It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Earth must have another Moon, say Astronomers

page: 8
10
<< 5  6  7    9 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 30 2011 @ 01:06 PM
link   
reply to post by CLPrime
 


Again, short on time for the fun stuff.


charge for the strong force, charge for the electromagnetic force, and mass for gravity.


Ah, but note that the strong force comes from the far more massive nucleus, and the small force from the electrons which are believe not to have any mass.




posted on Dec, 30 2011 @ 01:34 PM
link   
reply to post by poet1b
 


The strong force is propagated by massless gluons, and it is a force between 3-colour charges (a fundamental property of quarks). It acts over atomic scales only because it gets cancelled out among hadrons - within this confine, the force is constant with distance.
It has to act over short distances, so it's a lot stronger than the others, ensuring that fewer particles are needed to hold themselves together.

The electromagnetic force is propagated by massless photons, and it is an attractive/repulsive force between standard charges (a fundamental property of electrons and protons, as well as of other particles unrelated to matter composition). It diminishes with distance because a group of photons will expand according to the inverse-square law.
It has to act over intermediate distances, so it's moderate strength.

The gravitational force is theoretically propagated by massless gravitons, and it is an attractive force between masses (a fundamental property of all fermions). It diminishes with distance because, theoretically, gravitons also expand according to the inverse-square law.
It has to act over vast distances, so it's extremely weak, ensuring that large amounts of mass are needed to form large objects.

These are perfectly scaled in order to provide a universe suitable for the structures we see around us.
They do have obvious similarities, but they also have very significant differences which make them each unique from the others.

Also, this "small force" you mention...and the massless electrons... would you mind clarifying?
edit on 30-12-2011 by CLPrime because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 31 2011 @ 05:34 AM
link   


Such objects typically stay for about 10 months, making three revolutions around the planet.


Thats impossible, once an object is captured it stays in orbit, they have no propulsion to use to leave orbit.



posted on Jan, 4 2012 @ 12:20 PM
link   
reply to post by CLPrime
 


The strong force binds the nucleus together, and the small force of electrons binds atoms together to form molecules, per current theory. Mainstream science keeps throwing new particles into the mix, because they current model depends on this concept of these unknown forces that they can not explain, thus the idea of gluons, quarks, and gravitons.

If magnetism is electrical force, then electrical force is projected over great distances, if, as you say, they are the same. Do we currently know how far out Earths magnetic influence extends? Possibly as far as Earth's gravitational influence?


What you stated,

Electricity and magnetism are not only related, they're actually the same thing.


I disagree, they are both a phenomenon of the same particles, but are distinct in many ways. Magnetism is created by large structures of electrons, combined with momentum. Irregardless of the observer, we are all moving through space at an extremely rapid rate. The only thing relative about this is the illusion that it creates of invisible forces.

Back to the Near-Earth orbiting objects that we have discovered. Lagrange points do not explain this as has been claimed. Lagrange points are specific areas where the curving planes where gravitational forces are balanced, should be significant due to position and orbital momentum. These points do not have their own gravity, they are neutral areas.

What we are seeing is objects that orbit around Earth's orbital path.



Notice how it looks like a coil, or current theory of how electrical waves move through a medium. As if Earth's orbital path creates its own medium in space. It suggests the possibility that Earth's orbit is not merely the place where Earth settled, but a direct result of the structure of our solar system. That most planets orbit our sun in a plain certainly indicates that there is more at work here than gravitational force. Clearly there is a structure that mainstream science doesn't seem all that curious about.



posted on Jan, 4 2012 @ 05:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by poet1b

The strong force binds the nucleus together,


Basically.



and the small force of electrons binds atoms together to form molecules, per current theory.


Small force? Molecules are bound by covalent bonds, which is the tendency of valence electrons to be shared by proximate charged atoms.



Mainstream science keeps throwing new particles into the mix, because they current model depends on this concept of these unknown forces that they can not explain, thus the idea of gluons, quarks, and gravitons.


Mainstream science doesn't keep throwing new particles into the mix, theory predicts a certain set of particles and those particles are then observed. Every particle we have observed so far was predicted by the Standard Theory.



If magnetism is electrical force, then electrical force is projected over great distances, if, as you say, they are the same. Do we currently know how far out Earths magnetic influence extends? Possibly as far as Earth's gravitational influence?


All magnetic fields extend to infinity, as do electric fields. Both become negligible beyond a certain point, but the same is true of gravity, which also extends to infinity. The only difference between electric and magnetic fields is the field orientation. Electric field vectors are either centripetal or centrifugal, pointing in toward/out from the point-charge, and get weaker according to the inverse-square law; whereas, for example, dipole magnetic field vectors point toward the poles, and, as a result, the field weakens much faster with distance. If it were possible to observe a monopole, it would be identical to the field surrounding an electric charge.



What you stated,

Electricity and magnetism are not only related, they're actually the same thing.


I disagree, they are both a phenomenon of the same particles, but are distinct in many ways. Magnetism is created by large structures of electrons, combined with momentum. Irregardless of the observer, we are all moving through space at an extremely rapid rate. The only thing relative about this is the illusion that it creates of invisible forces.


The two are distinct, but they are interchangeable when considering different reference frames: the math



Back to the Near-Earth orbiting objects that we have discovered. Lagrange points do not explain this as has been claimed. Lagrange points are specific areas where the curving planes where gravitational forces are balanced, should be significant due to position and orbital momentum. These points do not have their own gravity, they are neutral areas.


If an asteroid captured by Earth's gravity happens to pass one of the Lagrangian points, then it will be re-captured by the Sun's gravity. I'm not sure why that's so hard to understand.



What we are seeing is objects that orbit around Earth's orbital path.
Notice how it looks like a coil, or current theory of how electrical waves move through a medium. As if Earth's orbital path creates its own medium in space. It suggests the possibility that Earth's orbit is not merely the place where Earth settled, but a direct result of the structure of our solar system.


What parts of current theory states that electrical waves move through a medium in a coiling manner?
A charge will follow a helical path through a magnetic field. This is because the magnetic field vector acting on a charge is perpendicular to the velocity of the charge, constantly changing its velocity and forcing it into a spiral motion. In order for that to be applied here, the asteroid would have to be an electric charge and the Earth would have to be generating a uniform magnetic field (or one would have to already exist at the Earth's orbit). And even that wouldn't explain why the asteroid suddenly changes direction when it reaches the Earth.



That most planets orbit our sun in a plain certainly indicates that there is more at work here than gravitational force.


There is. It's called rotation. The planets orbit in a plane because, when the Solar System formed, it was spinning (as it still is), and the resultant centripetal force caused the material to form a disc shape. You should have learned that in grade 3.



posted on Jan, 4 2012 @ 09:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by poet1b
reply to post by Tachyeon
 


I think we are looking out into space these days at frequencies beyond visible light. That must be some amazing cloaking tech.

Personally, I think higher level beings exist as Plasma. Probably don't need space ships.



I agree. I would say it's pretty much a given that a race/society that could build a ship with a cloaking device would make sure it were cloaked on all frequencies, not just light. Who knows, cloak version 2.0 might even have anti-gravity cloaking.



posted on Jan, 5 2012 @ 03:08 PM
link   
reply to post by CLPrime
 


Excellent response, much appreciated.

I think we were taught the collapsing cloud theory in sixth grade, but I never have bought that explanation. I think there is something else at work that creates our planetary plane. I will have to do more research to come up with a reasonable explanation, and fill in more details later.

Here is a good link on the subject.

www.tufts.edu...


Modeling Requirements Any model capable of explaining the origin and architecture of our planetary system must adhere to the known facts. Generally, these facts derive from studies of interstellar clouds, landed meteorites, and Earth’s Moon, as well as from observations of numerous planets both within and beyond our Solar System. The meteorites provide especially useful information, for they contain entrapped traces of solid and gaseous matter uneroded from the early Solar System. Radioactively determined dates of all meteorites uniformly imply that our system formed, with the Sun and Earth as part of it, ~4.6 billion years ago. Laboratory analyses of the oldest lunar rocks generally confirm this date, as does theoretical modeling of the Sun itself.

Among the many observed properties of our Solar System, 7 stand out most boldly:

1. Each planet is relatively isolated in space, none of them being bunched together; each planet (out to Saturn anyway and skipping the asteroid belt) resides roughly twice as far from the Sun as its next inward neighbor, implying a certain geometric harmony—the kind of order and elegance alluded to earlier.

2. The orbits of the planets describe nearly perfect circles, with only one exception; Mercury’s noticeable elliptical orbit is surely caused by this innermost planet’s proximity to the neighboring Sun.

3. The orbits of the planets all lie in nearly the same plane, Earth’s such plane being called the “ecliptic”; each of the planes swept out by the planets’ orbits aligns with the others to within a few arc degrees (excepting again Mercury), the whole system of planets having the shape of a rather flat disk.

4. The direction in which the planets orbit the Sun is the same in which the Sun rotates on its axis (counterclockwise from terrestrial north); virtually all the angular momentum in the Solar System—the planets’ orbits and the Sun’s spin—seems systematized, again implying a high degree of unison.

5. The direction in which most planets rotate on their axes also mimics that of the Sun’s spin (again counterclockwise); the two exceptions are Venus, which spins oppositely (retrograde), and Uranus, whose poles are tipped over so as to lie in the plane of its own orbit.

6. Most of the known moons revolve about their parent planets in the same direction as the planets rotate on their axes; some moons, like those associated with Jupiter, resemble miniature Solar Systems, revolving about their parent planet in roughly the same plane as the planet’s equator, and once more evincing unison throughout our planetary system.

7. The Solar System is highly differentiated; the inner, Terrestrial Planets are characterized by small sizes, rocky makeup, high densities, moderate atmospheres, slow rotations, and few or no moons and rings, whereas the outer, Jovian Planets have large sizes, gaseous makeup, low densities, thick atmospheres, rapid rotations, and many moons and rings.

All these observed properties, when taken together, clearly denote a high degree of order within our Solar System. Although much diversity prevails among individual planets and moons, the whole ensemble is apparently not a random assortment of objects spinning and orbiting this way or that. It hardly seems possible that the Solar System is a pickup team, amassed by the slow accumulation of already-fashioned interstellar bodies casually captured by our Sun over the course of billions of years. The overall architecture of our Solar System is too neat and tidy, and the ages of its members too uniform, to be the result of chaotic events or haphazard circumstances. All signs point toward a single formation, the product of an ancient but one-time event not quite 5 billion years ago.

A comprehensive account of all these properties has been a principal goal of astronomers for well more than a century. The Solar System is, after all, our extended home in space and it would be nice to know, specifically and in detail, how it all came to be.



posted on Jan, 5 2012 @ 03:33 PM
link   
reply to post by poet1b
 


Ran out of space on previous post.

The article in the link then goes on to make this point.

www.tufts.edu...

This link then brings up these points.


As sensible as this nebular model seems, it’s not without difficulties. Detailed analyses show that material in a ring of this sort would not likely assemble into a planet. In fact, computer simulations predict just the opposite. The rings would tend to disperse, owing to both a wealth of heat and a lack of mass within any one ring. Gravitational clumping of interstellar matter.


Clearly there are some problems with the theory of the collapsing cloud.

The article then goes on to explain more modern theories to solve the problems addressed, which seem to work, but there remains many problems with these theories.

What I don't see mentioned is the possible effects of magnetism. From my understanding, all planets and stars have magnetic fields. I should do more research in this area. It seems to me that magnetism should have some influence on the formation of our solar system, that isn't being explored nearly enough.

I hope this is enough to be considered food for thought.


edit on 5-1-2012 by poet1b because: formatting problem



posted on Jan, 5 2012 @ 03:50 PM
link   
reply to post by poet1b
 


I'm much more open to varying theories of solar system formation, even if they incorporate electromagnetism, so long as such a factor is evidenced and necessary, as opposed to just being included on a whim.

I happen to have a lot of fun considering alternate theories in astrophysics and cosmology, especially where the origin and formation of the universe is concerned. This is in addition to the relativistic alternatives I mentioned earlier (I believe it was in this thread...I can't remember for sure).

Honestly, it seems too much like luck to me to consider that current theory is right on all counts, so I'm more than willing to entertain alternatives - given legitimate, realistic, evidence-backed alternatives.

My opinions are also swayed by my personal views and the fact that I believe our cosmological models are, in particular, lacking, and possibly wrong altogether. I have presented the 13.7-billion-year-old universe as fact in a sermon or two, which probably wouldn't go over so well for most congregations, but, again, I'm definitely open to alternatives.



posted on Jan, 5 2012 @ 04:30 PM
link   
reply to post by poet1b
 

That article does not consider modelling of the formation of vortices within the protoplanetary disk. Vortices which can lead to the accretion of material sufficient to begin gravitational attraction. This mechanism is gaining quite a lot of favor.

After a presentation of the mechanism of this instability and its interest for astrophysical discs, I will focus on how the Rossby vortices can be an important element in a planet formation scenario by trapping the particles in their centres. Until now only 2D planar studies of the instability had been realized leaving this scenario hypothetical for a real 3D disc. I will present a full 3D numerical study and how it has modified our understanding of the grain trapping inside the vortex.

emps.exeter.ac.uk...



Our study strengthens the arguments in favor of anticyclonic vortices as the candidates for the promotion of planet formation.

www.science.org.ge...

edit on 1/5/2012 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 5 2012 @ 09:04 PM
link   
reply to post by Phage
 


Nice contribution Phage. Although I do think the article does mention this concept. I think the idea has considerable merit. Look at what the near-Earth orbits look like.

I didn't respond to how how electricity travels through various mediums, and I think there is a similarity, but I need to double check the concept. I will check out the link you provided when I get the chance.



posted on Jan, 5 2012 @ 11:09 PM
link   
more quantum thinking,,,,HUMBUG!!! the earth is flat I tell you...flat



posted on Jan, 7 2012 @ 10:00 AM
link   
Electrons don't have mass? Excuse me, but anything that takes up space has mass, excluding light. Do you mean to tell me electrons are nothing more than charges? That doesn't make sense, considering charges are energy, and energy cannot be bound into any one shape, hence light. And bound energy, in any case, becomes MASS. Explain this to me, please.



posted on Jan, 7 2012 @ 11:48 AM
link   
reply to post by Starchild23
 


Light/photons have mass not because they "take up space" but because they travel at the speed of light. At rest, photons (would) have no mass.



posted on Jan, 7 2012 @ 06:29 PM
link   
reply to post by Starchild23
 


Good question.

Electrons are considered not to have mass, because their mass is so tiny as to be irrelevant in comparison to the mass of protons and neutrons.

Here is a point in my personal theory of physics, the quantity of electrons has been greatly underestimated. While the number of electrons evolving around the nucleus of a atom might not be enough to change the atomic weight of the atom, billions and billions of electrons should be significant at some level.

Modern physics suggest that the electron might not actually be a particle, but I think this makes even less sense.

A hair like electron with elasticity would explain the small force. These electrons would be able to tangle together creating larger structures that we see as mass in plasma, gas, liquid, and solid, and possibly the very fabric of space itself, explaining how gravity works, planet formation, and the shape of our solar system.

The positioning of the planet orbits would be more of an effect of waves spreading out, determined by characteristics of our sun, and not circumstance. That we see these near-Earth orbits in the the spiraling path they take points to Earth's orbit being established by structures in space that essentially make up the phenomenon we see as light. These large curved structures made up of both electrons and protons would also function as the forces we know as gravity and magnetism.



posted on Jan, 7 2012 @ 07:05 PM
link   
reply to post by poet1b
 


Where did you get the idea that electrons are considered to have no mass?
The electron mass is well known as being 9.11*10^-31 kg, or 0.511 MeV. This is isn't even 1/2000 the mass of a proton or neutron, and that difference is only because electrons are fundamental particles while protons and neutrons are composed of quarks, which are, on average, just a few times more massive than the electron.



posted on Jan, 8 2012 @ 02:26 AM
link   
reply to post by CLPrime
 


Ok, that was poorly phrased because when calculating atomic weight, the electron is not considered. And I have seen theories that the electron isn't really a particle, or these theories seemed to suggest as much, on some thread here on ATS from what looked like a legitimate source.

When you start measuring mols, usually the mass of the electron is completely ignored.

Electron mass was established as a constant by Robert Andrews Millikan's falling drop method.

en.wikipedia.org...

milan.milanovic.org...

Even still the mass is calculated by charge, and that excludes the possibility that electron charge can be hidden by entanglement. That ought to tweak your brain.

If long strands of particles create the web of energy that we know as light, electricity, gravity, magnetism, atomic energy, that hold everything together, how can we measure their mass.

Instead of gravity as a well created by the warping of time and space, could it be an entanglement of energy, bonding points of matter in space, created by curved particles tangled and interlocked. If so, I think force can then be more easily understood, and the fabric of the less dense space that is most of the world as we have come to know it pieced together more easily.


edit on 8-1-2012 by poet1b because: Add last paragraph.



posted on Jan, 8 2012 @ 11:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by poet1b
reply to post by CLPrime
 


Again, short on time for the fun stuff.


charge for the strong force, charge for the electromagnetic force, and mass for gravity.


Ah, but note that the strong force comes from the far more massive nucleus, and the small force from the electrons which are believe not to have any mass.



This is what I was referring to when I said "Electrons have no mass". Also (it's been a while since my chemistry and physics classes, hehe. I might not be entirely accurate, with my less-than perfect memeory) it is my understanding that electrons and protons are the forces responsible for the binding of atoms. Without the charges provided by the two (positive and negative) atoms would be unable to "stick together". Furthermore, chemical reactions necessary to create some of the most commonly used chemicals in today's world, household and elsewhere, are dependent on the exchange of these charged particles.

The relevancy? Oh, well since you ask...one of the people above made a comparison with hair. That when enough 'hairs' tangle together, it creates an atom. And when enough of those build it, it creates mass large enough to see. In the words of 4chan: "LOLWHUT?"

The metaphorical side of it makes sense, of course.

In any case, it's pure rubbish to think that since, "oh, well, electrons are so small, it doesn't matter if they have mass." That isn't the science I know. Sand dunes are not entirely solid; they are made up of BILLIONS of tiny grains of sand. Now, just because the grain of sand is miniscule in comparison to the larger mass, does not make its own individual mass meaningless. If this appears to be a rant, I apologize, but the mere SUGGESTION that the size makes the mass irrelevant is an insult to all of science.

I do find it laughable that anything smaller than at least half the size of our existing moon could exert a significant pull on Earth. And by significant, I mean keeping its rotation steady quite noticeably, rather than simply exerting 0.000000000000000000000000000003 inches worth of pull every 250 or so years. Nothing the size of a basketball or whatever would have any worthwhile effect on the Earth. That's like saying the gravity of a paperclip can shift my house into the neighbor's yard.
edit on 8-1-2012 by Starchild23 because: revision



posted on Jan, 8 2012 @ 11:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by poet1b
reply to post by CLPrime
 


Ok, that was poorly phrased because when calculating atomic weight, the electron is not considered.


Atomic weight or atomic mass?
Atomic weight is a ratio of the mass of a given atom with 1/12 the mass of a carbon-12 atom.
Atomic mass is the mass of an atom, including the mass of all protons, neutrons, and electrons in the atom.

What you seem to be thinking of is the mass number, which is the number of nucleons (protons and neutrons) in an atom. Mass numbers are used to distinguish between isotopes, in the same way atomic numbers (the number of protons in an atom) are used to distinguish between elements. But, this isn't true mass, and true atomic mass deviates measurably from the mass number because of the mass of the electrons.



And I have seen theories that the electron isn't really a particle, or these theories seemed to suggest as much, on some thread here on ATS from what looked like a legitimate source.


That would be the claim of Quantum Mechanics, which defines the electron in terms of an indiscreet wavefunction, completely distinct from the classical view of a particle.



When you start measuring mols, usually the mass of the electron is completely ignored.


Have you actually done this, or are you just guessing. Because, in all the times I've done molar masses, not once have I ignored the mass of the electron. The only way this might occur is if the person doing the measurement has a particular dislike for accuracy.



Electron mass was established as a constant by Robert Andrews Millikan's falling drop method.

Even still the mass is calculated by charge,


The mass of any charged particle can be calculated in the Penning trap, where three known values - the frequency of the charged particles in the trap, the strength of the field, and the charge of the particles - are used to find the particle mass. This is a direct mass measurement. What do you want them to do, put an electron on a bathroom scale?

Given the hydrogen spectrum (observable), the speed of light (precisely defined), the elementary charge (observable), the permittivity constant (precisely defined), and the Planck constant (observable), you can also calculate the mass of the electron with great precision from the Rydberg constant.



and that excludes the possibility that electron charge can be hidden by entanglement. That ought to tweak your brain.


And how would entanglement manage to hide electron charge?



If long strands of particles create the web of energy that we know as light, electricity, gravity, magnetism, atomic energy, that hold everything together, how can we measure their mass.


...would you mind clarifying that?



Instead of gravity as a well created by the warping of time and space, could it be an entanglement of energy, bonding points of matter in space, created by curved particles tangled and interlocked. If so, I think force can then be more easily understood, and the fabric of the less dense space that is most of the world as we have come to know it pieced together more easily.


Entanglement is not the bonding or interlocking of anything.
edit on 8-1-2012 by CLPrime because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 8 2012 @ 12:53 PM
link   
reply to post by Starchild23
 


That is my theory, and electron is a hair like particle wraps around and tangles with the nucleus of an atom, . A proton would be a short, in comparison with an electron, thick barb like particle, and a neutron would be a gummy stick like particle about the same length and thickness of a proton.



new topics

top topics



 
10
<< 5  6  7    9 >>

log in

join