The GRAVITY conspiracy (Part 1)

There is another way of looking at the problem of gravity. For just a minute, let's agree that gravity is a function of the geometry of space (Einstein's geodesics) and that the total amount of energy (and thus mass) trapped in the Sun's gravity bubble was distributed as plasma according to simple harmonic laws. From this we should be able to estimate the size and spacing of the planets in our solar system using only geometry - no empirical observations at all other than to scale it to the Sun's radius. Impossible you say?

First step is to derive an average spacing constant from first principles. How about using the ratio of the base of the natural log, e, and the golden ratio Phi taken to one decimal place?

2.7 / 1.6 ≈ 1.6875

Think of this as identifying the calmest location along a natural logarithmic spiral where (Phi) damping will be greatest and plasma material can collect. Now, use the Sun's radius as the starting unit in the solar system

Sun_radius = 695,000 km

and calculate Mercury's semi-major axis as the Sun's radius divided by 12, which is the x-value for a normal first-derivative Gaussian distribution having an arithmetic mean of PI:

Mercury_semi-major_axis = Sun_radius / 12 * 1000 = 57.91 Mkm

Ok, now just multiply Mercury's semi-major axis and each subsequent semi-major axis by the average spacing constant 1.6875 to build a geometric spacing model of the solar system within a total variance of - 0.0316%

Planet-------Actual--------Calculated (Mkm)
Mercury------57.91------------57.91
Venus-------108.21------------97.72
Earth---------149.60----------164.90
Mars----------227.92----------278.28
Ceres--------388.71----------469.60
Jupiter-------778.57----------792.45
Saturn-----1433.53---------1337.26
Uranus-----2872.46---------2256.62
Neptune----4495.06--------3808.06
Pluto--------5906.38--------6426.10
Eris---------10123.00------10844.04

Total-------26,541.35------26,532.97

Why does this work? Because each planet is spaced near right angles along a phi-log damping spiral. In fact, the average distance between the planets' semi-major axes (including Ceres) is 1.61813, very near the golden ratio of about 1.618033.

The variance of each calculated position from actual can be shown to approximate a simple sinusoidal standing wave. The overall variance from the calculated spiral is then a Bessel function, composed of cylindrical harmonics.

The entire solar system was once a plate of resonating plasma, forming a series of concentric damping (nodal) rings between resonating regions just like a Chladni plate of vibrated sand. Space was the resonant damping container, within which the plasma cooled, polarized and rotated according to the Coriolis effect of the galaxy's rotational space geometry (which is then rotating according to a larger polarized region of space, and so on). Within the nodal rings, the planets formed their own spirals, rings and moon systems in smaller pressurized bubbles.

The orbital angles, planet size, composition and mass, number of moons, frequency of orbit and all other features are a direct result of the amount of trapped plasma energy and resonance of the early solar gravity bubble. Mathematical formulas to calculate such things should be based on the physics of standing wave resonance, which is then a simple geometric balance between energy and space. Planetary mass is a secondary result depending on where various elements cooled and collected within the heliosphere according to atomic weight (another property of resonance). Accordingly, mass should not be taken as the first principle of gravity.

Kepler's geometric approach was correct. Newton's and all other formulae relying on a mass constant are dependent on the accuracy of instruments to discern the composition of each planet or other body rather than a true understanding of what causes certain elements to resonate into certain locations in the heliosphere of a star. In short, mass variables are a crutch to compensate for a lack of understanding of harmonic physics. If anyone is interested, let me know and I can add a post for how to calculate the size of each planet as a purely geometric function.

reply to post by Maxpageant


that is astounding information
star for you my friend
is this your work or are you relaying it for us
the fact that harmonics is a designing factor with pie amazes me

well done
xploder

reply to post by Maxpageant


Hi, great post, with some interesting information.
This is similar to Kepler's use of Platonic solids in Planetary motion is it not?

The problem is though, that Kepler learnt that this does not explain the ellipses in orbits of planets.
So while we may not need observations apart from the Sun to create your orbits, they will not match actual observations.
Isn't this exactly how the G constant came about?

If anyone is interested, let me know and I can add a post for how to calculate the size of each planet as a purely geometric function.

Yes please, that would be Cool.

reply to post by atlasastro


You're right, what I've posted above only shows that the semi-major axes of the planets can be approximated geometrically without any mass or speed variables, but this fact alone should get anyone to at least question the mainstream view. Kepler was right that the golden mean was involved in some way in the solar system, he just didn't have a complete understanding of harmonic physics and resorted to nesting platonic solids which don't work.

The elliptical orbits don't negate the fact that damping rings formed in the solar current sheet. Instead, they demonstrate how the solar system condensed slightly as it cooled, pushing the planets slightly out of the solar equator and causing their orbits to stretch into ellipses while inducing wobble or "precession." In physics, this effect is called harmonicity and can be demonstrated on a piano string in the upper register when harmonics try to form on a string that is too thick compared with its tension. The harmonics ring increasingly sharp as the string dies out. This is what happened (and continues to happen) as the solar system cooled and "crystallized" into solid matter. The outer sphere of the solar system shrank, warping the heliospheric current sheet and pushing planets out of circular orbits. This warping process occurs in every standing wave as it reflects and resonates. This is what accounts for the variance from calculated orbits in my first post.

To calculate the size of the planets from first principles, we need to use the 5th and 7th partials in the harmonic series. These two wave partials represent the most enharmonic interval in the harmonic series. When this is then multiplied by the most harmonic interval in the harmonic series 1/81 = 0.012345679, we can approximate the harmonic balance of gravity to space as the Gaussian gravitational constant:

k = 7 /5 x 1/ 81 = 0.017283951

Incidentally, this is exactly the standard deviation in the same normal Gaussian first derivative distribution having the arithmetic mean of Pi and x-value of 12. Think of it as the wiggle room needed for energy to resonate coherently.

Now, it is true that the real gravitational constant is 0.01720209895, but the original constant before the solar system shrank was the theoretical constant described above based on Pi and the ideal point of balance in the harmonic series.

As a side note, the theoretical constant can be used to calculate a Julian year:

2Pi / k + 100k days = 365.25 days

Here we have derived the Earth's orbit to rotation ratio from the geometric balance of a solar standing wave without any empirical measure of mass or distance whatsoever. We can see that time is a function of geometry if for no other reason than space must exist for anything to travel in time.

Ok, so now we will seek to explain planet size using k. First, I need to mention the so-called "frost line" that exists just inside the orbit of Jupiter. This was the point where the plasma density reduced by the gravitational constant during the formation of the solar system, enabling the formation of much larger planets in the outer solar system. Thus, we can use the gravitational constant as a reduction constant in the outer planets while leaving the inner planets as is.

....................Radius
1.Sun....................0
2.Mercury.........2440
3.Venus............6052
4.Earth.............6378
5.Mars..............3397
6.Ceres.............2235

................Radius x k
7.Jupiter........1235.66
8.Saturn........1041.67
9.Uranus.........441.761
10.Neptune.....428.054
11.Pluto.........19.87.65
12.Eris.................0.64459

When these are graphed, they create a first-derivative Gaussian velocity curve something like this:

.................................***
.........................*************
.....................*******************
.................****************************
.............****************************************
.......*******************************************************
****************************************************************************
1..........2..........3..........4..........5..........6..........7..........8..........9..........10..........11..........12

This is the same curve made by the harmonic series as it reflects and phase shifts against itself over a frequency double range. In other words, in the solar octave between the Sun and Eris,planet sizes can be estimated using a first-derivative Gaussian distribution without using any mass variable. All that's needed is to use Earth as the maximum radius (velocity) metric, calculate the Gaussian velocity using the spacing constant in my previous post and finally divide the outer planets by k. Of course, these are estimates based on theory - the cooling and shrinkage of the solar current sheet again caused some variance from theoretical, pushing out some of the plasma material into moons.

In answer to the earlier question, all of this is original work and is described further in my first book, which you can find through my website www.InterferenceTheory.com. Hope this helped introduce the notion that gravity is really a phenomena of space geometry, warped over time by energy as it cools and crystallizes into matter.

I didn't know there was a conspiracy on gravity.

Originally posted by ohsnaptruth
I didn't know there was a conspiracy on gravity.

The Gravity Conspiracy perhaps coming from the conspiracy on Tesla.
His Dynamic Theory of Gravity was never published.
So now we have two conspiracies.

reply to post by Maxpageant

I wonder how your analysis fit the Gliese 581 system?

The radius of the star is .38 that of the Sun.
The semimajor axes (AU) are as follows.

e 0.0284533 ± 0.0000023
b 0.0406163 ± 0.0000013
c 0.072993 ± 0.000022
g 0.14601 ± 0.00014
d 0.21847 ± 0.00028
f 0.758 ± 0.015
en.wikipedia.org...

reply to post by Phage


Below is the comparison of geometric calculated to actual. There appears to be a missing 6th planet in the series, so I just estimated that based on Planet 5. The only difference in the formula was a multiple of 5 required to approximate the first planet. This makes sense since the Gliese star has less gravity than our sun. It can be tuned further, but even so this solar system exhibits the same log curve using the same 1.6875 spacing constant and variances as our solar system. I would bet there are more planets or at least asteroid belts to total 11 orbital rings.

Gliese 581 System ------ Km to AU factor: 149598000

Solar radius: 264100 Km

Planet #....Km Calculated....AU Calculated....AU Actual
Planet 1....4401666.667....0.029423299....0.0284533
Planet 2....7427812.5....0.049651817....0.0406163
Planet 3....12534433.59....0.083787441....0.072993
Planet 4....21151856.69....0.141391307....0.14601
Planet 5....35693758.16....0.23859783....0.21847
Planet 6....60233216.9....0.402633838....0.3687 (missing planet 6 estimated)
Planet 7....101643553.5....0.679444602....0.758

Total................................1.624930133....1.633254419

Variance of Calc to Actual: 0.5097%

To see a chart comparison, copy the AU Calculated and AU Actual columns into Excel and chart as a line chart.

Originally posted by TeslaandLyne

Originally posted by ohsnaptruth
I didn't know there was a conspiracy on gravity.

The Gravity Conspiracy perhaps coming from the conspiracy on Tesla.
His Dynamic Theory of Gravity was never published.
So now we have two conspiracies.

Is there a link to Teslas dynamic theory of gravity?
Since Einsteins GR and SR are flawed, it would be intersting to read
Teslas version

reply to post by Maxpageant

"Fudge factors" and assumptions of a "missing" planet.
Adjusting data and "constants" to force fit a a model is usually frowned upon.

reply to post by Maxpageant


would pie represent a different numerical expresion in another solar system
the harmonic distrabution of material into different compositions of like rings
that are sorted into density/weight
if the sun in the Gliese 581 System has a different resonence the materials would form in different places
is pie the same figuar in another solar system?

xploder
ps ta for the link

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by Maxpageant

 

"Fudge factors" and assumptions of a "missing" planet.
Adjusting data and "constants" to force fit a a model is usually frowned upon.

edit on 10/10/2010 by Phage because: (no reason given)

And yet it's perfectly acceptable for Newton to "adjust data" and create "constants" to force fit a model ? Thats exactly the reason that he had to "create" a brand-spanking new constant (G) that had never existed before in order to get his new equation to spit out the correct answer.

In case you missed it in one of my earlier posts, here it is again ...

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/8f3bf92eeed0.jpg[/atsimg]

Remember, before Newton came up with his equation, G as a constant used in science did not exist. Newton would have most likely said to himself ... "darn, my new equation doesn't work properly - but wait, seems if I now add a fudge factor and call it G, then oh, happy days - my equation now works !".

... and assumptions of a "missing" planet

Yes, an assumption indeed ... but one based on extrapolation of existing data and making a "prediction" ... a perfectly valid scientific process when operating within a hypothesis type of framework.

reply to post by Phage


No fudge factors here (other than the constants Pi, Phi, and e, which no one can explain). You may be referring to the scaling factor I used to locate the first planet in a weaker gravity field - however, this is not a fudge factor since something must scale to the new smaller star. From the first planet, all of the rest of the planets follow the same log curve. The missing planet is not a fudge factor, its a prediction because it would fit in line with the overall curve. Such predictions are actually very common in science and help scientists know where to look.

Even without the missing planet all of the other planets do fit the distribution curve without modification. The calc-to-actual variances have also been explained as a slight shrinkage of the gravity field of the solar system due to energy cooling and condensation into matter, so no fudge factor here - just a theory of astrophysics backed up by observation. Sometimes thing are as they seem.

Ultimately, I'm proposing a model for how all star systems form - a universal model based on resonance. It's common knowledge that resonance is at work in the solar system, yet astronomers do not embrace it in their theory or formulae of gravity or their models for how the solar system formed. There is a reason for this, but is a matter for another thread.

reply to post by tauristercus

The difference is that G applies to every star system.

Saying 'well, we have to adjust the Gliese system by a factor of 5 for the inner planet" is a different situation. That is not a constant, that is a variable. Is Gliese 581 5 times less massive than the Sun? Will that "adjustment" apply proportionally to all systems or is it determined individually for each?

BTW, how are you doing on calculating the acceleration acting on a stationary object in a gravity field? How about providing the period of a satellite orbiting the Earth at a distance of, say 53,000 miles. No fair using G and the Mass of the Earth since they obviously don't count. I will let you ignore the mass of the satellite though, it really won't matter much unless it's a really big satellite.

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by tauristercus

 

BTW, how are you doing on calculating the acceleration acting on a stationary object in a gravity field? How about providing the period of a satellite orbiting the Earth at a distance of, say 53,000 miles. No fair using G and the Mass of the Earth since they obviously don't count. I will let you ignore the mass of the satellite though, it really won't matter much unless it's a really big satellite.

Hi Phage,
I too, have asked the OP to provide something similar. If the OP is correct in Newton "fudging or creating a force" then this should be relatively simple.

Originally posted by atlasastroA great way to settle this, I guess, is if you would provide ATS with a formula for calculating optimum altitude for Geostationary orbits in satellites, without using the gravitational constant or even the geocentric gravitational constant.

My equation ONLY uses an integer (4), pi, a distance (r) and the value of K uses only a distance and a time. There is no way to derive a gravitational constant or even to hide one using only distance and time.

Like you say, you only need use the interger, pi and K which is its velocity(orbit time) and its radius......BUT you don't know the radius, because you actually need to include certain forces(including the G constant), in order to derive an altitude. An altitude which will then become your radius, that your formula is actually dependent on. This presents somewhat of a paradox.

post by atlasastro

It would be excellent if the OP would engage the ATS community in a fair and open manner in respect to other people's opinions and thoughts.

reply to post by Maxpageant


Thanks for replying Max.
Once again, some interesting food for thought.
Will have a proper look when I get some more time, as the Harmonics and Resonance topic is something I am not familiar with.
It might be interesting for you, and ATS, to start your own thread on the subject.
Thanks again.

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by tauristercus

 

BTW, how are you doing on calculating the acceleration acting on a stationary object in a gravity field? How about providing the period of a satellite orbiting the Earth at a distance of, say 53,000 miles. No fair using G and the Mass of the Earth since they obviously don't count. I will let you ignore the mass of the satellite though, it really won't matter much unless it's a really big satellite.

Ok, I'm working on part1 and you'll be the 2nd to know if I get an answer
but in the meantime, here's the answer for part 2 regarding the orbital period of the satellite.
I guarantee that I didn't use G or the mass of the earth or satellite in the calculation. I hope that you don't mind that I converted your miles to meters as that's what I'm comfortable in using.

So for a satellite orbiting at a distance of 53,000 miles (9.167 x 10^7 m), the orbital period is:
76.55 hours

I would appreciate if you would confirm that answer, please.

I will let you ignore the mass of the satellite though, it really won't matter much unless it's a really big satellite.

In fact, the mass of the satellite is completely irrelevant and can be as small or as huge as possible.

Originally posted by Maxpageant

 

Planet 6....60233216.9....0.402633838....0.3687 (missing planet 6 estimated)

For what it's worth and assuming that an actual planet does exist at the distance specified by you ... then it's orbital period will be approximately 147 days and it's orbital velocity will be approximately 2.7 x 10^4 m/sec.

reply to post by Phage


Let's review. I calculated the spacing constant 1.6875 from first principles using e and Phi. I then used this in both our solar system and the Gliese system with the same result. The initial spacing of the first planet in both systems is derived, in both cases, from the geometrical size of each star (and corresponding different sized gravity field). No mass variables were used.

Yet, even with the different sized stars, the ratio of spacing was shown to be the same between planets in both solar systems - this is because of the gravitational constant k, which I then calculated from harmonic proportions to estimate the planet sizes (radii) - again without use of any mass variable whatsoever. In addition, I explained the variance as a theoretical process during the early formation of the solar system from plasma cooling and shrinking, throwing the early planets out of the solar equatorial plane, causing elliptical orbits and moon systems. These are not caused by some misfit property of gravity, but instead on tides of plasma resonating inside a gravity bubble.

I should point out now that the mass of any planet is an estimate. This is because it is virtually impossible to know the composition of elements through the core of any planet. For this reason, an understanding of how energy resonates in space to form predictable geometric patterns should be a first principle and is really all we need to understand gravity. Mass variables, while a near-term pragmatic solution, compensate for a lack of understanding of harmonic physics. As long as we rely on mass estimates in our gravity calculations, space travel to other planets will always require "mid-course corrections".

reply to post by tauristercus


Excellent work. We now know something that I would bet the astronomers who discovered those other planets don't know.