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 Guest » Fri Mar 01, 2013 2:01 am

Gravity does not work at the really large scale. There is a large missing mass in the universe which has been explained by dark matter such as black holes


which has been explained by dark matter such as black holes



dark matter such as black holes




wtf did I just read.......


I hope you are in middle school because that is just a really really really incorrect statement. I mean, it's obvious that you're a crack pot to start with, but that is just sad.
Guest
 

Re: Join the Dialog

Postby guest X » Wed Mar 13, 2013 1:55 pm

There is virtually nothing sensible in this entire theory.

First, the solar wind does NOT exert large forces. Period. We know what forces it exerts---particle impact forces and electromagnetic forces. Both of these forces are measured directly by satellites. For example, a standard instrument called a "plasma spectrometer" routinely measures the flux of charged particles---essentially by measuring the energy required to stop them, hence the force they exert. Magnetometers measure the magnetic forces exerted by complex solar-wind waves. This is not a topic for guesswork and speculation, it's really just known. While your theory *guesses* that the forces are large, the actual known fact is that the forces are very very small.

Second: you are mistaken about our knowledge of gravity. We have done the equivalent of the Cavendish experiment on *any scale you could possibly ask for*. On Earth, Cavendish himself measured the gravitational pull of a (e.g.) 1-kg lead balls. Geologists routinely measure the gravitational pull of, e.g., million-kilogram ore bodies. Experts on geodesy can measure the gravitational pull of trillion-kilogram mountains and lakes. All of this agrees precisely with Einstein/Newton and disagrees with you---and that's all on Earth, where you can't even begin complaining about "charges". At the same time, in space, we have detailed measurements of objects (natural and artificial, spinning and non spinning, etc.) orbiting the Earth (no solar wind there, it's inside the magnetosphere), orbiting the Moon, the Sun, Mars, Venus, Mercury, Jupiter, the asteroid Eros, Titan (likewise, inside a magnetosphere, immune from the Solar Wind), the asteroid Hayabusa, etc. All of this data shows *precise* agreement with Newton/Kepler/Einstein, and shows nothing whatsoever agreeing with you.

Third: you are mistaken about the meaning of the Parker spiral. The solar wind's direction of motion is outward, radially. It does not have any sideways motion---even if such motion could push the planets around! (It is only the magnetic field vector direction that forms a spiral. Magnetic fields do not exert forces in the vector direction.)

Fourth: You are mistaken about the lack of orbits in the "fast solar wind". The space probe Ulysses was launched out of the plane of the solar system, over the north pole of the Sun. Its orbit behaved in the expected Newton/Kepler/Einstein fashion---obeying the pull of gravity and ignoring
the Solar Wind entirely.

Fifth: you are mistaken about how to translate "forces" into "orbits". You can't make something move in a circle by pushing it around the circle. That's how your intuition works in the presence of *friction*---lots of friction. Like, to make a boat travel in a circle, you need to push it continuously. There is no friction in space. In the absence of friction, to make something move in a circle, you need a force pulling it towards the center. If you want to invent a "viscous" version of the solar wind, like a whirlpool that carries everything along ... well, that's horribly inconsistent with the real world, where many different orbital shapes coexist. You know what's compatible with that? Newton's Law of Gravity.

To summarize: your explanations of "physics" (solar wind, forces, etc.) is pure science fiction. You made wrong guesses about the solar wind exerting forces, you made wrong guesses about the directions of those forces; you made wrong guesses about the the consequences of the wrong-guess-directions, you made wrong guesses about the data that does (or does not) exist verifying Newtonian gravity. Your explanation of planetary data is what we call "numerology". It is very, very easy to find integers that (meaninglessly) line up with anything whatsoever. You have found one such set. You can take any random facts from physics, biology, chemistry, Egyptology, astrology, etc., and "discover" similar nonsense. Congratulations! On one hand, it's the oldest mistake in the book, so don't feel too bad. On the other hand, how did you fall for it?
guest X
 

Re: Join the Dialog

Postby Kevin Neuamaier » Fri Mar 15, 2013 10:31 am

Thanks for your comments guest x – they are some of the better thought out ones we’ve received. To a number of your points:
1. The amount of energy in the solar wind, coronal mass ejections (CMEs) and solar energetic particles (SEPs) seems to us to be pretty substantial. To determine the power of a steady state wind in a fluid excluding charge, the power varies with the cube of the velocity. While it is correct to observe that there are few particles hitting the detector on a satellite as we get further out in the solar system, the particles are moving at exceptionally fast speeds, so they have lots of power. Here are a couple examples to help illustrate the point. Let’s take a look at the relative power of one stream of particles (assuming uncharged although we know the solar wind is very charged) on Earth on a windy day (33 mph), in a category 5 tornado; in the slow solar wind; in a CME; and in an SEP.

On a windy day the velocity might be 0.015 km/s (33mph); the tornado velocity is 0.15 km/s for just above a category 5 tornado; 450 km/s for the slow solar wind; 1,000 km/s for a fast CME; and 100,000 km/s for a SEP. The power varies by the cube of the velocity, so the category 5 tornado has 1,000 times the power of the windy day. The slow solar wind has 27 Billion times the power of the cat 5 tornado wind. The CME has 10 times the power of the solar wind and the SEP particle stream has the 10 million times the power of the slow solar wind or 3*10^20 more power than the stream of particles on a windy day (300 quintillion times more per particle in US units). This can be pretty powerful without a lot of particles.

As you correctly state, the interaction is not one of friction. It appears (and we don’t really know) that the interaction is an electric/magnetic one. Since these are all very highly charged particles the effect can be many orders of magnitude stronger than the power of non-charged particles calculated above.

CMEs are the most powerful explosions in our solar system, packing the force of a billion megaton nuclear bomb. To put this in perspective a 50 megaton bomb is the largest ever detonated on Earth and 5,000 megatons is approximately the global nuclear arsenal. 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. So we think that the solar wind has lots of force. The question of whether it has enough force to move the planets really gets the mechanism of how it interacts electrically/magnetically with the planets.

2. Cavendish is an experiment for the gravitational constant on Earth. It does not prove that the gravitational constant is universal just that this constant works for the matter on Earth. There are data as you say is very accurate for objects orbiting the Earth, Moon, other planets and moons. This does not however mean that the gravitational constant is universal. It does mean that part of the equation for gravity – that there is some force coming from the body and the inverse square of distance applies. The inverse square of distance is a function of geometry and would have to apply if the force is constant from the larger body (which is almost always a sphere or very close to it).

3. I agree with you that our language describing the solar wind could be better and more specific. There is really one component of the solar wind that is following our description. The super-fast charged particles called solar energetic particles (SEPs) move much faster than the solar wind and because they are charged move along rather than across magnetic field lines. So it is these particles that follow the spiral pattern of the magnetic fields. These SEPs can be moving at speeds of over 200 million miles per hour. These are the most energetic component of the solar wind and may well have the biggest impact as described in 1.


4. The point that we were trying to make was that there are no planets in anywhere other than the slow solar wind. We really don’t know why this is and you are right with regard to the orbit Ulysses – which is a good point. The solar wind reacts differently to planets that it does to space probes. For planets, the solar wind has a bow shock and flow around the planet.

5. There was no intent to invent a friction type mechanism. In rereading our work, I can see how you see that in some of the words used to describe this electric/magnetic interaction that we don’t fully understand could be viewed this way. We tried to put an everyday language description to the theory to make it more understandable to a larger number of people. Since there is not a lot of everyday discussion of plasma, we should do a better job in our descriptions.

Summary
We found that the planets locations and velocities are predicted very well by a power series (much better than Bode’s Law or anything else). The idea of looking for the explanation of why this is occurring follows very much the pattern of scientific inquiry. It appears that this is driven by the solar wind. In reading an English translation of Newton’s Principia, it appears that he followed the same path to come up with gravity. We just have the advantage of 400 years more of science and cool new data from probes like STEREO and Ulysses to get much enhanced observational data.
Thanks so much for your comments. They were very well thought out. We appreciate them.
Kevin Neuamaier
 

Re: Join the Dialog

Postby guest x » Fri Mar 15, 2013 4:15 pm

Kevin Neuamaier wrote:Thanks for your comments guest x – they are some of the better thought out ones we’ve received. To a number of your points:
1. The amount of energy in the solar wind, coronal mass ejections (CMEs) and solar energetic particles (SEPs) seems to us to be pretty substantial. To determine the power of a steady state wind in a fluid excluding charge, the power varies with the cube of the velocity. While it is correct to observe that there are few particles hitting the detector on a satellite as we get further out in the solar system, the particles are moving at exceptionally fast speeds, so they have lots of power.

Here are a couple examples to help illustrate the point. Let’s take a look at the relative power of one stream of particles (assuming uncharged although we know the solar wind is very charged) on Earth on a windy day (33 mph), in a category 5 tornado; in the slow solar wind; in a CME; and in an SEP.

Nonsense. I'm telling you that we know the forces --- to get a force, multiply the incoming momentum times the impact rate. For the solar wind, the force is something like 5 nanonewtons per square meter. Over the entire Earth that provides the force equivalent to about 1,000,000 Newtons. You think that "it seems to you" to be "pretty substantial"? Well, you're mistaken---a million Newtons is a *small* force. A largeish construction crane can exert 1,000,000 N. *each* Space Shuttle engine is about 1,000,000 N.

On a windy day the velocity might be 0.015 km/s (33mph); the tornado velocity is 0.15 km/s for just above a category 5 tornado; 450 km/s for the slow solar wind; 1,000 km/s for a fast CME; and 100,000 km/s for a SEP. The power varies by the cube of the velocity, so the category 5 tornado has 1,000 times the power of the windy day. The slow solar wind has 27 Billion times the power of the cat 5 tornado wind. The CME has 10 times the power of the solar wind and the SEP particle stream has the 10 million times the power of the slow solar wind or 3*1020 more power than the stream of particles on a windy day (300 quintillion times more per particle in US units). This can be pretty powerful without a lot of particles.


"velocity" is not the same thing as "power". Nor is "power" the same as "force". You are badly mistaken, and your mistakes are at the level of a high-school physics textbook. I thought Gerhard had an MA in physics?

As you correctly state, the interaction is not one of friction. It appears (and we don’t really know) that the interaction is an electric/magnetic one. Since these are all very highly charged particles the effect can be many orders of magnitude stronger than the power of non-charged particles calculated above.


Nope. Forces exerted via electromagnetic means are not orders of magnitude larger than forces exerted through mechanical or other means. I have no idea where you got this idea.

CMEs are the most powerful explosions in our solar system, packing the force of a billion megaton nuclear bomb. To put this in perspective a 50 megaton bomb is the largest ever detonated on Earth and 5,000 megatons is approximately the global nuclear arsenal. 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. So we think that the solar wind has lots of force. The question of whether it has enough force to move the planets really gets the mechanism of how it interacts electrically/magnetically with the planets.


It's a notable amount of energy by Earth standards, but a negligible one by cosmic standards. (This is physics; put numbers to it.) And it's spread over vast regions of empty space; very, very little of a CME's energy goes anywhere near anything.

2. Cavendish is an experiment for the gravitational constant on Earth. It does not prove that the gravitational constant is universal just that this constant works for the matter on Earth. There are data as you say is very accurate for objects orbiting the Earth, Moon, other planets and moons. This does not however mean that the gravitational constant is universal.


All of the data is *consistent* with the constant being universal. Why are you unable to find a deviation? Why can't you find *one* example of a planet, satellite, or gravity-experiment whose accelerations differ from GM/r^2?

4. The point that we were trying to make was that there are no planets in anywhere other than the slow solar wind. We really don’t know why this is and you are right with regard to the orbit Ulysses – which is a good point. The solar wind reacts differently to planets that it does to space probes. For planets, the solar wind has a bow shock and flow around the planet.


a) There's a well-known planet formation theory that *does* tell us why the planets are in a disk. Do you know about it? If not, why not?
b) "The solar wind has a bow shock"? No it doesn't---only for objects with magnetic fields. Not Mars, not Venus, not Mercury.
c) If there's a totally different law governing "planets" vs. "space probes", why isn't this visible in the data? Why do space probes and planets obey *exactly* the same equations-of-motion, exactly as though gravity were universal?

5. There was no intent to invent a friction type mechanism. In rereading our work, I can see how you see that in some of the words used to describe this electric/magnetic interaction that we don’t fully understand could be viewed this way. We tried to put an everyday language description to the theory to make it more understandable to a larger number of people. Since there is not a lot of everyday discussion of plasma, we should do a better job in our descriptions.


No, no, I suggested the friction-type mechanism with no prompting from you. I was trying to be helpful, because a friction-y version (while wrong) is far less obviously wrong than your solar-wind guesswork.
guest x
 

Re: Join the Dialog

Postby guest x » Fri Mar 15, 2013 11:48 pm

Sorry, I mis-closed a quote tag in the post above.
guest x
 

Re: Join the Dialog

Postby Luke » Wed Apr 10, 2013 5:38 pm

Sorry guys, I know nothing about physics and even I can see this theory has some pretty massive holes in it....
Luke
 

Re: Join the Dialog

Postby Kevin Neumaier » Thu May 02, 2013 6:52 am

Both Mercury and Venus have a bow shock despite not having much of a magnetic field. So in all cases, the solar wind is not hitting the planets directly. To assume that an energy transfer would occur like a billiard ball collision (F=mv) is incorrect. We think the instantaneous transfer of energy is best modeled by using kinetic energy (F=1/2mv^2). The force of the solar wind is a mix of forces – the solar wind which is constantly acting on the planets, and coronal mass ejections (CMEs) and solar energetic particles (SEPs) which are acting over time but in short pulses. We believe that the kinetic energy of these over time (power) is the appropriate way to model the force they could exert on the planets. The exact interaction of this transfer of energy is somewhat unknown.

The other and maybe most important point is that the components of the solar wind are forces acting on the planets. They seem to correlate very well with the position of the planets, their velocities, and direction of orbit. These forces in addition to the attraction of the planets to the Sun (gravity) may better explain what is going on than the assumption in many theories that gravity is the only force acting on the big bodies in the universe.
Kevin Neumaier
 

Re: Join the Dialog

Postby landru27 » Fri May 03, 2013 3:20 pm

Kevin Neumaier wrote:The other and maybe most important point is that the components of the solar wind are forces acting on the planets. They seem to correlate very well with the position of the planets, their velocities, and direction of orbit.


You have asserted this correlation many times in these posts. In your paper, you describe it as a "tremendous consistency".

In fact, the observed values differ from predicted values by anywhere from -10.7% to 5.5% (using your own numbers).

If you allow that kind of variance between predicted and observed values, well, you can postulate anything you want to. When trying to establish natural laws, you need much, much better precision than that. With the kind of low precision you tolerate, I could -- literally -- establish a geometric relationship among the phone numbers of a randomly selected page from the phone book.

You also compare your "law" to Bode's Law (a.k.a., the Titius–Bode Law). That's a low bar; the Titus-Bode Law is far from accepted as a natural law. For one, it fails to place Neptune and Pluto. For another, Saturn's rings don't obey it at all. The moons of Jupiter and Saturn don't follow Bode's Law. The planets that we are finding around other stars are a mix of ones that might and ones that don't follow it.

Your own data are not enough to be the basis for any robust law of nature.
landru27
 

Re: Join the Dialog

Postby landru27 » Fri May 03, 2013 3:46 pm

Kevin Neuamaier wrote:On a windy day the velocity might be 0.015 km/s (33mph); the tornado velocity is 0.15 km/s for just above a category 5 tornado; 450 km/s for the slow solar wind; 1,000 km/s for a fast CME; and 100,000 km/s for a SEP.


First, a tornado is not a planet-moving force, so it's not at all clear why you are starting there for a point of comparison. The amount of power in a tornado is irrelevant in a discussion of planetary motion.

Second, air and the Solar corona differ in density by many orders of magnitude, and that's near the Sun. By the time a CME reaches Earth, the density difference is orders of magnitude more.

Your argument is like saying that a sneeze can knock over a battleship because a lead pellet dropped one millimeter above the deck make a barely audible ping.
landru27
 

Re: Join the Dialog

Postby landru27 » Fri May 03, 2013 4:25 pm

Kevin Neumaier wrote:We don't really address how the stars and planets were formed. ... 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.


You cannot simply ignore the things that took place before people started making and recording observations, unless you are comfortable describing a universe that for all intents and purposes came into existence the moment a person somewhere wrote down an observation.

In other words, a theory that describes how things are but which cannot survive questions about how things came to be how they are is not a very useful nor a very interesting theory.

Also, your argument in your paper relies heavily on the non-randomness of the planets all orbiting near the plane of the equator of the Sun, which assumes a straight comparison with the planets orbiting at any old angle. You are saying that because of the solar wind planets end up around the solar equator and not elsewhere. i.e., you are saying that without the solar wind we would in fact see stars with planets orbiting at random angles and at random distances. By this, you are offering your own theory of planet formation, or at least you are putting limits on what is possible. The most significant one (in terms of implications) is that the solar wind -- and, but extension, the Sun -- was already in place by the time the planets formed.

This means that this whole idea of the Sun and the planets forming out of the same gigantic cloud of hydrogen (and trace elements) cannot possibly be true, up-ending a LOT more than just current ideas about gravity.

And the wonderful thing about the theory of gravity is that it gives us a coherent explanation of both the formation and the current steady state of the solar system. If gravity is an accurate theory, we don't need observational data from 5 billion years ago! In fact, one of its strengths is that it holds together even if we wind the clock back that far -- and farther.

Finally, if you are going to discount everything that cannot be observed because it happened before human history, then any explanation of things is as good as any other. With that kind of magic in operation in the world, why bother looking for natural laws at all? The solar system could just suddenly be jumbled up at any moment, or disappear as suddenly as it might have appeared, and all we could do about it is shrug and say, "Not sure why that happened, but it did."
landru27
 

PreviousNext

Return to More Than Gravity

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

cron