|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
binary stars with a Titius Bode type of rule; Sir Isaac NewtonChapt16.15 Gravity Cells #1483 ATOM TOTALITY 5th ed
Now in my search to find a doubling in orbit distances of a collection
of binary stars, I came across an interesting fact. The fact is that binary stars revolve around a center of mass, but we can treat that center of mass as if one of the stars is stationary with 0 orbital speed and then we deal with just the orbit of the second star. Now what attracted me to that idea is that Newtonian gravity and General Relativity assumes the Sun is stationary and neglects the fact it is moving at 220km/sec while Mercury is moving at 47km/sec. So both Newtonian gravity and General Relativity fail as theory, and the way it is patched up is that the Sun is given a gravity-cell that rotates on the axis and delivers Mercury the needed input to get it to circle around the Sun even though the Sun is moving in a straight line of 220 while Mercury at 47. So, to patch up the facts of Sun and Mercury, I needed a gravity cell with rotation. But can this other mechanism patch up the 220 versus 47? Can we picture the Sun revolving around Mercury and Mercury revolving around the Sun in the manner of binary stars revolving around one another? Or is our knowledge and understanding of binary star revolving flawed because we have the wrong gravity? In reading about binary stars on a website, they pointed out that if one star is kept stationary, then we transfer all the orbital speed to the other star. Now is that mechanism the same as the mechanism I offered of a gravity cell with rotation? So are these two equivalent: 1) two bodies in gravitational bounded orbits around a center of mass are the same as when one body is fixed stationary and the other revolving with the combined orbital parameters of both equivalent to 2) two bodies in gravitational bounded orbits where both bodies have a linear nonzero speed and where the largest mass body has a rotational gravity cell that compensates for the slower moving body. Alright, I finally found some Titius Bode rule numbers or some Balmer- Rydberg numbers in binary stars, although they are not doubling numbers. --- quoting from http://heasarc.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/ob...umerology.html For example, the neutron star binary Cygnus X-2 has an orbital period of 9.8 days. Boyd and Smale found that the time between minimum X-ray brightness is always a whole-number multiple of 9.8 days -- for example 77.7 days, 58.8 days or 49 days, which are 8, 6 and 5 times 9.8. However the multiple that will come next cannot be predicted. Boyd and Smale also looked at 2 black hole binary systems, Cygnus X-3 and LMC X-3, and found that while some integer multiple relation did exist for these systems, the integer multiple was not related to the orbital period. --- end quote --- Alright so now, if we say a neutron star is not a neutron star ( in New Physics, we cannot violate the Maxwell Equations) but rather, the X-rays are caused by the clashing together of the magnetic monopole gravity-cells of the two stars, and simply call them X-ray stars. And if we call the alleged black-hole another X-ray star (when stars clash together their gravity cells, they convert gravitational energy into X- rays). So now, we have cleaned up Messrs. Boyd and Smale old physics and can begin to discuss the X-ray quantization. So in New Physics, there are no neutron stars and no black-holes, but these are merely star binaries with clashing together of their gravity cells. Gravity is EM-gravity and so there is a lot of energy involved. It is not a doubling but it is patterned much like some spectral lines of 77.7 to 58.8 to 49. Let us stop and reflect for a moment, what would have happened if say Newton in the 1600s had been born to a Solar System composed of binary stars that revolved around a center of mass. Would Newton have given science his law of gravity? You see, the inverse square law of Newtonian gravity is really the Coulomb law, with magnetic monopoles and they can handle center of mass. But Newton's law of gravity is 10^40 weaker of a force than is Coulomb law. So could Newton in the 1600's have come up with the force of gravity? No, for he would never have been able to make the mathematics work for two stars in motion around a center of mass. The reason Newton could make his law work for the Sun is that he assumed the Sun had 0 speed, yet it really has 220km/sec. So if Newton had known in the 1600s that the speed of the Sun is 220 while Mercury is 47 and Earth 29 and Jupiter 13km/sec, Newton would still have failed to make his law work. If Newton had lived on a binary star system in 1600s, he would have failed to make a gravity and would have had to wait until the 1800s when electricity and magnetism were compiled into the Maxwell Equations. And then applying the Maxwell Equations as EM-gravity, he would have found the universal law of gravity as a EM-force and thus solve the 220 versus 49. -- 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 and nagging 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, you could follow an author. Now that Google no longer keeps an author archive the newsgroups are nothing more than chat rooms. 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 the case because the greatest hindrance of peer reviewed journals is to entrench the wrong and muddle headed old science, for one only needs to read the history of Continental Drift, or now a days the history of autism and alzheimers as metal poisoning mercury diseases. Peer reviewed journals often entrench wrong science.
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 for decades. 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 |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Titius Bode Rule is a Balmer Rydberg rule Chapt16.16 deriving BalmerRydberg from Maxwell Equations #1479 ATOM TOTALITY 5th ed | Archimedes Plutonium[_2_] | Astronomy Misc | 1 | April 9th 13 08:02 AM |
Titius-Bode Rule becomes a law of physics from Maxwell EquationsChapt16.15 Gravity Cells #1456 ATOM TOTALITY 5th ed | Archimedes Plutonium[_2_] | Astronomy Misc | 7 | April 4th 13 09:54 AM |
Chap30 Titius Bode Rule #371 Atom Totality 4th ed | Archimedes Plutonium[_2_] | Astronomy Misc | 0 | March 16th 11 07:25 AM |
Kuiper belt and exoplanets fitting into AP-Titius-Bode rule; #151;3rd ed; Atom Totality (Atom Universe) theory | Archimedes Plutonium[_2_] | Astronomy Misc | 3 | August 18th 09 11:05 PM |
was AP the first to say the Titius Bode Rule was Quantum Mechanics?#143; 3rd ed; Atom Totality (Atom Universe) theory | Archimedes Plutonium[_2_] | Astronomy Misc | 0 | August 13th 09 08:21 AM |