18/1/16
“The Magnetic Nature of the Solar System”
I have recently updated my alternative model of the operation of our solar system based on my observations of an unusual magnetic phenomena.
During the September school holidays in 2013 I spent a lot of time on the internet researching Einstein's theory of General Relativity in particular his ideas about space-time.
As I have become more interested I've researched more and more. I came across the following Youtube clip which explains an unusual magnetic phenomena.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LyvfDzRLsiU ( 3 mins )
( or Google search: Amazing discovery with magnets Youtube )
When I saw this clip I became aware of a possible mechanism which may explain why the moon orbits the earth.
Using this mechanism I have built up a model for the Earth and the Sun based on my observations regarding the magnets. I have developed the following hypotheses from these observations.
The reason the moon orbits the Earth is not due to a gravitational attraction between the two and no it's not due to a curvature in space-time.
HYPOTHESIS 1: The moon orbits the Earth due to a magnetic attraction.
I believe the Earth is acting like an inverter magnet. The movement of molten rock/iron/nickel inside the Earth and its solid iron core act like the large central magnet.
These movements of molten metals create electrical currents inside the Earth which induce the Earth’s magnetic field.
Fig 1 A typical representation of the Earth’s magnetic field.
In Fig 1 The centre of the Earth is presented as acting like a bar magnet. No allowance has been given to the magnetic material (magnetite) in the Earth’s continental crust or the ocean floors (oceanic crust).
Deposits of iron oxide (magnetite) under the Earth's surface (continental crust) and on the world’s seafloors ( due to seafloor spreading from mid-ocean ridges) are acting like the small satellite magnets in the clip.
Fig 2: Location of large deposits of iron oxide on the continents of Earth.
Fig 3: Mid Ocean ridge- magnetic nature due to magnetite.
( Image Credits Fig 1/2/3 : Google Images )
I believe the magnetic field lines of the sun and planets should produce a shape very similar to concentric circles or ellipses.
These magnetic field lines produce the pushing force which we call ‘gravity’.
On Earth ‘gravity’ I believe is created by the Earth’s magnetic field pushing on our atmosphere.
Objects accelerate towards the surface of the earth due to this ‘pushing force’ produced by the Earth’s magnetic field on the atmosphere.
HYPOTHESIS 2: The strength of the Earth’s magnetic field steadily increases to a maximum level corresponding to the moon’s orbit around the Earth then decreases in strength as the distance from the moon increases.
Near the surface of the Earth the Earth’s magnetic field is relatively weak due to its interaction with the air of Earth’s atmosphere.
The ‘virtual’ photons which create Earth’s magnetic field are absorbed by the gas molecules making up the Earth’s atmosphere.
I predict the Earth’s magnetic field increases significantly outside the Earth’s atmosphere where ‘virtual’ photon absorption is non-existing.
As the Earth rotates on its axis it produces a rotating magnetic field.
HYPOTHESIS 3: The Earth’s magnetic field (magnetosphere) and the moon’s magnetosphere couple as explained in the Youtube clip.
From my research I realize the moon does not (anymore) have a global magnetic field but does have a magnetosphere on its far side.
Fig 4: Moon’s magnetic far side
I believe that the moon has essentially ‘clipped’ onto the Earth’s magnetic field.
The reason why on Earth we only see one side of the moon is not because it rotates on its axis in synchrony with its orbit around the Earth.
We only see one side of the moon due to this coupling effect as shown in the Youtube clip.
My hypothesis would predict that the moon does not spin on its polar axis as it is locked in place due this coupling / inverter magnet effect.
This explains why the rotational period of the moon appears to exactly match its orbital period around the Earth.
From a sidereal view the moon would appear to rotate on its axis but I believe this to be an illusion.
Similarly this explains why the moons of the other planets, predominantly show only one face to their respective planet.
Synchronous rotation and Tidal locking are erroneous explanations for this observable phenomena.
Nikola Tesla’s 1919 article in the ‘Electrical Experimenter’ magazine also suggests that the moon does not spin on its polar axis. (http://www.teslauniverse.com/nikolatesla/articles/moons-rotation-0 )
Simple demonstration which shows that the moon does not need to rotate on its polar axis for only one side to be visible from Earth:
(Tape a ping pong ball to the inside of a hula hoop. Rotate the hula hoop, since the ping pong ball is attached by tape to the hula hoop it can not rotate ‘spin’on its own polar axis. A person standing in the centre of the hula hoop will only see one side of the ping pong ball. The ping pong ball has zero polar axial rotation.)
Comment by Stephen Crothers:
I agree that synchronous rotation and tidal locking are not why the Moon maintains the same face towards Earth. The scientists have offered no rational means by which such a situation could arise and be maintained. It's just another of their many nebulous explanations for things they don't understand. That the Moon moves in the manner of the locked magnet in the film clip is very interesting. Your ideas are promising. ( Stephen Crothers )
Comment by Miles Mathis
I agree with you. It is a sort of tidal lock, but the lock is caused by the charge field, not the gravity field. But since the tides are also a charge effect, it isn't strictly wrong to continue to use the tidal lock term. But I can understand why you prefer to drop it. ( Miles Mathis )
I read on the NASA website that the Earth's magnetic field has been weakening since 1850.
The strength of Earth's magnetic field varies as well; it has been decreasing slightly ever since around 1850. ( NASA Internet Article )
I have also read that the moon is actually moving away from Earth at a rate of
3.8 cm per year over the past 40 years.
I wonder if that is due to mining of iron ore over the last 166 years which is causing the Earth’s magnetic field to decrease in strength ?
HYPOTHESIS 4: Also suggests that the sun acts like a gigantic inverter magnet as well, which the planets are magnetically attracted to. The sun’s sunspots are acting like the satellite magnets in the clip.
Fig 5 Sunspot in photosphere -
magnet satellite magnets in clip.
Fig 6 The suns internal magnet- inner
in clip.
Recent article suggesting that stars have strong internal magnetic fields
Maunder’s Butterfly Diagram
www.astronomy.com/news/2016/01/strong-magnetic-fields-prevalent-in-stars
Graph 1: Maunder’s Butterfly Diagram
One noteworthy observation is the absence of sunspots above 40 degrees in either hemisphere. However, the most important piece of information is that at a beginning of a cycle the sunspots are mostly in the 20 to 40 degree ranges in both hemispheres. As the cycle comes to an end the sunspots mainly occur close to the sun's equator. This means that over time there is a plasma flow going on beneath the sun's surface from the outer portions of both hemispheres towards the equator. This is a very important point in understanding the flow and magnetic activity of the Convective Zone. All solar events are strongly influenced by the solar magnetic cycle, since the magnetic cycle serves as the "energy engine" for all solar activities. The sun's dynamic magnetic field defines the Photosphere's features, the Chromosphere, the Corona, Solar Prominences and CMEs, the Solar Wind and eventually the shape of the Heliosphere. It is noteworthy that the sun's magnetic field and cycle effects our whole solar system.
(Reference:http://www.solarsystemcentral.com/sunspot_cycles_page.html)
Inclination of the Planets to the Sun’s equator
Table 1: Inclination of planets to the Sun’s Equator ( Credit: Wikipedia )
There seems to be a relationship between the location of sunspots and the inclination of the planets to the sun’s equator.
I believe that the sun’s magnetic field permeates throughout our solar system with a sombrero like (or torus) effect emanating from the proximity of its equator.
Fig 7: The Sun’s magnetic torus ( Credit: Google images )
Planet Densities
The planets are ordered by density. It helps show that mass is not the interaction that is involved in planetary motion.
Table 2: Density of planets in our solar system
The densities of the planets show order. There are 3 main categories of the order.
( Reference Aaron Guerami: Aaron’s Reality )
I believe that the planets, all the moons of the solar system and the materials of the rings of Saturn all orbit their associated planet/sun due to two factors
1. inverter magnet effect
2. rotating magnetic fields
These masses are all following the rotating magnetic field lines produced.
Venus has no moons as it does not generate a large magnetic field of its own, thus has been unable to capture any matter.
Venus may have an induced magnetism from the sun. Thus Venus still follows a magnetic field line produced by the sun.
The literature states that Mars does not have global magnetic field but does have a remnant magnetic field ( or clusters of small magnetospheres). I believe these small magnetospheres on Mars do create a very weak global magnetic field surrounding Mars. Hence Mars has two very small moons orbiting it.
The following article seems to support this idea about how global magnetic fields are formed.
http://phys.org/news/2015-11-physicists-clue-formation-magnetic-fields.html
HYPOTHESIS 5: I believe our solar system operates on a magnetic basis or alternatively an electro-magnetic basis.
The sun’s rotation on its axis generates a rotating magnetic field (Parker Spiral) that results in planetary motion around the sun.
Fig 8: Parker Spiral ( Credit: Google images )
My hypotheses do not require the existence of a ‘cosmological constant’ as suggested by Einstein to counteract the effects of gravity.
HYPOTHESIS 6: The unaccounted variation of 43 arc seconds per century for the Precession of Perihelion of Mercury is caused by random variations in sunspot activity over the century.
Fig 9: Mercury’s Precession of Perihelion ( Credit: Google images )
From my research, it seems that Einstein knew that the unaccounted variation of the Precession of Perihelion of Mercury was 43 arc seconds per century. So he was able to adjust his value of pi.
Comment by Stephen Crothers on pi:
If you go to Einstein's book, 'Relativity: The Special and the General Theory', to Section III, the part titled 'The Possibility of a"Finite" and yet "Unbounded" Universe, Einstein argues that pi is not even a constant. His argument betrays that he did not even understand elementary geometry. He gives the following equation to make pi variable:
pi = [sin(r/R)]/(r/R)
where R he says is the radius of the world sphere and r the radius in a spherical surface. He talks of flat beings confined to the spherical surface in order to get his expression above. Einstein is talking drivel. A spherical surface does not have a (world) radius because it is a surface. Einstein's r is merely a segment of a geodesic in the surface. His expression for pi is consequently patently false. Einstein didn't even know the meaning of pi. He might just as well try to claim that Euler's number is also variable. It isn't. ( Stephen Crothers )
In essence my hypotheses does not require the force of gravity.
Gravity I believe is a fictitious force which has for centuries dominated our collective psyches, created to allay humanities unconscious fears of the unexplainable effects of magnetism and its associated historical links to the occult.
The phenomena known as Gravitational lensing should be actually termed Magnetic lensing.
(In the paper referenced below - Manipulating Light with a Magnetic Field, Bart A. van Tiggelen and Geert L. J. A. Rikken show that light is bent through a very small angle in a strong magnetic field inside a non-scattering, homogeneous media.)
http://lpmmc.grenoble.cnrs.fr/UserFiles/...
Gravitational red-shift should be termed Magnetic red-shift ( or commonly known as the Zeeman effect ).
Einstein’s space-time fabric may actually be the magnetic field ( ‘virtual’ photon field) produced by the sun that permeates like an ‘ether’ throughout our solar system.
I predict that the planets bend the magnetic field emanating from the sun and consequently partially couple their magnetic fields with the sun’s magnetic field.
HYPOTHESIS 7: Pluto’s largest moon Charon is tidally locked due to it having a magnetosphere on its far side (same as our moon) which has coupled with Pluto’s global magnetic field.
Pluto’s four smaller moons are not tidally locked as they do not have any significant magnetospheres.
Orbit of Pluto’s moons ( Animation created from New Horizons data )
http://www.space.com/31071-plutos-moons-orbit-pandemonium-new-horizons.html
Comment by Stephen Crothers
Charon and the other moons are interesting. If a magnetic field is detected for Charon then your theory would be significantly reinforced. Certainly Einstein's General Theory of Relativity is incapable of accounting for such motions. It cannot account, in principle, for the very existence of N > 1 bodies, and so it is meaningless. (Stephen Crothers)
HYPOTHESIS 8: Black holes don’t exist. (As proven by Stephen Crothers) Dark Energy Stars are left after supernovae explosions as suggested by Professor Laughlin ( Nobel Laureate) and Professor Chapline.
These Dark Energy Stars are the mysterious Dark Matter of our universe. They form a type of ‘magnetic well’.
HYPOTHESIS 9: I predict that the internal structure (composition) of the planets and stars (suns) are responsible for the magnetic or alternatively electro-magnetic force of attraction between these heavenly bodies.
As such I believe the Einstein’s ‘Strong Equivalence Principle’ will be invalidated by the ongoing study of the ternary system of a pulsar with two stars orbiting it.
My ideas I believe would be consistent with the Quantum Mechanical Model.
As such I would suggest that this magnetic model can also be applied at a Quantum level.
I would also suggest that in our universe there exists only 3 dimensions.
Comment by Stephen Crothers
I agree that only three spatial dimensions exist. The claim by Minkowski, and subsequently Einstein and his followers, that time is on the same footing as the three spatial dimensions, forming thereby a 4-dimensional space-time continuum, is false. This is perhaps most easily seen in the fact that the spatial dimensions are measured in units of distance, such as metres, whereas time is measure in altogether different units of duration, such as seconds. In order to make time appear to be on the same footing as the three spatial dimensions, Minkowski et. al. multiplied time by a speed, the speed of light c thus, d = ct. Then by setting c = 1, the so-called 'relativistic unit', in pro-numerals d = t. This now looks like time and space are combined. However, simple dimensional analysis on the symbols gives [d] = L, [t] = T. If the coefficient of t is taken into account then [ct] = (L/T)T = L. If the unit coefficient c = 1 is taken into account, [c] = [1] = L/T. Thus, c = 1 is a speed of 1 unit of L per unit time T, the unit of distance being the distance that light travels in 1 unit of time. The 4-dimensional space-time continuum is farce. ( Stephen Crothers )
Einstein would not have known that our moon has a magnetic nature as he died in 1955. When moon rocks were bought back by the Apollo 11 mission in 1969 and analyzed, it is my understanding that scientists were shocked to find out they all were magnetic.
I know my hypotheses go against contemporary physics ideology but I think sometimes in Science we tend to ignore the obvious and invariable try to over complicate theories and ideas.
Comment by Wal Thornhill (EU)
I’m pleased to see you thinking seriously about gravity and magnetism. They are very similar dipole phenomena, which means that gravity doesn’t merely attract but can produce a balanced system. ( Wal Thornhill )
I believe Einstein was correct when he stated:
“Imagination is more important than knowledge. For knowledge is limited to all we now know and understand, while imagination embraces the entire world, and all there ever will be to know and understand.” ( Albert Einstein )
Thanks for reading,
F.D
“The Magnetic Nature of the Solar System”
I have recently updated my alternative model of the operation of our solar system based on my observations of an unusual magnetic phenomena.
During the September school holidays in 2013 I spent a lot of time on the internet researching Einstein's theory of General Relativity in particular his ideas about space-time.
As I have become more interested I've researched more and more. I came across the following Youtube clip which explains an unusual magnetic phenomena.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LyvfDzRLsiU ( 3 mins )
( or Google search: Amazing discovery with magnets Youtube )
When I saw this clip I became aware of a possible mechanism which may explain why the moon orbits the earth.
Using this mechanism I have built up a model for the Earth and the Sun based on my observations regarding the magnets. I have developed the following hypotheses from these observations.
The reason the moon orbits the Earth is not due to a gravitational attraction between the two and no it's not due to a curvature in space-time.
HYPOTHESIS 1: The moon orbits the Earth due to a magnetic attraction.
I believe the Earth is acting like an inverter magnet. The movement of molten rock/iron/nickel inside the Earth and its solid iron core act like the large central magnet.
These movements of molten metals create electrical currents inside the Earth which induce the Earth’s magnetic field.
Fig 1 A typical representation of the Earth’s magnetic field.
In Fig 1 The centre of the Earth is presented as acting like a bar magnet. No allowance has been given to the magnetic material (magnetite) in the Earth’s continental crust or the ocean floors (oceanic crust).
Deposits of iron oxide (magnetite) under the Earth's surface (continental crust) and on the world’s seafloors ( due to seafloor spreading from mid-ocean ridges) are acting like the small satellite magnets in the clip.
Fig 2: Location of large deposits of iron oxide on the continents of Earth.
Fig 3: Mid Ocean ridge- magnetic nature due to magnetite.
( Image Credits Fig 1/2/3 : Google Images )
I believe the magnetic field lines of the sun and planets should produce a shape very similar to concentric circles or ellipses.
These magnetic field lines produce the pushing force which we call ‘gravity’.
On Earth ‘gravity’ I believe is created by the Earth’s magnetic field pushing on our atmosphere.
Objects accelerate towards the surface of the earth due to this ‘pushing force’ produced by the Earth’s magnetic field on the atmosphere.
HYPOTHESIS 2: The strength of the Earth’s magnetic field steadily increases to a maximum level corresponding to the moon’s orbit around the Earth then decreases in strength as the distance from the moon increases.
Near the surface of the Earth the Earth’s magnetic field is relatively weak due to its interaction with the air of Earth’s atmosphere.
The ‘virtual’ photons which create Earth’s magnetic field are absorbed by the gas molecules making up the Earth’s atmosphere.
I predict the Earth’s magnetic field increases significantly outside the Earth’s atmosphere where ‘virtual’ photon absorption is non-existing.
As the Earth rotates on its axis it produces a rotating magnetic field.
HYPOTHESIS 3: The Earth’s magnetic field (magnetosphere) and the moon’s magnetosphere couple as explained in the Youtube clip.
From my research I realize the moon does not (anymore) have a global magnetic field but does have a magnetosphere on its far side.
Fig 4: Moon’s magnetic far side
I believe that the moon has essentially ‘clipped’ onto the Earth’s magnetic field.
The reason why on Earth we only see one side of the moon is not because it rotates on its axis in synchrony with its orbit around the Earth.
We only see one side of the moon due to this coupling effect as shown in the Youtube clip.
My hypothesis would predict that the moon does not spin on its polar axis as it is locked in place due this coupling / inverter magnet effect.
This explains why the rotational period of the moon appears to exactly match its orbital period around the Earth.
From a sidereal view the moon would appear to rotate on its axis but I believe this to be an illusion.
Similarly this explains why the moons of the other planets, predominantly show only one face to their respective planet.
Synchronous rotation and Tidal locking are erroneous explanations for this observable phenomena.
Nikola Tesla’s 1919 article in the ‘Electrical Experimenter’ magazine also suggests that the moon does not spin on its polar axis. (http://www.teslauniverse.com/nikolatesla/articles/moons-rotation-0 )
Simple demonstration which shows that the moon does not need to rotate on its polar axis for only one side to be visible from Earth:
(Tape a ping pong ball to the inside of a hula hoop. Rotate the hula hoop, since the ping pong ball is attached by tape to the hula hoop it can not rotate ‘spin’on its own polar axis. A person standing in the centre of the hula hoop will only see one side of the ping pong ball. The ping pong ball has zero polar axial rotation.)
Comment by Stephen Crothers:
I agree that synchronous rotation and tidal locking are not why the Moon maintains the same face towards Earth. The scientists have offered no rational means by which such a situation could arise and be maintained. It's just another of their many nebulous explanations for things they don't understand. That the Moon moves in the manner of the locked magnet in the film clip is very interesting. Your ideas are promising. ( Stephen Crothers )
Comment by Miles Mathis
I agree with you. It is a sort of tidal lock, but the lock is caused by the charge field, not the gravity field. But since the tides are also a charge effect, it isn't strictly wrong to continue to use the tidal lock term. But I can understand why you prefer to drop it. ( Miles Mathis )
I read on the NASA website that the Earth's magnetic field has been weakening since 1850.
The strength of Earth's magnetic field varies as well; it has been decreasing slightly ever since around 1850. ( NASA Internet Article )
I have also read that the moon is actually moving away from Earth at a rate of
3.8 cm per year over the past 40 years.
I wonder if that is due to mining of iron ore over the last 166 years which is causing the Earth’s magnetic field to decrease in strength ?
HYPOTHESIS 4: Also suggests that the sun acts like a gigantic inverter magnet as well, which the planets are magnetically attracted to. The sun’s sunspots are acting like the satellite magnets in the clip.
Fig 5 Sunspot in photosphere -
magnet satellite magnets in clip.
Fig 6 The suns internal magnet- inner
in clip.
Recent article suggesting that stars have strong internal magnetic fields
Maunder’s Butterfly Diagram
www.astronomy.com/news/2016/01/strong-magnetic-fields-prevalent-in-stars
Graph 1: Maunder’s Butterfly Diagram
One noteworthy observation is the absence of sunspots above 40 degrees in either hemisphere. However, the most important piece of information is that at a beginning of a cycle the sunspots are mostly in the 20 to 40 degree ranges in both hemispheres. As the cycle comes to an end the sunspots mainly occur close to the sun's equator. This means that over time there is a plasma flow going on beneath the sun's surface from the outer portions of both hemispheres towards the equator. This is a very important point in understanding the flow and magnetic activity of the Convective Zone. All solar events are strongly influenced by the solar magnetic cycle, since the magnetic cycle serves as the "energy engine" for all solar activities. The sun's dynamic magnetic field defines the Photosphere's features, the Chromosphere, the Corona, Solar Prominences and CMEs, the Solar Wind and eventually the shape of the Heliosphere. It is noteworthy that the sun's magnetic field and cycle effects our whole solar system.
(Reference:http://www.solarsystemcentral.com/sunspot_cycles_page.html)
Inclination of the Planets to the Sun’s equator
| Inclination | |||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Name | Inclination to ecliptic |
Inclination to Sun's equator |
Inclination to invariable plane[3] |
||||||||
| Terrestrials | Mercury | 7.01° | 3.38° | 6.34° | |||||||
| Venus | 3.39° | 3.86° | 2.19° | ||||||||
| Earth | 0 | 7.155° | 1.57° | ||||||||
| Mars | 1.85° | 5.65° | 1.67° | ||||||||
| Gas giants | Jupiter | 1.31° | 6.09° | 0.32° | |||||||
| Saturn | 2.49° | 5.51° | 0.93° | ||||||||
| Uranus | 0.77° | 6.48° | 1.02° | ||||||||
| Neptune | 1.77° | 6.43° | 0.72° | ||||||||
There seems to be a relationship between the location of sunspots and the inclination of the planets to the sun’s equator.
I believe that the sun’s magnetic field permeates throughout our solar system with a sombrero like (or torus) effect emanating from the proximity of its equator.
Fig 7: The Sun’s magnetic torus ( Credit: Google images )
Planet Densities
The planets are ordered by density. It helps show that mass is not the interaction that is involved in planetary motion.
| Planet | Density (g/cm^3) |
| Mercury | 5.427 |
| Venus | 5.204 |
| Earth | 5.515 |
| Mars | 3.934 |
| Jupiter | 1.326 |
| Saturn | 0.687 |
| Uranus | 1.27 |
| Neptune | 1.638 |
| Pluto (dwarf) | 1.88 |
Table 2: Density of planets in our solar system
The densities of the planets show order. There are 3 main categories of the order.
Solids Gas Ice
( Reference Aaron Guerami: Aaron’s Reality )
I believe that the planets, all the moons of the solar system and the materials of the rings of Saturn all orbit their associated planet/sun due to two factors
1. inverter magnet effect
2. rotating magnetic fields
These masses are all following the rotating magnetic field lines produced.
Venus has no moons as it does not generate a large magnetic field of its own, thus has been unable to capture any matter.
Venus may have an induced magnetism from the sun. Thus Venus still follows a magnetic field line produced by the sun.
The literature states that Mars does not have global magnetic field but does have a remnant magnetic field ( or clusters of small magnetospheres). I believe these small magnetospheres on Mars do create a very weak global magnetic field surrounding Mars. Hence Mars has two very small moons orbiting it.
The following article seems to support this idea about how global magnetic fields are formed.
http://phys.org/news/2015-11-physicists-clue-formation-magnetic-fields.html
HYPOTHESIS 5: I believe our solar system operates on a magnetic basis or alternatively an electro-magnetic basis.
The sun’s rotation on its axis generates a rotating magnetic field (Parker Spiral) that results in planetary motion around the sun.
Fig 8: Parker Spiral ( Credit: Google images )
My hypotheses do not require the existence of a ‘cosmological constant’ as suggested by Einstein to counteract the effects of gravity.
HYPOTHESIS 6: The unaccounted variation of 43 arc seconds per century for the Precession of Perihelion of Mercury is caused by random variations in sunspot activity over the century.
Fig 9: Mercury’s Precession of Perihelion ( Credit: Google images )
From my research, it seems that Einstein knew that the unaccounted variation of the Precession of Perihelion of Mercury was 43 arc seconds per century. So he was able to adjust his value of pi.
Comment by Stephen Crothers on pi:
If you go to Einstein's book, 'Relativity: The Special and the General Theory', to Section III, the part titled 'The Possibility of a"Finite" and yet "Unbounded" Universe, Einstein argues that pi is not even a constant. His argument betrays that he did not even understand elementary geometry. He gives the following equation to make pi variable:
pi = [sin(r/R)]/(r/R)
where R he says is the radius of the world sphere and r the radius in a spherical surface. He talks of flat beings confined to the spherical surface in order to get his expression above. Einstein is talking drivel. A spherical surface does not have a (world) radius because it is a surface. Einstein's r is merely a segment of a geodesic in the surface. His expression for pi is consequently patently false. Einstein didn't even know the meaning of pi. He might just as well try to claim that Euler's number is also variable. It isn't. ( Stephen Crothers )
In essence my hypotheses does not require the force of gravity.
Gravity I believe is a fictitious force which has for centuries dominated our collective psyches, created to allay humanities unconscious fears of the unexplainable effects of magnetism and its associated historical links to the occult.
The phenomena known as Gravitational lensing should be actually termed Magnetic lensing.
(In the paper referenced below - Manipulating Light with a Magnetic Field, Bart A. van Tiggelen and Geert L. J. A. Rikken show that light is bent through a very small angle in a strong magnetic field inside a non-scattering, homogeneous media.)
http://lpmmc.grenoble.cnrs.fr/UserFiles/...
Gravitational red-shift should be termed Magnetic red-shift ( or commonly known as the Zeeman effect ).
Einstein’s space-time fabric may actually be the magnetic field ( ‘virtual’ photon field) produced by the sun that permeates like an ‘ether’ throughout our solar system.
I predict that the planets bend the magnetic field emanating from the sun and consequently partially couple their magnetic fields with the sun’s magnetic field.
HYPOTHESIS 7: Pluto’s largest moon Charon is tidally locked due to it having a magnetosphere on its far side (same as our moon) which has coupled with Pluto’s global magnetic field.
Pluto’s four smaller moons are not tidally locked as they do not have any significant magnetospheres.
Orbit of Pluto’s moons ( Animation created from New Horizons data )
http://www.space.com/31071-plutos-moons-orbit-pandemonium-new-horizons.html
Comment by Stephen Crothers
Charon and the other moons are interesting. If a magnetic field is detected for Charon then your theory would be significantly reinforced. Certainly Einstein's General Theory of Relativity is incapable of accounting for such motions. It cannot account, in principle, for the very existence of N > 1 bodies, and so it is meaningless. (Stephen Crothers)
HYPOTHESIS 8: Black holes don’t exist. (As proven by Stephen Crothers) Dark Energy Stars are left after supernovae explosions as suggested by Professor Laughlin ( Nobel Laureate) and Professor Chapline.
These Dark Energy Stars are the mysterious Dark Matter of our universe. They form a type of ‘magnetic well’.
HYPOTHESIS 9: I predict that the internal structure (composition) of the planets and stars (suns) are responsible for the magnetic or alternatively electro-magnetic force of attraction between these heavenly bodies.
As such I believe the Einstein’s ‘Strong Equivalence Principle’ will be invalidated by the ongoing study of the ternary system of a pulsar with two stars orbiting it.
My ideas I believe would be consistent with the Quantum Mechanical Model.
As such I would suggest that this magnetic model can also be applied at a Quantum level.
I would also suggest that in our universe there exists only 3 dimensions.
Comment by Stephen Crothers
I agree that only three spatial dimensions exist. The claim by Minkowski, and subsequently Einstein and his followers, that time is on the same footing as the three spatial dimensions, forming thereby a 4-dimensional space-time continuum, is false. This is perhaps most easily seen in the fact that the spatial dimensions are measured in units of distance, such as metres, whereas time is measure in altogether different units of duration, such as seconds. In order to make time appear to be on the same footing as the three spatial dimensions, Minkowski et. al. multiplied time by a speed, the speed of light c thus, d = ct. Then by setting c = 1, the so-called 'relativistic unit', in pro-numerals d = t. This now looks like time and space are combined. However, simple dimensional analysis on the symbols gives [d] = L, [t] = T. If the coefficient of t is taken into account then [ct] = (L/T)T = L. If the unit coefficient c = 1 is taken into account, [c] = [1] = L/T. Thus, c = 1 is a speed of 1 unit of L per unit time T, the unit of distance being the distance that light travels in 1 unit of time. The 4-dimensional space-time continuum is farce. ( Stephen Crothers )
Einstein would not have known that our moon has a magnetic nature as he died in 1955. When moon rocks were bought back by the Apollo 11 mission in 1969 and analyzed, it is my understanding that scientists were shocked to find out they all were magnetic.
I know my hypotheses go against contemporary physics ideology but I think sometimes in Science we tend to ignore the obvious and invariable try to over complicate theories and ideas.
Comment by Wal Thornhill (EU)
I’m pleased to see you thinking seriously about gravity and magnetism. They are very similar dipole phenomena, which means that gravity doesn’t merely attract but can produce a balanced system. ( Wal Thornhill )
I believe Einstein was correct when he stated:
“Imagination is more important than knowledge. For knowledge is limited to all we now know and understand, while imagination embraces the entire world, and all there ever will be to know and understand.” ( Albert Einstein )
Thanks for reading,
F.D
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment