Cosmological.... no topic

This thread is started by Zarkov

You may post relevant or non relevant science

But any slanderous or nasty comments are not welcome..... and maybe those responsible should be totally ignored by all other posters, until their unwelcome posts are deleted.

In this thread, Cosmology, old and new is the theme

Past history threads for this stream are... Invisible light, Physics without Einstein, Electrodynamic spin gravity theory, Ether of magnetism... and any other threads I have posted it.

In this thread these are all valid topics for discussion......

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

from 1100f

>> Where did you get the observation that rv^2 is constant all the time?
(third time that I am asking)

Calculations from observed orbital parameters. You can do it yourself !!!!!!

( Gcentral spin-perihelion X Gcentral spin-aphelion )^0.5 = Gcentral spin-inertial-circle

The values of rv^2 for each planet point to the Gcentral spin-sun value = 1.328 X 10^11 km^3 sec^-2..within a reasonable tolerance..... except Pluto, which is no longer under a purely 1/r^2 force.

Gcentral spin is an energy value and closely related to the Poynting energy vector.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Hi Zarkov,
The question is asking about specific observations of radius and velocity of planets. Not about gcentral spin, space-time curvature, newtonian gravity, or any other theory-based notions. Simply distance from the Sun, and velocity relative to the Sun.

That's what I've done. I'm afraid I have some bad news for you.

You maintain that observations suggest that rv² is constant for all planets at all times. Easy enough to check, if you accept the observations of orbital radius and velocity.

Do you have a preferred source for this data? I'm using NASA Goddard Space Center.
If you disagree with their observations, please provide an alternative source.

Note that I've left out the outer planets, because not all the specific parameters we are interested in have yet been directly observed.

All results are given to four significant figures, which may be stretching the limitations of the models and available figures.

<table border=1><tr><th>Planet and position</th><th>v (km/s)</th><th>r (km)</th><th>r.v² (km³/s²)</th></td><tr><th>Mercury at aphelion</th><td>38.86</td><td>69.82x10⁶</td><td><b>1.054x10¹¹</b></td><tr><th>Mercury at perihelion</th><td>58.98</td><td>46.00x10⁶</td><td><b>1.600x10¹¹</b></td><tr><th>Venus at aphelion</th><td>34.79</td><td>108.94x10⁶</td><td><b>1.319x10¹¹</b></td><tr><th>Venus at perihelion</th><td>35.26</td><td>107.48x10⁶</td><td><b>1.336x10¹¹</b></td><tr><th>Earth at aphelion</th><td>29.29</td><td>152.10x10⁶</td><td><b>1.305x10¹¹</b></td><tr><th>Earth at perihelion</th><td>30.29</td><td>147.09x10⁶</td><td><b>1.350x10¹¹</b></td><tr><th>Mars at aphelion</th><td>21.97</td><td>249.23x10⁶</td><td><b>1.203x10¹¹</b></td><tr><th>Mars at perihelion</th><td>26.50</td><td>206.62x10⁶</td><td><b>1.451x10¹¹</b></td><tr><th>Jupiter at aphelion</th><td>12.44</td><td>816.62x10⁶</td><td><b>1.264x10¹¹</b></td><tr><th>Jupiter at perihelion</th><td>13.72</td><td>740.52x10⁶</td><td><b>1.394x10¹¹</b></td><tr><th>Saturn at aphelion</th><td>9.09</td><td>1514.50x10⁶</td><td><b>1.251x10¹¹</b></td><tr><th>Saturn at perihelion</th><td>10.18</td><td>1352.55x10⁶</td><td><b>1.402x10¹¹</b></td></table>

There appears to be a problem. Observations do not match your theory to more than one significant figure!

Now, let's try the formula I proposed earlier (adjusted for units and significant figures).
Rememberthat I said this formula should give a constant for one planet at all points on its orbit. Each planet will have its own constant value (as the table shows, more distant planets have smaller values).

I derived this formula from theory - If the theory I used was correctly derived from observations, then my formula should closely match those observations:

<table border=1><tr><th>Planet and position</th><th>v (km/s)</th><th>r (km)</th><th>v² - 2.6545x10¹¹/r</th></td><tr><th>Mercury at aphelion</th><td>38.86</td><td>69.82x10⁶</td><td><b>-2292</b></td><tr><th>Mercury at perihelion</th><td>58.98</td><td>46.00x10⁶</td><td><b>-2292</b></td><tr><th>Venus at aphelion</th><td>34.79</td><td>108.94x10⁶</td><td><b>-1226</b></td><tr><th>Venus at perihelion</th><td>35.26</td><td>107.48x10⁶</td><td><b>-1226</b></td><tr><th>Earth at aphelion</th><td>29.29</td><td>152.10x10⁶</td><td><b>-887.3</b></td><tr><th>Earth at perihelion</th><td>30.29</td><td>147.09x10⁶</td><td><b>-887.2</b></td><tr><th>Mars at aphelion</th><td>21.97</td><td>249.23x10⁶</td><td><b>-582.4</b></td><tr><th>Mars at perihelion</th><td>26.50</td><td>206.62x10⁶</td><td><b>-582.5</b></td><tr><th>Jupiter at aphelion</th><td>12.44</td><td>816.62x10⁶</td><td><b>-170.3</b></td><tr><th>Jupiter at perihelion</th><td>13.72</td><td>740.52x10⁶</td><td><b>-170.2</b></td><tr><th>Saturn at aphelion</th><td>9.09</td><td>1514.50x10⁶</td><td><b>-92.64</b></td><tr><th>Saturn at perihelion</th><td>10.18</td><td>1352.55x10⁶</td><td><b>-92.63</b></td></table>

Draw your own conclusions.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

In case you're wondering, the constant in that formula is 2GM, where G is the Gravitational constant, and M is the mass of the Sun.

 

Hi Pete.... well you are in for a suprise

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Lets look at your Gcentral spin values.... Below I have calculated the square root of the product to give the Gcentral spin-sun.... see formula below.

Mercury... 1.298 X 10^11
Venus...... 1.327 X 10^11
Earth....... 1.327 X 10^11
Mars........ 1.321 X 10^11
Jupiter..... 1.327 X 10^11
Uranus..... 1.324 X 10^11

Close enough for large distances
As I said
( Gcentral spin-perihelion X Gcentral spin-aphelion )^0.5 = Gcentral spin-inertial-circle

The above are Gcentral spin from the planet in an inertial state, a circular orbit, reflected in the Sun, the centre of spin.


Both Pluto and Mercury are not under a pure 1/r^2 law.
Sedna is almost 1/r^3.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Now this would be interesting to you

Gcentral spin / r^2 = gravity value.

To calculate the Gcentral spin for any specific planet you need to take the data from the parameters of the natural/artificial satellites of that planet.

All the formulae involving Gcentral spin apply to each system.... however they only specifically apply to the spin system you looking at.

eg

Gcentral spin-earth = 3.99 X 10^5

Gcentral spin-earth / r^2 = g at that radius on Earth

Gcentral spin-sun / r^2 = g at that radius on the Sun

This structure is reflected throughout the Universe.

Thus each system is preferred centred, nothing out there is relative... since the whole system of the Universe is completely and intimately linked.

PS Pete, I must look at the site you used.... I have never seen it.... {looked at it, yep a condensed version of my data sources, NASA

I am looking for the raw value of the advance of the perhelion of each of the planets... know any site where I may get this data.

 

Happy Birthday Mr Zarkov.

Trust you are well.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

macx

 

Zarkov....since no "Gspin" values have been observed, you can't say they are used in observation....other than that, you're just making up the values of Gcentral spin because you haven't OBSERVED anything.

 

Your logic re Gcentral spin is not sound, it is specific theory oriented.
The specific theory seems to be inconsistent - you said earlier that "rv^2 for any system is a constant, Gcentral spin is unique to the spinning system. All the planets give the same Gcentral spin, that of the Sun's system." Yet now you maintain that the planets give different Gcentral spins.

To hell with theory, Zarkov, I'm interested in observations.

I've listed the radius and velocity of each planet at two different times on each orbit. Simple, direct observations.

Your prediction that rv² is constant for all planets at all times has failed. Your prediction does not match observations.

My prediction that v² - 2GM/r is contant for a planet at all times has succeeded. My preduction does match observations.

I care not for any theory that does not produce predictions that match observations.

Zarkov, you said earlier "If a theory takes no notice of observed results of experiments then it is doomed." I have given you observed results. Are you changing your theory to match these results?

 

>> My prediction that v2 - 2GM/r is contant for a planet at all times has succeeded. My preduction does match observations.

errrr, show me again, I failed to appreciate your first attempt

>> Your prediction that rv2 is constant for all planets at all times has failed. Your prediction does not match observations.

I am wondering about you Pete, did you not see that Gcentral spin-sun is constant, it is derived from all the planets?????

I do not understand you

 

Zarkov,
You gave several figures for Gcentral spin-sun, between 1.298 X 10¹¹ and 1.327 X 10¹¹. That's not a constant!

You said that r.v² is constant for all planets at all times, but observational values vary between 1.054x10¹¹ and 1.600x10¹¹. That's not a constant!

The post is still there. Which part don't you understand?

 

Pete, I give up, your logic is confused..... Gcentral spin-sun = 1.328 X10^11

Are you quibbling over a few parts in 10^8. Cosmological distances and velocities are imprecise in the first place

I told you Pluto and Mercury are not totally 1/r^2 controlled, the value they give for the Sun is predictably biased.... if are you trolling then I will not answer your posts anymore, if not your understanding certainly leaves a lot to be desired.

I said this thread is for serious discussion.... I am not interested in trolls.

 

Plus or minus 7x10⁸ (even ignoring the planets that don't fit your formula

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

)

It's a few 10⁸s in 10¹¹ - that's a few parts in a thousand. Not good!

Actually, I'm quibbling over one part in five.
That's the variation in rv² which you said was constant.

My formula, on the other hand, matches observations to better than one part in 10,000, for all planets, comets, asteroids, and satellites. When adjustments are made for the gravity of the planets, not just the Sun, the match is even better.

 

On the topic of Gcentral spin...
If you really want to come up with a constant figure, you're better off averaging the radius and velocity, then calculating rv² (because rv² is constant for circular orbits, like I showed you before).

It's still not great (I don't know if it should be - I suspect that an averaged elliptical orbit is not the same as a circular orbit), but it's better than your geometric mean of rv² at perihelion and aphelion. At least it doesn't need an exception for Mercury and Pluto

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

.

<table border=1><tr><td></td><td>Mercury</td><td>Venus</td><td>Earth</td><td>Mars</td><td>Jupiter</td><td>Saturn</td><td>Uranus</td><td>Neptune</td><td>Pluto</td></tr><tr><td>Average radius (10⁶km)</td><td>57.91</td><td>108.21</td><td>149.60</td><td>227.92</td><td>778.57</td><td>1433.53</td><td>2872.46</td><td>4495.06</td><td>5869.66</td></tr><tr><td>Average velocity (km/s)</td><td>47.87</td><td>35.02</td><td>29.78</td><td>24.13</td><td>13.07</td><td>9.69</td><td>6.81</td><td>5.43</td><td>4.72</td></tr><tr><td>rv² (10¹¹km³/s²)</td><td>1.3270</td><td>1.3271</td><td>1.3267</td><td>1.3271</td><td>1.3300</td><td>1.3460</td><td>1.3321</td><td>1.3254</td><td>1.3077</td></tr></table>

 

Pete, that is what I am on about, you brought up the perihelion and aphelion.... all I showed there was that the relation still holds but as a square root of the product.
Actually this is better than artificial averages.

>> (because rv2 is constant for circular orbits, like I showed you before).

Glad you agree on this as it is a relationship that applies to all cosmological spinning systems.

Good work

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Now what does this result mean?
given
( Gcentral spin-perihelion X Gcentral spin-aphelion )^0.5 = Gcentral spin-inertial-circle

The inertial circular orbit obeys a 1/r^2 force law.
The values of Gcentral spin-aphelion and Gcentral spin-perihelion are different to the Gencentral spin-inertial circle.
OK ?
Therefore at all points in the orbit where the observed Gcentral spin does not equal the Gcentral spin-inertial, the force law is not exactly 1/r^2

In Electrodynamic spin gravity theory this is due to the 1/r and 1/r^3 force components not being in harmonic resonance.

The observation above shows that simple attraction of matter for matter is not the mode of action, because the force law relation varies from the expected 1/r^2 law.

The orbit of a planet is controlled by the interaction of a magnetic-electric force, which respectively obey 1/r^3 and 1/r force relations.
The resulting expressed force therefore varies between 1/r to 1/r^3,

The closer to a circular orbit a planet attains the closer the force law is to 1/r^2.

But no planet has a circular orbit, so nothing is inertial.

 

When I say "my formula", of course, I mean the not-particularly-interesting equation derived directly from the law of conservation of energy, and the formulas for kinetic energy and gravitational potential energy. I naturally don't intend to claim it as an ingenious breakthrough.

 

OK, back up

>> My formula, on the other hand, matches observations to better than one part in 10,000, for all planets, comets, asteroids, and satellites. When adjustments are made for the gravity of the planets, not just the Sun, the match is even better.

where is this formula you speak of ?

is this it "v2 - 2.6545x1011/r"

where your results range from -2292 to -92 ???????????????/

 

You're not paying attention, Zarkov. I get the felling that you are not giving my posts the attention that you demand for your own.

Please review exactly what I said that the formula predicted:

So for Mercury, the number is -2292 at all points in its orbit.
For Saturn, the number is -92.6 at all points in its orbit.
etc...

 

mmmh, I wasn't paying attention.

So what does that formula mean?

 

I have re-read
so you are saying v^2-2GM/r = a local constant

is that correct?