

Re: Join the Dialog

Postby Steven K. » Thu Feb 28, 2013 1:56 am

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.
Steven K.
 

Next

Return to More Than Gravity

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

cron