View Single Post
  #1  
Old April 9th 13, 08:52 PM posted to sci.physics,sci.astro,sci.math
Archimedes Plutonium[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 858
Default Binary stars prove that Gravity-cells exist Chapt16.15 Gravity Cells#1481 ATOM TOTALITY 5th ed

Now I thought perhaps I could validate the Titius Bode Rule as a form
of the Balmer Rydberg spectral lines of physics not only by the
planets around the Sun, but by binary stars. Trouble is that binary
stars revolve around a center of mass, and not like our planets around
the center of the Sun.

But I still maybe able to show that binary stars show a doubling
effect in distance the same way that the Titius Bode Rule is a
doubling in distance for the planets.

So far, I have not spied a data filled report on binaries with a
doubling in distance orbits. But I will keep looking.

But what I did discover, is that Binary Stars are a supportive truth
that Gravity Cells exist.

Now some would and could be skeptical that Mercury with its 47km/sec
speed whilst the Sun is 220km/sec speed would have the Sun flying away
from Mercury and have Mercury end up in the Kuiper belt some 10 years
hence, if not for the Sun's gravity cell.

Neither Newtonian gravity nor General Relativity can explain how
Mercury going at 47km/sec can be bound to the Sun going at 220km/sec.
If Mercury was going 267km/sec, then Newtonian gravity and General
Relativity would be acceptable. But that is not the case.

So what keeps Mercury bound to the Sun, is that the Sun has a gravity
cell of the Maxwell Equations. A gravity cell is space itself and is
composed of magnetic monopoles. The Sun bends Space around it, and
bends it so much that it is a sphere shape stretching out to the Oort
Cloud, and in this manner, you can have Mercury going at 47 km/sec
while the Sun is going 220km/sec, because the gravity cell is itself
rotating about an axis. This rotation compensates for the speed of
Mercury so that it would be 267km/sec.

But I explained all of this in prior posts.

What is different here, today, is that Binary Stars need that same
explanation of a Gravity Cell in order to even have a concept of
"Center of Mass" for binaries because that center-of-mass is just
empty space.

So when Stars become binary stars, the Gravity Cell is not the center
of one star and the center of the second star, but the gravity cell
has its own center in empty space.

So without Gravity Cells in Newtonian gravity or General Relativity,
we would not have Mercury bound to the Sun but be abandoned by the Sun
flying away at 220km/sec, and we would not have the existence of
Binary Stars, because a center of mass has to be a gravity-cell.

So binary stars prove that Gravity-Cells exist.

Now I will still hunt to see if binary star orbits are quantized into
a doubling of distance.

--

Science newsgroups like sci.physics, sci.chem, sci.bio,
sci.geo.geology, sci.med,
sci.paleontology, sci.astro, sci.physics.electromag need to
be hosted the same as what Drexel University hosts sci.math as the
Math Forum. The world has plenty of good colleges and Universities to
host each of the science newsgroups. Divide them up and spread them
out. Science belongs in
education, not in private companies trying to make more money. People
reading science do not need silly ads continually distracting them.
Google and Bing are ill suited to host science newsgroups, not just
advertisement, but because of three major flaws: (1) search engine
bombing (2) fake names allowed (3) no limit of posts per day. When you
have those three evils, the signal to noise ratio is off the charts.
In the old days, before May 2012 where Google had author-search,
Google was good, but now that Google does not even have author archive
search, Google is no better than a crude chat room.
Now Drexel's Math Forum allows fake names and no limit of posts per
day, but should they adopt those two rules, their Math Forum could
rival and out-best a peer reviewed journal of mathematics, both in
truth and diversity of ideas. Most would say that peer reviewed
journals are the best forum for any science, but that is not true
since peer reviewed journals are filled with Doppler redshift, Big
Bang and black holes and when found wrong, means those journals were
nearly 100% wrong in all they had published. If peer reviewed journals
had been around in medicine, they would have had you believe that
leeches and blood-letting were cures for ailments. Science routinely
goes around throwing out onto the trash pile the peer reviewed science
of past by gone eras. The flaw of peer reviewed is that it is too
closed and not open, too much clubhouse, and stifles the new and true.

Only Drexel's Math Forum has done a excellent, simple and fair
author- 
archiving of AP sci.math posts since May 2012 as seen 
he

http://mathforum.org/kb/profile.jspa?userID=499986

Archimedes Plutonium
http://www.iw.net/~a_plutonium
whole entire Universe is just one big atom
where dots of the electron-dot-cloud are galaxies