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

Physics does not explain why astro bodies spin or rotate which points out the fakeness of Big Bang and General Relativity; the Atom Totality theory however does explain the origins of rotation



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #81  
Old November 22nd 06, 10:11 AM posted to sci.physics,sci.physics.electromag,sci.astro,sci.math
Giovanni Resta
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1
Default Mercury 1300cm per century yet General Relativity predicts 110

a_plutonium wrote:
Mostly because the language of physics is far
removed from the aphabet of a keyboard. So I think physics should
change into a system where the keyboard becomes our symbols and
eliminate the Greek alphabet and make calculus into the keyboard
symbols. Replace current symbols with something of the keyboard
symbols.


Almost every scientist uses LaTeX to write even very complicate
formulas with the normal keyboard and very little effort.
Where have you been in all the past years ??

g.

  #82  
Old November 22nd 06, 11:11 AM posted to sci.physics,sci.physics.electromag,sci.astro,sci.math
a_plutonium[_1_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 194
Default deflection and magnetic moments (factor in mass) are directly-proportional for Sun and Jupiter Sun deflection 4 milliarcseconds, Jupiter deflection 300 microarcseconds; two old posts in sci.physics


a_plutonium wrote:
It is 4 milliarcseconds Sun deflection of light, and previous posts I
called it 4.5 cm which is confusing with something else-- centimeters.

And I suppose the best and latest measure of deflection by Jupiter is
from this website.

--- quoting the deflection ---
http://relativity.livingreviews.org/...rticlesu7.html
In recent years, transcontinental and intercontinental VLBI
observations of quasars and radio galaxies have been made primarily to
monitor the Earth's rotation ("VLBI" in Figure 5View Image).
These measurements are sensitive to the deflection of light over almost
the entire celestial sphere (at 90o from the Sun, the deflection is
still 4 milliarcseconds). A 2004 analysis of almost 2 million VLBI
observations of 541 radio sources, made by 87 VLBI sites yielded (1 +
g)/2 = 0.99992 ± 0.00023, or equivalently, -4 g - 1 = (- 1.7± 4.5)×
10 [240].

Analysis of observations made by the Hipparcos optical astrometry
satellite yielded a test at the level of 0.3 percent [115]. A VLBI
measurement of the deflection of light by Jupiter was reported; the
predicted deflection of about 300 microarcseconds was seen with about
50 percent accuracy [257]. The results of light-deflection measurements
are summarized in Figure 5View Image.
--- end quoting ---


Now I do not know how accurate this table is, because another poster
warned of the source as not scientific enough. But that aside, let us
say it is accurate enough.

Solar System Magnetic Data

No. Body Present Magnetic Moment (J/T)
1. Sun 3.5 x 10^29
2. Mercury 4.8 x 10^19
3. Venus 1.0 x 10^19
4. Earth 7.9 x 10^22
5. Moon 1.3 x 10^15
6. Mars 2.1 x 10^18
7. Jupiter 1.6 x 10^27
8. Saturn 4.3 x 10^25

And I have not yet figured out the mathematical predictions of the
Displacement-Current = gravity theory as to what the deflection of
light would be for the Sun and Jupiter.

However, I do note the remarkable direct proportionality of the
Magnetic Moment of Sun and Jupiter and their corresponding deflection.

3.5 x 10^29 4 x 10^-3 Sun
mass
---------------- proportional ---------------- proportional
-----------
1.6 x 10^27 300 x 10^-6 Jupiter
mass

What the Displacement Current theory of gravity would say about
deflection is that the Magnetic and Electric field of a planet or star
in addition to the mass of the planet or star causes the deflection.
General Relativity has only a mass contribution to deflection.
Displacement Current theory says that is only part of the cause of
deflection and that the astro bodies magnetic and electric field play a
major role in deflection. In the Displacement Current theory, gravity
due to space being a ocean of positrons and mass being part of the
electrons of the Atom Totality and their magnetic attraction towards
one another produces a "gravity envelope" over the mass (the bending of
space). So that when starlight is deflected, it has two components for
the deflection--- the bending of space component and the magnetic field
of the astro body.

The flaw of General Relativity is that it never defines what "Space"
is. It treats space as a physical entity but never includes space as a
physical entity to explain the force of gravity. In the Displacement
Current theory of gravity, space is the ocean of positrons and since
the Sun and Jupiter are bits and pieces of the electrons of the Atom
Totality, gravity is produced because Sun and Mercury are attracted by
the magnetic pull of positrons.

General Relativity calculates a deflection from solely a mass
component.

Displacement Current theory calculates a deflection from mass component
but also includes a second component of the intrinsic magnetic field of
the object.

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

  #83  
Old November 22nd 06, 07:11 PM posted to sci.physics,sci.physics.electromag,sci.astro,sci.math
Bob Kolker
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 454
Default does anyone know of a electrical or magnetic phenomenon thatis similar to what Saturn rings are?

a_plutonium wrote:

The title says it mostly all. I was trying to think of a electrical or
magnetic phenomenon which simulates the endresult of what Saturn has as
its rings. Is there something in EM that can simulate or model what the
Saturn ring structure is?


No. And for the simple reason that magnets have two poles. That is what
you get from a field generated by spin 1 bosons. Gravitation if it can
be mediated by a field is mediated by spin 2 bosons. Gravitation and
Electromagnetism are not the same.

Bob Kolker

  #84  
Old November 22nd 06, 08:32 PM posted to sci.physics,sci.physics.electromag,sci.astro,sci.math
a_plutonium[_1_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 194
Default only stable structure of independent particles-- Ring; Saturn's Ring proves the existence of monopoles does anyone know of a electrical or magnetic phenomenon that is similar to what Saturn rings are?


Bob Kolker wrote:
a_plutonium wrote:

The title says it mostly all. I was trying to think of a electrical or
magnetic phenomenon which simulates the endresult of what Saturn has as
its rings. Is there something in EM that can simulate or model what the
Saturn ring structure is?


No. And for the simple reason that magnets have two poles. That is what
you get from a field generated by spin 1 bosons. Gravitation if it can
be mediated by a field is mediated by spin 2 bosons. Gravitation and
Electromagnetism are not the same.

Bob Kolker


In 1857, James Clerk Maxwell gave a treatise that the only possible
structure of Saturn's Ring is a structure of small independent
particles. That the Ring could not be solid or rigid.

If Maxwell had lived double his short life of 40, perhaps in his older
age, he would have discovered the world's first magnetic monopole.
Because if you think about Saturn's Ring as a Magnetic Field, its ring
structure is a magnetic monopole affect. So what is the magnetic
monopole? It is Space itself as a ocean of positrons.

When you say Gravity equals Displacement Current with an added term in
the Faraday Law, you are saying, then, a magnetic monopole exists.

It is not coincidence that the shape of Saturn's Ring is the shape of
our Solar System, and the shape of Saturn's Ring is in 99 percent of
the cases the shape of galaxies. Our Solar System of planets and
satellites is a Saturn Ring around the Sun. Our Milky Way Galaxy is a
Saturn Ring of solar systems around the nucleus of our galaxy. Most
every galaxy is a Saturn Ring of solar systems around its nucleus.

After 1857, James Clerk Maxwell, if he had lived longer, may have run
this Logical thought through his mind. Or perhaps Dirac who was even
more focused on magnetic monopoles and who already had the space= ocean
of positrons, could have run upon Saturn's Ring.

LOGICAL ANALOGY:
If the only stable structure of Saturn Ring is independent particles
and for which this geometry is duplicated in solar systems and
galaxies. And for which the EM explanation is a magnetic monopole. Then
this logic leads us to the conclusion that Space is a magnetic
monopole. And to have Space as a magnetic monopole means that space is
Dirac's ocean of positrons.

Of course our Solar System under gravity = displacement current is much
older than previously thought in the Nebular Dust Cloud theory. Our
solar system is at least 10 billion years old and not the mere 5
billion as currently accepted. To age a solar system or to age a
galaxy, if they have the appearance of a "Saturn Ring" means they are
very old.

I am not surprized that Dirac never realized his monopole was so close
at hand-- Saturn's Ring. I mean, he was so very close since he
discovered space as an ocean of positrons and he discovered a "new
radioactivity" which would build stars and solar systems and galaxies.
And yet just one tiny step more-- Saturn's Ring -- implies a monopole.

Gravity is a monopole because Space as a ocean of positrons is a
monopole structure. The Universe has two monopoles. All the mass and
matter we observe is all part of the electrons of the Atom Totality. So
Space is a + charge monopole, and all the mass and matter in the Cosmos
is the - charged monopole. And Gravity is a positron envelope over mass
and matter.

Because Space is a monopole, the most stable galaxy structure and the
most stable solar system structure end up appearing like Saturn's Ring.

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

  #85  
Old November 22nd 06, 09:06 PM posted to sci.physics,sci.physics.electromag,sci.astro,sci.math
a_plutonium[_1_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 194
Default likely error and flaw in the math of Clifford Will of Max Planck Institute regards General Relativity Sun deflection 4 milliarcseconds, Jupiter deflection 300 microarcseconds

Now I quoted two old posts discussing deflection of light by a EM
field, and I will address them later as to point out some issues if
mutual interest.

But I want to address the website below of Clifford Will from Max
Planck Institute, as to possible mathematical errors.



--- quoting the deflection ---
http://relativity.livingreviews.org/...rticlesu7.html

It is interesting to note that the classic derivations of the
deflection of light that use only the corpuscular theory of light
(Cavendish 1784, von Soldner 1803 [277]), or the principle of
equivalence (Einstein 1911), yield only the "1/2" part of the
coefficient in front of the expression in Equation (46View Equation).
But the result of these calculations is the deflection of light
relative to local straight lines, as established for example by rigid
rods; however, because of space curvature around the Sun, determined by
the PPN parameter g, local straight lines are bent relative to
asymptotic straight lines far from the Sun by just enough to yield the
remaining factor "g/2". The first factor "1/2" holds in any
metric theory, the second "g/2" varies from theory to theory. Thus,
calculations that purport to derive the full deflection using the
equivalence principle alone are incorrect.

--- end quoting ---

I think what General Relativity really predicts is only 1/2 of the
observed deflection. And so in the case of the Sun, General Relativity
does not predict 4 milliarcseconds but actually predicts a mere 2
milliarcseconds. And in the case of Jupiter, General Relativity only
predicts 150 microarcseconds.

The explanation as to the 1/2 in the above is not acceptable.

What happened was that no-one really knew what GR predicts for Sun
deflection, and after Eddington reported a number and the theoreticians
saw that it was double the number their math predicted, they threw in
the 1/2 term.

The real explanation for why GR only predicts 1/2 observed value is
because GR as a theory is wrong. Gravity is a EM phenomenon of a
Displacement Current. And the deflection by the Sun of starlight
involves 2 components. The mass bends space is one component and that
is the only component GR manages to compute to some accuracy. But GR
misses the other half of the component which is the intrinsic magnetic
field of the body in question. Displacement Current theory would
predict for the Sun a 4 milliarcsecond but GR predicts only 2
milliarcseconds.

Gravity under GR misses the term of Space. GR talks about Space and
thinks of space as a physical entity, but the mathematics using GR then
treats space as a *vacuum*. So GR is only able to capture 1/2 of the
physical phenomenon of gravity.

The Displacement Current theory treats space as a ocean of positrons
which attracts matter (bits and pieces of the electrons of the Atom
Totality). Positrons are + charged and electron mass is - charged and
so gravity is this magnetic attraction between Space and Matter. So
that when it comes time to compute deflection of starlight, GR misses
the contribution of the magnetic field of the astro body in question.
GR computes only 1/2 of the deflection. At least that is my present
analysis of the situation, and I could be mistaken.

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

  #86  
Old November 23rd 06, 04:05 AM posted to sci.physics,sci.physics.electromag,sci.astro,sci.math
a_plutonium[_1_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 194
Default only stable structure of independent particles-- Ring; Saturn's Ring proves the existence of monopoles does anyone know of a electrical or magnetic phenomenon that is similar to what Saturn rings are?


a_plutonium wrote:
Bob Kolker wrote:
a_plutonium wrote:

The title says it mostly all. I was trying to think of a electrical or
magnetic phenomenon which simulates the endresult of what Saturn has as
its rings. Is there something in EM that can simulate or model what the
Saturn ring structure is?


No. And for the simple reason that magnets have two poles. That is what
you get from a field generated by spin 1 bosons. Gravitation if it can
be mediated by a field is mediated by spin 2 bosons. Gravitation and
Electromagnetism are not the same.

Bob Kolker


In 1857, James Clerk Maxwell gave a treatise that the only possible
structure of Saturn's Ring is a structure of small independent
particles. That the Ring could not be solid or rigid.

If Maxwell had lived double his short life of 40, perhaps in his older
age, he would have discovered the world's first magnetic monopole.
Because if you think about Saturn's Ring as a Magnetic Field, its ring
structure is a magnetic monopole affect. So what is the magnetic
monopole? It is Space itself as a ocean of positrons.

When you say Gravity equals Displacement Current with an added term in
the Faraday Law, you are saying, then, a magnetic monopole exists.

It is not coincidence that the shape of Saturn's Ring is the shape of
our Solar System, and the shape of Saturn's Ring is in 99 percent of
the cases the shape of galaxies. Our Solar System of planets and
satellites is a Saturn Ring around the Sun. Our Milky Way Galaxy is a
Saturn Ring of solar systems around the nucleus of our galaxy. Most
every galaxy is a Saturn Ring of solar systems around its nucleus.

After 1857, James Clerk Maxwell, if he had lived longer, may have run
this Logical thought through his mind. Or perhaps Dirac who was even
more focused on magnetic monopoles and who already had the space= ocean
of positrons, could have run upon Saturn's Ring.

LOGICAL ANALOGY:
If the only stable structure of Saturn Ring is independent particles
and for which this geometry is duplicated in solar systems and
galaxies. And for which the EM explanation is a magnetic monopole. Then
this logic leads us to the conclusion that Space is a magnetic
monopole. And to have Space as a magnetic monopole means that space is
Dirac's ocean of positrons.

Of course our Solar System under gravity = displacement current is much
older than previously thought in the Nebular Dust Cloud theory. Our
solar system is at least 10 billion years old and not the mere 5
billion as currently accepted. To age a solar system or to age a
galaxy, if they have the appearance of a "Saturn Ring" means they are
very old.

I am not surprized that Dirac never realized his monopole was so close
at hand-- Saturn's Ring. I mean, he was so very close since he
discovered space as an ocean of positrons and he discovered a "new
radioactivity" which would build stars and solar systems and galaxies.
And yet just one tiny step more-- Saturn's Ring -- implies a monopole.

Gravity is a monopole because Space as a ocean of positrons is a
monopole structure. The Universe has two monopoles. All the mass and
matter we observe is all part of the electrons of the Atom Totality. So
Space is a + charge monopole, and all the mass and matter in the Cosmos
is the - charged monopole. And Gravity is a positron envelope over mass
and matter.

Because Space is a monopole, the most stable galaxy structure and the
most stable solar system structure end up appearing like Saturn's Ring.

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


  #87  
Old November 23rd 06, 04:37 AM posted to sci.physics,sci.physics.electromag,sci.astro,sci.math
a_plutonium[_1_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 194
Default how physicists sometimes find that extra tiny step very difficult-- solving gravity only stable structure of independent particles-- Ring; Saturn's Ring proves the existence of monopoles


a_plutonium wrote:


I am not surprized that Dirac never realized his monopole was so close
at hand-- Saturn's Ring. I mean, he was so very close since he
discovered space as an ocean of positrons and he discovered a "new
radioactivity" which would build stars and solar systems and galaxies.
And yet just one tiny step more-- Saturn's Ring -- implies a monopole.



I should clarify the above paragraph for I have experienced these
circumstances in my own creative talent of doing physics and science.
On at least 2 occasions that I can recall, where I found a truth in
science, yet unable to make a tiny step forward to set correct another
truth of science.

Back in 1990 when I discovered the Atom Totality theory, for which the
theory of biological evolution was a prompt and spur and motivation and
after I discovered the Atom Totality theory it took me many years
afterwards to realize that biological evolution was no longer true and
that Superdeterminism had to replace Evolution. So what I am saying is
that it is difficult in science to sometimes take that tiny extra step
forward and solve more problems.

And then once the mind has taken the tiny step forward, in hindsight we
can laugh at ourselves as to why it took so long to realize that tiny
step.

So I am not mocking Dirac or making less of his physics talent, in
fact, in my esteem Dirac was ten times a greater physicist than was
Einstein, because Dirac was so far ahead of his century that just now
in this 21st century we are catching up to Dirac's spurs and proddings
and vanguard. Dirac was one of the few quantum physicists that knew
quantum physics was far more important than Einstein's General
Relativity which is easy to see as anti-quantum physics.

Dirac felt that monopoles must exist, and they do. He felt this way
because he realized that more beauty would come of physics with
monopoles because the Maxwell Equations would be perfectly symmetrical.
And Dirac knew that ugliness in physics is probably muddleheaded
physics.

Dirac discovered that Space is a ocean of positrons.

Dirac intuited a "cosmic radioactivity" as outlined in his book
Directions in Physics.

So why did not Dirac realize that Saturn's Ring is a result of Space
being a monopole?

Well, Dirac did not have an Atom Totality theory. I had an Atom
Totality theory and it took me over 10 years to find a picture of
gravity. So if it was hard for me to finally see the picture on gravity
having the Atom Totality theory, think of how hard it would have been
for Dirac to say "yes, Saturn Ring must be a monopole structure and
thus Space as ocean of positrons is a monopole".

In fact, monopole structure does not end with Saturn's Ring, it just
begins there. Because our Sun with its planets is a monopole structure
where the planets are likened to the Ring of Saturn. The asteroid belt
is a imitation of a part of the Ring of Saturn. Distant galaxies when
viewed by Hubble is a Saturn for its nucleus and its stars form a Ring.

So wherever there is mass and matter, there is gravity, and wherever
there is gravity for long periods of time there is going to be a
geometry of Saturn's Ring. Why? Because Space is a ocean of positrons
that attracts mass and matter and that is what gravity is.

The theory of General Relativity had gotten only a 1/2 truth. It is
correct that "mass bends space and other mass follows the curvature of
that bent space". But GR never explains what space is. It treats space
as a physical entity but when it calculates something like Mercury
precession or starlight deflection, it treats Space as a vacuum.
So the calculations of GR only give at most 1/2 of the full and correct
answer. In the case of Mercury precession it gives only 1/100 of the
full answer. In the case of Solar deflection of starlight it gives only
1/2 of the correct answer. Why does GR miss so much? Because gravity is
a magnetic phenomenon and it misses the magnetic field of the Sun or
Jupiter or whatevery astro body it is calculating. GR obviously never
ties gravity as a EM phenomenon and so GR could never be the truth
behind "What is Gravity?"

Dirac came so very close. But I guess it required the Atom Totality
theory first in order to assemble (1) Dirac's monopole quest (2)
Dirac's ocean of positrons = space (3) Dirac's new radioactivities. It
took me 16 years from 1990 with the Atom Totality to finally make it
here to the finish line.


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

  #88  
Old November 23rd 06, 07:34 PM posted to sci.physics,sci.physics.electromag,sci.astro,sci.math
Phineas T Puddleduck
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,854
Default how physicists sometimes find that extra tiny step very difficult-- solving gravity only stable structure of independent particles-- Ring; Saturn's Ring proves the existence of monopoles

In article . com,
"a_plutonium" wrote:

The theory of General Relativity had gotten only a 1/2 truth. It is
correct that "mass bends space and other mass follows the curvature of
that bent space". But GR never explains what space is. It treats space
as a physical entity but when it calculates something like Mercury
precession or starlight deflection, it treats Space as a vacuum.


Seeing as you don't actually understand what the GR prediction for
Mercury actually was, I'll pass...

--
Thermodynamics claims another crown!

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/heacon.html

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

  #89  
Old November 24th 06, 04:54 AM posted to sci.physics,sci.physics.electromag,sci.astro,sci.math
a_plutonium[_1_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 194
Default revision of all scientific symbols instead of trying to fit them to the computer


Giovanni Resta wrote:
a_plutonium wrote:
Mostly because the language of physics is far
removed from the aphabet of a keyboard. So I think physics should
change into a system where the keyboard becomes our symbols and
eliminate the Greek alphabet and make calculus into the keyboard
symbols. Replace current symbols with something of the keyboard
symbols.


Almost every scientist uses LaTeX to write even very complicate
formulas with the normal keyboard and very little effort.
Where have you been in all the past years ??

g.


No, I disagree. When are at a juncture in science and physics written
communication. A juncture because of computers. So that we should not
try to resurrect the old literature and symbols onto this new platform
of communication.

There should be some sort of symposium of scientists of every science
discipline wherein the objective and endgoal is that every science
symbol and math symbol is covered by the ten digits and the 26 letters
of the alphabet and including symbols such as !#%^&*(){}[]":;'

In other words, revamp the old. Get rid of all foreign made up symbols
such as infinity, such as the differential, the integral signs, partial
derivative, Greek letters, etc etc

Come up with a system wherein all science symbols can be had from the
alphabet and ten digits and the common symbols.

We waste too much time in science in getting the "symbols" correct,
when we should be devoting that time to doing actual science itself.

So do not devise a software, but revamp the entire way of symbolization
in science.

For example the integral sign maybe SS, and the derivative sign maybe
DD.

Find out what would be an easy system and then make it a universal
standardized system.

Have a symposium of scientists that revises the entire symbolism system
and makes it easy to type on every computer. And has plenty of room for
future symbols.

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

  #90  
Old November 24th 06, 05:47 AM posted to sci.physics,sci.physics.electromag,sci.astro,sci.math
a_plutonium[_1_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 194
Default two old posts that question General Relativity per EM


a_plutonium wrote:


--- quoting two old posts on the same subject as my new theory of
gravity as a displacement current in Faraday's Law ---

Is light deflected by electric field?

Subject: Is light deflected by electric field?
From:
Date: Fri, 9 Sep 2005 15:41:44 +0000 (UTC)
Approved:
(sci.physics.research)
In-reply-to:
.com
Message-ID:
.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics.research
Organization:
http://groups.google.com
References:

Sender:


Thomas Smid wrote in part:

[...] clarity in this respect can only be
achieved by less ambiguous observations,
i.e. on the one hand by controlled laboratory
experiments examining the bending of light (or not)
in sufficiently strong electric field (gradients) [...]


Er, did you read my Aug-20 posting in this thread?

Interactions between photons and an EM field *have*
been experimentally investigated. The outcome is
that you need the truly enormous field that occurs
close to a nucleus, and a high-energy photon, to
see but a very weak effect.

Also, there's a physical limit on how strong EM
fields can become. When the field gets stronger
than that of a nucleus with Z=138 (or maybe 139
if my memory is faulty), the energy density of
the field is high enough to spontaneously
create electron-positron pairs which carry
energy away. The stronger the field, the
faster such pairs are created. Catch-22.
All this has been known experimentally for
decades.


Funny how in the future, people will kind of wonder and laugh why the
high quality science posts by me and a few others posted in sci.physics
never needed any approval, yet lower quality posts in moderated
newsgroups required approval. And that most all of the creative new
ideas in science occurred in the unmoderated newsgroup and virtually no
ideas of merit originated in the moderated newsgroups. I reckon the
reason for this is because creative ideas do not want to waste the time
of approval.

I re-posted the above because it touches on two aspects of the
Displacement-Current theory = gravity. For one, it talks about
electron-positron pairs. And it is very funny and laughable that
positrons have been known about for decades and half century, yet
no-one was serious enough to make the next big step--- Space is a ocean
of positrons and then to put this into the ideas and theories and
formulas of physics. For when you put Space = ocean of positrons into
General Relativity you cannot get black-holes, but instead quasars. And
you get intrinsic magnetic moment for all astro bodies. And you get a
different number for Mercury precession and Solar deflection of
starlight.

So the history of physics for the past 50 years knew that positrons are
a cosmic ocean but funny, how no physicist took that serious enough to
say Space is positrons. But that is probably because no-one had the
Atom Totality theory to make that step forward.

The other thing about that old post is the talk about light deflection
by EM. And the Displacement Current = gravity would predict a zero
deflection by the Sun if it had to rely solely on EM, but when you
consider that the bending of space is due to magnetism of positrons
then the magnetic field of the astro body itself bends space even more
than what the mass bends the space alone. It is correct that only light
travelling near a nucleus is deflected, but that viewpoint does not
realize that gravity is simply a magnetic phenomenon.







Is light deflected by electric field?

Subject: Is light deflected by electric field?
From: Gerry Quinn
Date: Sat, 10 Sep 2005 14:57:47 +0000 (UTC)
Approved:
(sci.physics.research)
Message-ID:
Newsgroups: sci.physics.research
Organization: Bindweed Entertainment Software
References:


In article .com,
says...

I think the discussion has somewhat gone off-topic now. The original
question was what the theoretical and observational/experimental
arguments for and against a deflection of light by electric fields are.
I mentioned the deflection of light by the sun (and other celestial
objects) as a potential evidence for such an effect considering the
fact that all of those objects can be assumed to have some kind of
plasma halo which in turn must be associated with an electric plasma
polarization field. This suggestion is unaffected by the circumstance
that these observations are presently explained by General Relativity
(after all it is common in science that there is more than one theory
to explain observational data).


This is an invalid argument.

Certainly there are many theories of gravity, for example, which all
purport to explain/describe the same phenomena. All of the better ones

predict that the Earth will follow an elliptical orbit around the Sun,
with certain differences in the details. But we do not presume that
they are operating simultaneously - we can pick only one model of
gravity at a time. We do not suppose that the Earth responds to a
Newtonian force, then eases into a region of greater positive
curvature, is buffeted by LeSage particles, and finally absorbs a meal
of virtual gravitons.

In your case, however, you have not replaced gravity with a new theory,

but only gravity insofar as it affects light passing near stars,
galaxies etc. Your plasma deflection does not affect matter, so to
explain the orbits of planets you still need another theory of gravity
- one that predicts planetary orbits, but does not predict that light
bends in a gravitational field. All those I mentioned will need
modification.

In short, your full theory is that (1) light is bent by plasma to
exactly the same degree predicted by general relativity, and (2)
general relativity is wrong, because light does not automatically bend
towards regions of positive curvature, although it may coincidentally
be deflected towards them by unrelated plasma effects. So it's two
theories in one.

Of those I've mentioned above, general relativity is actually the only
one that can't be modified to not affect light without destroying the
conceptual basis of the theory. But all of them still have big
problems, given our understanding of many uncharged physical systems as

having a good deal of electromagnetic binding energy.

So your argument about 'more than one theory to explain observational
data' doesn't work - to support your plasma theory of light deflection
you also have to tear up and replace current theories of gravity with a

new one that predicts planetary orbits but not light-bending.

- Gerry Quinn

--- end quoting 2 old posts ---


I disagree with the above reply. I do not think the original poster was
trying to say two or more theories were in a sort of "add on " to give
deflection of starlight.

As in my case of the Displacement-Current = gravity, I need to know if
gravity was fully just a EM force, whether EM can deflect starlight. So
in that sense, I suspect the original poster was asking. Can Mercury
precession and starlight deflection can be purely answered and
explained by EM. So many follow-up posters have a tendency to "put
words or thoughts into another posters post that are unwarranted"

The above poster assumes or presumes that the observations of Mercury
precession and Solar deflection matches the numbers of General
Relativity. But I think this poster needs to review how well or how
awful GR matches the actual observation numbers. It is ugly to
separate out a huge precession number of nearly 5600 with a GR
component of only 40. Many people will say the GR advocates are merely
segregating out 5560 randomly in order to make a false claim of 40 due
to GR. And finally, the deflection of starlight of about 1.75", when
actually GR only predicts one half of that number. No-one has reviewed
the actual history of GR of the 1919 time frame with Eddington. The
theoreticians were expecting a mere 0.8" but when the observations came
in, the theoreticians doubled their number, and then jumped up and down
screaming "beautiful match".

Displacement-Current theory explains why GR misses one half of the
1.75" and it is because the huge magnetic field of Sun contributes to
the bending of the Space around the Sun and thus deflection is 1.75"

Archimedes Plutonium
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
The Gravitational Instability Theory on the Formation of the Universe Br Dan Izzo Policy 6 September 7th 04 09:29 PM
The Gravitational Instability Cosmological Theory Br Dan Izzo Astronomy Misc 0 August 31st 04 02:35 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 01:46 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.