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