Earth must have another Moon, say Astronomers

reply to post by CLPrime


I'm sorry, atomic weight, as in the periodic table. Atomic weights are used to distinguish atoms from each other, including isotopes, which are atoms with additional neutrons.

While charge is observable, science has no credible theory as to what creates this charge, or how it works, same as gravity.

Any measure of electron mass by measuring charge assumes that all electrons are in a position to emit a charge/force that we know as charge, that we can detect. I think this is an unrealistic assumption.

If an electron is a curved hair like particle with elasticity, then that curved elasticity explains what a charge is. A conductive material has long tangled threads of electrons that traverse throughout the material, and even extending out beyond the surface of this material, as we know it. When a material lacking in electrons comes into contact with a conducting material with an excess of electrons, the barbed protons grab onto the electrons, and set these tangles electron threads into motion. This all happens due to the natural frequency all bodies vibrate at.

Back to the subject of the thread, if gravity does not repel, what is changing this near-Earth orbiting rock to change direction.

Is it possible that another object with considerable mass is floating nearby, exerting a subtle pull resulting in the change of direction? Or perhaps satellites are continually drifting by, exerting a pull with each pass...similar to the waves of water pushing a piece of wood onto a beach or pulling it back in. btw, I am a little confused. Are we saying there is a miniature moon missing, or that there is a miniature moon but its course has shifted?

Originally posted by poet1b

While charge is observable, science has no credible theory as to what creates this charge, or how it works, same as gravity.

Not the same as gravity...the same as mass. Technically.
You do, however, have a point. An understanding of the fundamental origin of charge is hiding out in Agharta with Bigfoot and Elvis. The best we can say is, "Charge is the intrinsic property of certain particles causing them to interact via the emission and exchange of photons." So, anything beyond that is welcome.

Any measure of electron mass by measuring charge assumes that all electrons are in a position to emit a charge/force that we know as charge, that we can detect. I think this is an unrealistic assumption.

Unrealistic? Nah, it's the only reasonable assumption. Why would the force of one electron be felt and not the force of another? What reasoning leads you to conclude that it's possible for this sort of force discrimination?

If an electron is a curved hair like particle with elasticity, then that curved elasticity explains what a charge is. A conductive material has long tangled threads of electrons that traverse throughout the material, and even extending out beyond the surface of this material, as we know it. When a material lacking in electrons comes into contact with a conducting material with an excess of electrons, the barbed protons grab onto the electrons, and set these tangles electron threads into motion. This all happens due to the natural frequency all bodies vibrate at.

Come on, don't you think that sounds a little 3rd grade-ish? Curved hair electrons, barbed protons, natural body frequencies... are you "enlightened" by any chance?

Back to the subject of the thread, if gravity does not repel, what is changing this near-Earth orbiting rock to change direction.

Gravity might not repel, but momentum is a powerful thing, and that's all forces truly are...an exchange of momentum. Consequently, gravitational interaction between two rotating bodies influencing a much smaller body will impart momentum in superficially strange ways. The fact that the asteroid comes close to the Earth doesn't necessarily mean that it should get pulled into it. On the contrary, in this case, it means the asteroid slingshots around and, through the added gravitational influence of the Sun, gets turned around and heads back in the opposite direction. Note the spiral motion along the way. This is also an artefact of that momentum.

Plus, once again, the orbit was modelled using Newtonian (maybe even Relativistic) gravity. How, then, do you suppose that this situation is not possible within the framework of Newtonian physics? If you want the details of every nook and cranny of this orbit, I suggest you contact the ones who found and described it.

reply to post by CLPrime


An understanding of the fundamental origin of GRAVITY is ALSO hiding out in Agharta with Bigfoot and Elvis.

In that way they are both seriously lacking.

I think the whole force theory sounds more third grade-ish than my theory. My theory evolved from observing how things are held together, and the patterns of woven strands and grains that I have observed are virtually everywhere. My advantage is that my concepts have evolved outside of mainstream academics. It is a completely different perspective, and at this point in time, a fresh perspective is something that science and mathematics desperately needs.

As far as the well established fact that bodies all vibrate at a natural frequency is concerned, that was discovered by Tesla, the man who might have understood physics more than anyone else has ever came to understand it.

It is hard to find a good link on the subject, with all the metaphysics links that pop up, but this should work.

thescienceclassroom.wikispaces.com...

I am only enlightened during special moments, that are not allowed to be discussed here on these boards.

How is it that the force of an electron can not be detected?

Well, in the comic book world of force, force is everywhere, always emitting out into the world, cue soundtrack.

In my more down to physical reality version, force is a result of the natural curve of matter, and when nothing is pressing against this natural curve, it is not creating any measurable force.

On the contrary, in this case, it means the asteroid slingshots around and, through the added gravitational influence of the Sun, gets turned around and heads back in the opposite direction.

Yeah, this doesn't explain what we are seeing at all. You are just throwing it up there, and hoping someone on your team comes up with the ball.

How about this, Earth's gravity is a result of a tangled web of matter extending out into space, which creates the force we know as gravity, combined with Earths rotation and orbit through space. The Earth's orbit corresponds to natural breaks in the Suns gravity field, as does the orbits of all the planets, which explains the solar systems symmetry. This asteroid spirals around this break point, and when it encounters Earths rotating gravitational field and or magnetic field, it bumps the asteroid, causing the tiny body to reverse the direction of its spiral.

Now this is what I am talking about.

www.bbc.co.uk...

"It's very widely believed that our final understanding of the 'dark universe' is going to have to invoke some new physics, something that will forever change our view of the Universe.

IMO, Dark Matter (cue soundtrack) is simply electrons, protons, and neutrons combining in different ways than mainstream science is willing to accept.

Originally posted by poet1b

I think the whole force theory sounds more third grade-ish than my theory. My theory evolved from observing how things are held together, and the patterns of woven strands and grains that I have observed are virtually everywhere. My advantage is that my concepts have evolved outside of mainstream academics. It is a completely different perspective, and at this point in time, a fresh perspective is something that science and mathematics desperately needs.

I can't fault you for thinking outside the box and trying to find a viable alternative. I do the same. And I definitely can't fault you for coming up with something different than what I would come up with. One or two of the theories I've tried in the past would probably seem outlandish to you.

How is it that the force of an electron can not be detected?

Well, in the comic book world of force, force is everywhere, always emitting out into the world, cue soundtrack.

In my more down to physical reality version, force is a result of the natural curve of matter, and when nothing is pressing against this natural curve, it is not creating any measurable force.

In physics, force is the quantized exchange of momentum. That doesn't sound too comic booky to me. I've never been a fan of comic books, so, if it were, I probably wouldn't like it either.
Mathematically, force is described as a vector field, which might seem comic booky, but that's not the physical reality as it's currently understood.

On the contrary, in this case, it means the asteroid slingshots around and, through the added gravitational influence of the Sun, gets turned around and heads back in the opposite direction.

Yeah, this doesn't explain what we are seeing at all. You are just throwing it up there, and hoping someone on your team comes up with the ball.

You need to tell me exactly what part of my explanation doesn't work for you. It's hard to defend something when I don't know what your problem with it is.
If you want a better explanation, you need to contact the scientists involved. Then, feel free to reject it, but at least you can reject the actual answer instead of just my overview of it. I can't give you the details of the orbit because I don't have them. Only the scientists studying it have them. Ask them.

Also, could you tell me who is on my team? And, if I have a team, why do I always feel so alone?

How about this, Earth's gravity is a result of a tangled web of matter extending out into space, which creates the force we know as gravity, combined with Earths rotation and orbit through space. The Earth's orbit corresponds to natural breaks in the Suns gravity field, as does the orbits of all the planets, which explains the solar systems symmetry. This asteroid spirals around this break point, and when it encounters Earths rotating gravitational field and or magnetic field, it bumps the asteroid, causing the tiny body to reverse the direction of its spiral.

Flesh your theory out, get it published and peer reviewed, and then we'll see where you stand. That's what all great minds have to go through.

At one time Earth did have a second moon, but David Copperfield made it disappear and couldn't bring it back.

reply to post by CLPrime

In physics, force is the quantized exchange of momentum.

That is a nice way of putting it. Is that you phrasing, or did you get it from someone else?

My theory is that the exchange of momentum is cause by the natural curved shape of matter, starting with the smallest particles. It is a very practical theory. Maybe someday I will try to publish a paper, but chances are I wouldn't get any review. Ours is a screwed up world where all ideas that don't conform to current institutional desires are suppressed, and honestly, the people who have gained control of technology, demonstrate over and over again that they have no sense of morality, and the last thing they need is more tech to give them more power. We need major cultural changes before we make any more tech advances.

But maybe you could offer your opinion about my theory. What holes do you see.

Anyway, specifically

the asteroid slingshots around and, through the added gravitational influence of the Sun, gets turned around

What does the asteroid slingshot around? All indications are that it is circling around the Earth's orbital path, which shouldn't have gravitational pull to keep the asteroids momentum spinning in this manner. Unless, there is something to the Earth's orbital path, such as some structure of space that causes this strange orbit of this asteroid, and possibly the reason why the Earth orbits where it does, and the other planets as well.

How does the Sun's gravitational influence turn around this asteroid? The Lagrange point would actually weaken the Suns gravitational influence, which seems hardly a recipe for reversing direction.

Originally posted by poet1b

In physics, force is the quantized exchange of momentum.

That is a nice way of putting it. Is that you phrasing, or did you get it from someone else?

That's my phrasing of how I understand current theory...mixed with a little bit of personal bias (it's subtle but it's there).

... chances are I wouldn't get any review. Ours is a screwed up world where all ideas that don't conform to current institutional desires are suppressed, and honestly, the people who have gained control of technology, demonstrate over and over again that they have no sense of morality, and the last thing they need is more tech to give them more power. We need major cultural changes before we make any more tech advances.

I can agree with that. Wholeheartedly, even. The other day, I spent some time ranting by myself that modern science is growing too self-important for its own good. I've been known to do that every once in a while.

My theory is that the exchange of momentum is cause by the natural curved shape of matter, starting with the smallest particles. It is a very practical theory. Maybe someday I will try to publish a paper, but chances are I wouldn't get any review. ... But maybe you could offer your opinion about my theory. What holes do you see.

The only hole I can see at the moment is a lack of detail. I'd love to have a paper written by you to read...one that details how your theory applies to specific cases and known observation.

Anyway, specifically

the asteroid slingshots around and, through the added gravitational influence of the Sun, gets turned around

What does the asteroid slingshot around? All indications are that it is circling around the Earth's orbital path, which shouldn't have gravitational pull to keep the asteroids momentum spinning in this manner. Unless, there is something to the Earth's orbital path, such as some structure of space that causes this strange orbit of this asteroid, and possibly the reason why the Earth orbits where it does, and the other planets as well.

How does the Sun's gravitational influence turn around this asteroid? The Lagrange point would actually weaken the Suns gravitational influence, which seems hardly a recipe for reversing direction.

In the helical case, the Lagrangian points don't make a difference, I don't think...they're only a factor in the temporary orbits of the article in your OP. Again, I'm not too familiar with the mechanics of this helical orbit, so the scientists in charge would be the ones to go to.

In all honesty, this is the point where the orbital mechanics becomes too complicated for me to simulate in my head without further research, and, unfortunately, I don't have the time at the moment to do that research. That's why I'm referring you to the scientists involved. Though, their answer would probably be a rather unsatisfying, "We apologize, but the details of the orbit are too complicated to explain in an email, however you can trust us when we tell you it is fully explained by Newtonian physics." Or something of that nature.

reply to post by CLPrime


I know about those kinds or rants personally.

I think alot of the best minds turned away from science, disgusted with our current direction as a species. Our schools are more interested in conditioning student to be conformists, than they are interested in nurturing young minds.

Someday I will have to write a serious paper on my theories. Probably all come to rubbish, but in so many scientific results and new discoveries, I see my theory being proved, as mainstream science seems more and more lost. I think my concept is well established by the classic double slit experiment. I will offer an explanation later. No time now. Ran out of time looking for a good link discussing the experiment.

It is my opinion, that if someone can not explain their logic and reason, they don't understand what is going on, and that is what I see in what I have read about these near-Earth orbits.

Originally posted by poet1b

I think my concept is well established by the classic double slit experiment. I will offer an explanation later. No time now. Ran out of time looking for a good link discussing the experiment.

Now that piques my interest. I look forward to your explanation.

It is my opinion, that if someone can not explain their logic and reason, they don't understand what is going on, and that is what I see in what I have read about these near-Earth orbits.

The problem with that is, you haven't given the scientists involved a chance to explain their logic and reason. This kind of orbit is beyond my ability to grasp mentally, as I said, without doing more research, which I don't have time for.
Otherwise, it's a fair assessment.

reply to post by CLPrime


I should be more positive. From what I have read so far, I don't think anyone has a good explanation, and comments seem to point in that direction. I think it is important to recognize, that much of what we observe, we can not explain.

Did you know, Newton was heavily into the occult?

Originally posted by poet1b
reply to post by CLPrime

 

I should be more positive. From what I have read so far, I don't think anyone has a good explanation, and comments seem to point in that direction. I think it is important to recognize, that much of what we observe, we can not explain.

Did you know, Newton was heavily into the occult?

It reminds me of that story about the ten blind man groping an elephant. Because each of them is touching a different part, none of them can agree one what the animal is. Regardless...

The occult is an awesome complimentary division to science. Science explains what can be proved, and the occult proves what can't be explained. On a side note, the lack of readily available analysis results in the lack of explanation. And those of you who say the occult proves nothing...have you ever been to an occult meeting, or practiced it? I know people who have...they agree with me.