A Space & astronomy forum. SpaceBanter.com

Go Back   Home » SpaceBanter.com forum » Astronomy and Astrophysics » Astronomy Misc
Site Map Home Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Binary stars prove that Gravity-cells exist Chapt16.15 Gravity Cells#1481 ATOM TOTALITY 5th ed



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #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
  #2  
Old April 9th 13, 09:23 PM posted to sci.physics,sci.astro,sci.math
Archimedes Plutonium[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 858
Default Tifft quantized galaxy speeds Binary stars prove thatGravity-cells exist Chapt16.15 Gravity Cells #1482 ATOM TOTALITY 5th ed

On Apr 9, 2:52Â*pm, Archimedes Plutonium
wrote:
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 Â*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.


Alright, good, for I am going to have a tremendous reduction on the
topic of Tifft quantized galaxy speeds and the topic of Galactic
Mapping as by Jarrett and Juric of the 4th edition of this book.

In the 4th edition I had many posts of Tifft quantized galaxy speeds
and Jarrett and Juric maps of the galaxies.

You see, when Doppler redshift is no longer true physics because it
violates Special Relativity, then the Doppler Redshift is caused by
diffraction or refraction of light as it travels in curved and bent
space.

Now Hubble discovered redshift but he himself came to despise the
redshift as a distance measure.

The redshift measures only the degree of bending Space.

So that when Tifft was looking for a quantization of Doppler Redshift,
he truly did find a quantization because along any smooth surface that
is uniformly bent, you will find lines of curvature which has galaxies
and which would register the same redshift because they lie on that
same curvature.

But what is more important is the quantization of orbits of planets,
stars and even galaxies. With gravity being EM-gravity, we have
quantization of distances that planets orbit stars and distances that
stars orbit other stars. We have quantization of distances that
galaxies are separated from other galaxies.

So in this edition, the 5th edition, I need no longer dwell on Tifft
because Doppler Redshift was never true physics anyway.

And as for galaxy mapping of Jarrett and Juric, theirs is all based on
Doppler Redshift and thus all is rotten and almost worthless to
consider in science.

When the Maxwell Equations are the axioms over all of physics and
gravity is EM-gravity, then redshift is a curvature indicator, not a
distance measure. And so the Galactic Mapping in EM-gravity is more
like that of a patterned orderly map resembling Spectral Lines in
physics where galaxies are spaced almost like fruit tree orchards.

--

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

 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Solar gravity cell spins at 72.5 days for 1 revolution; Modern dayAntikythera Mechanism Chapt16.15 Gravity Cells #1473 ATOM TOTALITY 5th ed Archimedes Plutonium[_2_] Astronomy Misc 2 April 6th 13 07:10 AM
may have found a mechanism for Pulsar stars Chapt16.15 Gravity Cells#1472 ATOM TOTALITY 5th ed Archimedes Plutonium[_2_] Astronomy Misc 0 April 6th 13 03:30 AM
110 days for a complete Solar gravity cell rotation Chapt16.15Gravity Cells #1469 ATOM TOTALITY 5th ed Archimedes Plutonium[_2_] Astronomy Misc 0 April 5th 13 06:08 PM
Table of Resonances Chapt16.15 Gravity Cells #1455 ATOM TOTALITY 5th ed Archimedes Plutonium[_2_] Astronomy Misc 1 April 3rd 13 08:10 PM
Gravity cells to patch up the Sun's 220km/sec Chapt16.14 mathematicsof the force of gravity #1446 ATOM TOTALITY 5th ed Archimedes Plutonium[_2_] Astronomy Misc 1 March 31st 13 08:19 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 12:03 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 SpaceBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.