The Sun's Galactic orbit, and charge field implications.
5 posters
Page 1 of 1
The Sun's Galactic orbit, and charge field implications.
by Lichtmechaniker Tue Mar 20, 2018 8:43 am
Hi again guys, I've had another charge field based idea that I feel the need to share.
It's about the 2/3rds ratio of photons to anti-photons we see reported a lot in MMs papers.
The mechanical explanation I have is that the motion of the Solar system around the galaxy causes this difference.
The solar orbit is not on the same plane as the planetary orbits. Currently the planets are at about 60^ tilted from the solar orbit. Coincidentally (not) the tilt of the Earth points us back towards center, making the Solar path roughly 5^ off of due south.
It is this southward motion of our solar system that creates the imbalance of photons and anti-photons.
It's about the 2/3rds ratio of photons to anti-photons we see reported a lot in MMs papers.
The mechanical explanation I have is that the motion of the Solar system around the galaxy causes this difference.
The solar orbit is not on the same plane as the planetary orbits. Currently the planets are at about 60^ tilted from the solar orbit. Coincidentally (not) the tilt of the Earth points us back towards center, making the Solar path roughly 5^ off of due south.
It is this southward motion of our solar system that creates the imbalance of photons and anti-photons.
Lichtmechaniker- Posts : 11
Join date : 2018-03-05
Re: The Sun's Galactic orbit, and charge field implications.
by LongtimeAirman Tue Mar 20, 2018 12:53 pm
.
Hi Lichtmechaniker. The notion that The photon/antiphoton ratio can be explained by the sun's galactic orbit is a great idea for discussion. An image is necessary, is this one acceptable? With the scale so distorted I don't know where we are in the orbit shown.
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Motion_of_Sun,_Earth_and_Moon_around_the_Milky_Way.jpg
File:Motion of Sun, Earth and Moon around the Milky Way.jpg
From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
If so, I believe you're correct, it's a good working assumption. That leaves many details that need consideration.
.
Hi Lichtmechaniker. The notion that The photon/antiphoton ratio can be explained by the sun's galactic orbit is a great idea for discussion. An image is necessary, is this one acceptable? With the scale so distorted I don't know where we are in the orbit shown.
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Motion_of_Sun,_Earth_and_Moon_around_the_Milky_Way.jpg
File:Motion of Sun, Earth and Moon around the Milky Way.jpg
From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
If so, I believe you're correct, it's a good working assumption. That leaves many details that need consideration.
.
LongtimeAirman- Admin
- Posts : 2078
Join date : 2014-08-10
Re: The Sun's Galactic orbit, and charge field implications.
by Ciaolo Tue Mar 20, 2018 3:37 pm
They ignored a detail, the inclination of Earth’s orbit to the Sun’s equator is 7.155°.
In addition to that, it is generally ignored that all planets’ orbits around the Sun are inclined in the same direction. ALL the diagrams I found have the earth ecliptic as referral instead of the Sun rotation equator, and they look “mixed”.
All the orbits are inclined towards the galaxy core, some more (Earth’s is the maximum), some less (Mercury’s is the minimum).
Oh and you don’t expect the deception to go without a nice steaming pile of math, do you? A hint: Invariable Plane.
Edit: apparently the moon’s orbit inclination varies between certain limits with a cycle of about 18 years. Do you know if this variation has been measured for the various planets too?
In addition to that, it is generally ignored that all planets’ orbits around the Sun are inclined in the same direction. ALL the diagrams I found have the earth ecliptic as referral instead of the Sun rotation equator, and they look “mixed”.
All the orbits are inclined towards the galaxy core, some more (Earth’s is the maximum), some less (Mercury’s is the minimum).
Oh and you don’t expect the deception to go without a nice steaming pile of math, do you? A hint: Invariable Plane.
Edit: apparently the moon’s orbit inclination varies between certain limits with a cycle of about 18 years. Do you know if this variation has been measured for the various planets too?
Ciaolo- Posts : 143
Join date : 2016-09-08
Re: The Sun's Galactic orbit, and charge field implications.
by Nevyn Tue Mar 20, 2018 6:12 pm
A good idea and something worth investigating but it doesn't explain how the ratio changes as you move outwards from the Sun to the outer planets. Do we need that? I know Miles has stated it a few times but I'm not sure if it is truly necessary and can't remember the evidence for it.
Does anyone know how the path of the Sun around the Milky Way effects that angle? Does the Sun turn as its path turns? If so, do all planets turn with it? That is, does the whole ecliptic plane turn or just the Sun or neither and it just changes its height above/below the galactic plane?
Does anyone know how the path of the Sun around the Milky Way effects that angle? Does the Sun turn as its path turns? If so, do all planets turn with it? That is, does the whole ecliptic plane turn or just the Sun or neither and it just changes its height above/below the galactic plane?
Nevyn- Admin
- Posts : 1887
Join date : 2014-09-11
Location : Australia -
Re: The Sun's Galactic orbit, and charge field implications.
by Jared Magneson Wed Mar 21, 2018 9:17 pm
Nevyn wrote:A good idea and something worth investigating but it doesn't explain how the ratio changes as you move outwards from the Sun to the outer planets. Do we need that? I know Miles has stated it a few times but I'm not sure if it is truly necessary and can't remember the evidence for it.
I happened to just be re-re-re-reading all the old spin papers looking for clues, and perhaps this chunk can help us out here:
Mathis wrote:Here is how it works: the low density of comets (compared to asteroids, say) allows the ambient charge field to partially dissolve the comet's crust, creating the tail. Once we have the tail of small particles (dust or gas), the high residual speed of the gas allows it to interact with the charge field in a way that produces great brightness. In the ion tail, the ions are already spinning very fast—that is what ionization means. Ions are molecules that are charged, and “charged” means they are responding to charge photons in the field. Since the photons are spinning, part of that response will be induced spin. The dust is also spun by the charge field, although unlike the gas, it was initially spinning slowly or not at all. Although the ions don't gain much spin (having spin before being emitted by the comet), the dust does gain spin. At any rate, both are spinning once they are ejected into the tail. This spin then meets the spin of the ambient field. You will say that with prograde comets, we don't have the opposing spins to create the effect, but in fact we do. The mechanism is reduced, but it isn't absent. Why? Because the ambient field of the Sun is always rich in antiphotons. I have shown in many papers that the ambient field sums to a left field, but in those same papers I have always reminded you that data indicates a mix. In the field of the Earth, data from both atmospheric tests and from quantum experiments indicates that photons outnumber antiphotons by about 2 to 1. This is what we find from pair production photos like this one:
See my paper on pair production for more on that. Closer to the Sun, photons predominate by 4 to 1 or more, which is why Mercury's south pole is 4 times larger than his north pole.
This means that we still get spin interactions, even with prograde orbiters. But while retrograde comets are interacting with the photon field field, prograde comets are interacting with the lesser antiphoton field. As we see from my examples above, the percentage of antiphotons rises as we get farther from the Sun. The percentage of antiphotons starts at about 15% of the total field, rises to 20% at Mercury, rises again to 33% at the Earth, and continues to rise as we leave the vicinity of the Sun. In other words, prograde comets get more of their brightness as a percentage as we move out from the Sun. Under similar conditions (speed, mass, etc.) prograde comets aren't generally as bright as retrograde comets. But the mechanism of prograde comets increases as we move out from the Sun, while the mechanism of retrograde comets decreases. This isn't to say that prograde comets get less bright as they approach the Sun, since speed is also a factor here, as is field density. It is only to say that prograde comets have more spin interaction as they recede from the Sun, while retrograde comets don't. Current theory doesn't include that fact, which is why current theory is at a loss in trying to explain many of the finer points of comets and other bodies.
This fact helps explain Enceladus, since Enceladus is at a relatively great distance from the Sun, where the percentage of antiphotons is higher. At the distance of Saturn, the percentage of antiphotons is around 40%, since at this distance more charge is coming directly from sources outside the Solar System. This gives Enceladus more interaction with opposing spins, and this interaction creates greater brightness, by the mechanism I showed in my comet paper.
Last edited by Jared Magneson on Thu Mar 22, 2018 1:08 am; edited 1 time in total
Jared Magneson- Posts : 525
Join date : 2016-10-11
Re: The Sun's Galactic orbit, and charge field implications.
by Nevyn Wed Mar 21, 2018 9:49 pm
So, kind of necessary, but that doesn't mean we can't find a way around it or a good explanation for it.
Thanks.
Thanks.
Nevyn- Admin
- Posts : 1887
Join date : 2014-09-11
Location : Australia -
Re: The Sun's Galactic orbit, and charge field implications.
by LongtimeAirman Wed Mar 21, 2018 9:51 pm
.
Good comments and questions. I'm trying to facilitate discussion, still working on the big picture.
Lichtmechaniker hasn’t elaborated or objected. I’ll throw in some additional images.
http://www.dailygalaxy.com/my_weblog/2014/05/our-solar-system-orbit-through-milky-ways-dark-matter-disk-does-it-trigger-comet-impacts-and-mass-ex.html
Our Solar-System's Scary Orbit Through Milky Way's Dark Matter Disk, May 05, 2014.
I believe this image’s close-up side view agrees well with the previous image. The solar system is believed to slowly oscillate roughly 4x above and 4x below the galactic equator (GE). Here we see we have recently entered a new cycle above the galactic equator. We see the solar system in retrograde motion about the Milky Way, does that make the topside south and the bottom north?
Here’s a galactic top-view screen capture, goto -
https://cahallobservatory.wordpress.com/2009/04/26/signs-of-spring/
https://cahallobservatory.wordpress.com/tag/galaxy/ for a much larger, 5M image.
In this “top view”, the galactic equator(GE) lies within the plane of the image. Polar coordinates are shown with the Solar System at the zero center. I guess that means the side views in the two previous images are both from the 180 degree direction along the GE; both showing solar system motion from the right side - 270deg, crossing zero and headed left toward 90 degrees.
The Solar System traveling through the Galaxy
https://imgur.com/E9Uoc0H
Here’s a screen capture, one may download an mp4 file. I suppose this view is from the 0deg line, closer to the galactic center, looking back outward to the solar system at 180 degrees. The spins shown would agree with the previous images positive spin direction - but then the slanted inclination is backwards. Still, I like being able to see the paths. Note, this is NOT vortex theory.
And a couple of supporting documents.
[1610.08125] Revised Geometric Estimates of the North Galactic Pole and the Sun's Height Above the Galactic Midplane https://arxiv.org/abs/1610.08125
The Solar System’s Motion in the Galactic Tidal Field, Steve Wickson 215172 Physics 599 Final Report
https://friendsofscience.org/assets/files/documents/Wickson 597[3].pdf
Introduction Presented is a rigorous mathematical analysis of the solar system's motion with respect to a varying local galactic tidal field strength.
.
Good comments and questions. I'm trying to facilitate discussion, still working on the big picture.
Lichtmechaniker hasn’t elaborated or objected. I’ll throw in some additional images.
http://www.dailygalaxy.com/my_weblog/2014/05/our-solar-system-orbit-through-milky-ways-dark-matter-disk-does-it-trigger-comet-impacts-and-mass-ex.html
Our Solar-System's Scary Orbit Through Milky Way's Dark Matter Disk, May 05, 2014.
I believe this image’s close-up side view agrees well with the previous image. The solar system is believed to slowly oscillate roughly 4x above and 4x below the galactic equator (GE). Here we see we have recently entered a new cycle above the galactic equator. We see the solar system in retrograde motion about the Milky Way, does that make the topside south and the bottom north?
Here’s a galactic top-view screen capture, goto -
https://cahallobservatory.wordpress.com/2009/04/26/signs-of-spring/
https://cahallobservatory.wordpress.com/tag/galaxy/ for a much larger, 5M image.
In this “top view”, the galactic equator(GE) lies within the plane of the image. Polar coordinates are shown with the Solar System at the zero center. I guess that means the side views in the two previous images are both from the 180 degree direction along the GE; both showing solar system motion from the right side - 270deg, crossing zero and headed left toward 90 degrees.
The Solar System traveling through the Galaxy
https://imgur.com/E9Uoc0H
Here’s a screen capture, one may download an mp4 file. I suppose this view is from the 0deg line, closer to the galactic center, looking back outward to the solar system at 180 degrees. The spins shown would agree with the previous images positive spin direction - but then the slanted inclination is backwards. Still, I like being able to see the paths. Note, this is NOT vortex theory.
And a couple of supporting documents.
[1610.08125] Revised Geometric Estimates of the North Galactic Pole and the Sun's Height Above the Galactic Midplane https://arxiv.org/abs/1610.08125
The Solar System’s Motion in the Galactic Tidal Field, Steve Wickson 215172 Physics 599 Final Report
https://friendsofscience.org/assets/files/documents/Wickson 597[3].pdf
Introduction Presented is a rigorous mathematical analysis of the solar system's motion with respect to a varying local galactic tidal field strength.
.
LongtimeAirman- Admin
- Posts : 2078
Join date : 2014-08-10
Re: The Sun's Galactic orbit, and charge field implications.
by Jared Magneson Thu Mar 22, 2018 1:21 am
Nevyn wrote:So, kind of necessary, but that doesn't mean we can't find a way around it or a good explanation for it.
Thanks.
Yeah, I'll admit I'm at a loss for explaining or using anti-photons anymore to deal with these topics. Your explanation previously, that it's the turning of the photon relative to the receiving body that counts, is the only part that makes sense of this phenomenon to me currently. Mathis doesn't really seem to help in this regard. The more I re-read, the less sense it's making to me anymore. I apologize if I've muddied the waters.
Jared Magneson- Posts : 525
Join date : 2016-10-11
Re: The Sun's Galactic orbit, and charge field implications.
by Ciaolo Thu Mar 22, 2018 4:22 pm
What we can be certain of is that on earth the photonic wind that goes up is composed by 2/3 of photons and 1/3 of antiphotons.
Then we can assume, for example that this is a signature of the composition of the atoms in the planet, or that they also had that ratio when the earth received them at the poles.
Since this outgoing wind is meeting an external field I expect imbalance to have an effect. If that field has a 50/50 ratio, and the earth transformed it in its recycling to a 67/33, we’d see some phenomena that happens because of spin ups and spin downs.
We could have such an effect, even very evident, I don’t know. Anyway let’s think about what to expect if the external field already has a 2 to 1 ratio. The first thing that comes to mind is that the Sun would be sending out to us this ratio, and also that the other bodies that concur to earth inclination and tilt with temporary charge bombardment would change this ratio, and not in a small way. What phenomena would we observe in a temporary change of photon/antiphoton ratio in the earth photonic upwind?
Then we can assume, for example that this is a signature of the composition of the atoms in the planet, or that they also had that ratio when the earth received them at the poles.
Since this outgoing wind is meeting an external field I expect imbalance to have an effect. If that field has a 50/50 ratio, and the earth transformed it in its recycling to a 67/33, we’d see some phenomena that happens because of spin ups and spin downs.
We could have such an effect, even very evident, I don’t know. Anyway let’s think about what to expect if the external field already has a 2 to 1 ratio. The first thing that comes to mind is that the Sun would be sending out to us this ratio, and also that the other bodies that concur to earth inclination and tilt with temporary charge bombardment would change this ratio, and not in a small way. What phenomena would we observe in a temporary change of photon/antiphoton ratio in the earth photonic upwind?
Ciaolo- Posts : 143
Join date : 2016-09-08
Re: The Sun's Galactic orbit, and charge field implications.
by LongtimeAirman Thu Mar 22, 2018 10:20 pm
.
Ok, three more images then I'll stop.
Here’s a clean set of celestial (Earth centered), ecliptic (solar centered) and galactic – poles and equators. Confirming the solar system’s positive spin and retrograde motion in the galaxy.
http://atomictoasters.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/Celestial.gif
A screen capture of, GMS: Fermi's Five-year View of the Gamma-ray Sky. For the full image go to,
https://svs.gsfc.nasa.gov/vis/a010000/a011300/a011342/Femri_5_yr_with_ecliptic_equators.jpg.
This is a photo of gamma ray sources from all the directions around the earth. Taken over five years, it shows that we, the earth (celestial), and solar system (ecliptic) are surrounded by the gamma emissions occurring mainly on or near the horizontal plane of the GE (galactic equator). The greatest intensity occurs at the galactic center, a wide section, almost a third the width of the image, at the center of the image, zero degrees from the Earth. To look directly away from the galaxy’s center we would join the image's left side(<180deg) to the right side (>180deg).
I believe we are some small number of light years above (south) the GE. I’m guessing we are headed 90 degrees, (halfway between the left edge and center), toward the small set of gamma sources just to the right of the image’s green label - Galactic Equator.
It seems to me the Ecliptic plane is inclined much the same reason as our own planet’s axis is inclined here in the solar system – in balance with the sun, in order to ensure maximum polar throughput receipt of the dominant charge source. Does charge return, from the galactic rim back to the galactic center?
And finally, the recently discovered Tennis Ball Galaxy, (another screen grab). For the full image see: Free Images : wing, biology, darkness, invertebrate, outer ...
https://c.pxhere.com/photos/93/b0/tennis_galactic_ball_sport_universe_orbit_galaxy_globe-626893.jpg!d
You may have seen similar slow motion videos of large wet floppy-eared dogs shaking their heads.
I thought I would have formed an initial understanding by now, but it just seems backwards to me.
.
Ok, three more images then I'll stop.
Here’s a clean set of celestial (Earth centered), ecliptic (solar centered) and galactic – poles and equators. Confirming the solar system’s positive spin and retrograde motion in the galaxy.
http://atomictoasters.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/Celestial.gif
A screen capture of, GMS: Fermi's Five-year View of the Gamma-ray Sky. For the full image go to,
https://svs.gsfc.nasa.gov/vis/a010000/a011300/a011342/Femri_5_yr_with_ecliptic_equators.jpg.
This is a photo of gamma ray sources from all the directions around the earth. Taken over five years, it shows that we, the earth (celestial), and solar system (ecliptic) are surrounded by the gamma emissions occurring mainly on or near the horizontal plane of the GE (galactic equator). The greatest intensity occurs at the galactic center, a wide section, almost a third the width of the image, at the center of the image, zero degrees from the Earth. To look directly away from the galaxy’s center we would join the image's left side(<180deg) to the right side (>180deg).
I believe we are some small number of light years above (south) the GE. I’m guessing we are headed 90 degrees, (halfway between the left edge and center), toward the small set of gamma sources just to the right of the image’s green label - Galactic Equator.
It seems to me the Ecliptic plane is inclined much the same reason as our own planet’s axis is inclined here in the solar system – in balance with the sun, in order to ensure maximum polar throughput receipt of the dominant charge source. Does charge return, from the galactic rim back to the galactic center?
And finally, the recently discovered Tennis Ball Galaxy, (another screen grab). For the full image see: Free Images : wing, biology, darkness, invertebrate, outer ...
https://c.pxhere.com/photos/93/b0/tennis_galactic_ball_sport_universe_orbit_galaxy_globe-626893.jpg!d
You may have seen similar slow motion videos of large wet floppy-eared dogs shaking their heads.
I thought I would have formed an initial understanding by now, but it just seems backwards to me.
.
LongtimeAirman- Admin
- Posts : 2078
Join date : 2014-08-10
Re: The Sun's Galactic orbit, and charge field implications.
by LongtimeAirman Fri Mar 23, 2018 2:51 pm
.
I almost forgot, the Heliosphere.
NASA’s Cassini, Voyager Missions Suggest New Picture of Sun’s Interaction with Galaxy, April 24, 2017
https://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/2017/nasa-s-cassini-voyager-missions-suggest-new-picture-of-sun-s-interaction-with-galaxy
Airman. The currently accepted heliosphere model is shown on the right; including a bow shock and the start of the very long tail. A new heliosphere model is shown at the left. It’s more like a bubble, I like it better, but it’s missing charge intake poles. I suppose there must be heliosphere/galactic charge recycling, with charge intake poles in line with the sun’s spin axis.
///////////////////////////////////////////////////
Lichtmechaniker wrote. Hi again guys, I've had another charge field based idea that I feel the need to share.
It's about the 2/3rds ratio of photons to anti-photons we see reported a lot in MMs papers.
The mechanical explanation I have is that the motion of the Solar system around the galaxy causes this difference.
The solar orbit is not on the same plane as the planetary orbits. Currently the planets are at about 60^ tilted from the solar orbit. Coincidentally (not) the tilt of the Earth points us back towards center, making the Solar path roughly 5^ off of due south.
It is this southward motion of our solar system that creates the imbalance of photons and anti-photons.
Airman. Have I understood you correctly? Did I miss anything? Nevertheless, as you must agree, all of us are anxious to consider it. Don’t worry about being right or wrong. For example, your last two sentences make no sense to me. If you believe they are “true” please explain them a bit better; otherwise, we’ll just carry on.
Anyone, your comments are welcome.
Nevyn wrote. A good idea and something worth investigating but it doesn't explain how the ratio changes as you move outwards from the Sun to the outer planets. Do we need that? I know Miles has stated it a few times but I'm not sure if it is truly necessary and can't remember the evidence for it.
Latter, Nevyn wrote to Jared: So, kind of necessary, but that doesn't mean we can't find a way around it or a good explanation for it.
Airman. I agree. Miles indicated that the ratio changes across the solar system. For example, Venus’ ratio is one, and Earth’s ratio is 2:1. Is that important? I think the answer to that boils down to - How independent is the Heliosphere in its motion through the galaxy? I think we’ll find that the ratio in the heliosphere must be linked to the galaxy via solar charge recycling. The galaxy will make up for any helio system photons lost to space.
Nevyn wrote. Does anyone know how the path of the Sun around the Milky Way effects that angle? Does the Sun turn as its path turns? If so, do all planets turn with it? That is, does the whole ecliptic plane turn or just the Sun or neither and it just changes its height above/below the galactic plane?
Airman. I don’t know any of those answers. The sun isn’t following a simple orbit; the sun’s motion is more like tidal motion, with nearby companion stars mostly maintaining their relative positions as the group rotates about the galactic center. My guess is the ecliptic plane turns to maximize charge intake. Maybe we can make working assumptions.
Sorry, I don’t see how to address the photon/antiphoton ratio just yet.
.
I almost forgot, the Heliosphere.
NASA’s Cassini, Voyager Missions Suggest New Picture of Sun’s Interaction with Galaxy, April 24, 2017
https://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/2017/nasa-s-cassini-voyager-missions-suggest-new-picture-of-sun-s-interaction-with-galaxy
New data from NASA’s Cassini mission, combined with measurements from the two Voyager spacecraft and NASA’s Interstellar Boundary Explorer, or IBEX, suggests that our sun and planets are surrounded by a giant, rounded system of magnetic field from the sun — calling into question the alternate view of the solar magnetic fields trailing behind the sun in the shape of a long comet tail.
Airman. The currently accepted heliosphere model is shown on the right; including a bow shock and the start of the very long tail. A new heliosphere model is shown at the left. It’s more like a bubble, I like it better, but it’s missing charge intake poles. I suppose there must be heliosphere/galactic charge recycling, with charge intake poles in line with the sun’s spin axis.
///////////////////////////////////////////////////
Lichtmechaniker wrote. Hi again guys, I've had another charge field based idea that I feel the need to share.
It's about the 2/3rds ratio of photons to anti-photons we see reported a lot in MMs papers.
The mechanical explanation I have is that the motion of the Solar system around the galaxy causes this difference.
The solar orbit is not on the same plane as the planetary orbits. Currently the planets are at about 60^ tilted from the solar orbit. Coincidentally (not) the tilt of the Earth points us back towards center, making the Solar path roughly 5^ off of due south.
It is this southward motion of our solar system that creates the imbalance of photons and anti-photons.
Airman. Have I understood you correctly? Did I miss anything? Nevertheless, as you must agree, all of us are anxious to consider it. Don’t worry about being right or wrong. For example, your last two sentences make no sense to me. If you believe they are “true” please explain them a bit better; otherwise, we’ll just carry on.
Anyone, your comments are welcome.
Nevyn wrote. A good idea and something worth investigating but it doesn't explain how the ratio changes as you move outwards from the Sun to the outer planets. Do we need that? I know Miles has stated it a few times but I'm not sure if it is truly necessary and can't remember the evidence for it.
Latter, Nevyn wrote to Jared: So, kind of necessary, but that doesn't mean we can't find a way around it or a good explanation for it.
Airman. I agree. Miles indicated that the ratio changes across the solar system. For example, Venus’ ratio is one, and Earth’s ratio is 2:1. Is that important? I think the answer to that boils down to - How independent is the Heliosphere in its motion through the galaxy? I think we’ll find that the ratio in the heliosphere must be linked to the galaxy via solar charge recycling. The galaxy will make up for any helio system photons lost to space.
Nevyn wrote. Does anyone know how the path of the Sun around the Milky Way effects that angle? Does the Sun turn as its path turns? If so, do all planets turn with it? That is, does the whole ecliptic plane turn or just the Sun or neither and it just changes its height above/below the galactic plane?
Airman. I don’t know any of those answers. The sun isn’t following a simple orbit; the sun’s motion is more like tidal motion, with nearby companion stars mostly maintaining their relative positions as the group rotates about the galactic center. My guess is the ecliptic plane turns to maximize charge intake. Maybe we can make working assumptions.
Sorry, I don’t see how to address the photon/antiphoton ratio just yet.
.
LongtimeAirman- Admin
- Posts : 2078
Join date : 2014-08-10
Re: The Sun's Galactic orbit, and charge field implications.
by LongtimeAirman Fri Mar 23, 2018 11:16 pm
.
Jared - quoting a Miles spin paper above. This fact helps explain Enceladus, since Enceladus is at a relatively great distance from the Sun, where the percentage of antiphotons is higher. At the distance of Saturn, the percentage of antiphotons is around 40%, since at this distance more charge is coming directly from sources outside the Solar System. This gives Enceladus more interaction with opposing spins, and this interaction creates greater brightness, by the mechanism I showed in my comet paper.[/quote]
Airman. Jared, re-re-reading this thread I see I didn't understand your quote until a short while ago. Miles is saying that the charge outside the solar system is mainly negative. There doesn't seem to be a clear boundary either, just more antiphotons the farther you get away from the sun. Does he believe the local galaxy is primarily negative? Can the answer be that simple?
.
Jared - quoting a Miles spin paper above. This fact helps explain Enceladus, since Enceladus is at a relatively great distance from the Sun, where the percentage of antiphotons is higher. At the distance of Saturn, the percentage of antiphotons is around 40%, since at this distance more charge is coming directly from sources outside the Solar System. This gives Enceladus more interaction with opposing spins, and this interaction creates greater brightness, by the mechanism I showed in my comet paper.[/quote]
Airman. Jared, re-re-reading this thread I see I didn't understand your quote until a short while ago. Miles is saying that the charge outside the solar system is mainly negative. There doesn't seem to be a clear boundary either, just more antiphotons the farther you get away from the sun. Does he believe the local galaxy is primarily negative? Can the answer be that simple?
.
LongtimeAirman- Admin
- Posts : 2078
Join date : 2014-08-10
Re: The Sun's Galactic orbit, and charge field implications.
by Jared Magneson Sat Mar 24, 2018 1:08 am
LongtimeAirman wrote:Airman. Jared, re-re-reading this thread I see I didn't understand your quote until a short while ago. Miles is saying that the charge outside the solar system is mainly negative. There doesn't seem to be a clear boundary either, just more antiphotons the farther you get away from the sun. Does he believe the local galaxy is primarily negative? Can the answer be that simple?.
Mayhaps it's as simple as the local galaxy having one relatively uniform "direction" and the sun, being such an absurd large spinning charge-channeling monster, channels and flips that direction so its local environs feel the flip closer to the sun? So the closer one gets to the sun (or any star) the more antiphotons there are, relative to the background direction?
The sun provides the local variance?
Jared Magneson- Posts : 525
Join date : 2016-10-11
Re: The Sun's Galactic orbit, and charge field implications.
by Jared Magneson Sat Mar 24, 2018 2:43 am
LongtimeAirman wrote: I agree. Miles indicated that the ratio changes across the solar system. For example, Venus’ ratio is one, and Earth’s ratio is 2:1. Is that important? I think the answer to that boils down to - How independent is the Heliosphere in its motion through the galaxy? I think we’ll find that the ratio in the heliosphere must be linked to the galaxy via solar charge recycling. The galaxy will make up for any helio system photons lost to space.
Per that Mathis paper on Enceladus,
Mathis wrote:The percentage of antiphotons starts at about 15% of the total field, rises to 20% at Mercury, rises again to 33% at the Earth, and continues to rise as we leave the vicinity of the Sun.
http://milesmathis.com/encel.pdf
I don't see Venus being at 50% balance. It spinning in reverse may have an effect though? Do we have any forgotten papers that might help more with that part?
Jared Magneson- Posts : 525
Join date : 2016-10-11
Re: The Sun's Galactic orbit, and charge field implications.
by Lichtmechaniker Sat Mar 24, 2018 11:02 am
Sorry I don't post much or even word things well. I have trouble expressing these concepts and like to take the time to think through what I post.
This is a brief response to the first post. I've made changes to the picture, it was a good choice of image and represents the concept fairly well, but a few major points were wrong.
1st. The picture clearly states we are going North, when in reality we are going South.
2nd. The angle of the earths orbit in the image is not drawn square, I've redrawn it from a 90^ angle relative to the Suns path.
This is a brief response to the first post. I've made changes to the picture, it was a good choice of image and represents the concept fairly well, but a few major points were wrong.
1st. The picture clearly states we are going North, when in reality we are going South.
2nd. The angle of the earths orbit in the image is not drawn square, I've redrawn it from a 90^ angle relative to the Suns path.
Lichtmechaniker- Posts : 11
Join date : 2018-03-05
Re: The Sun's Galactic orbit, and charge field implications.
by Lichtmechaniker Sat Mar 24, 2018 1:30 pm
I titled that screen grab "misdirection" every single one of those pictures has the orbits turned the wrong way.
Lichtmechaniker- Posts : 11
Join date : 2018-03-05
Re: The Sun's Galactic orbit, and charge field implications.
by LongtimeAirman Sat Mar 24, 2018 10:38 pm
.
For the record, I believe Jared’s found “the answer” in Miles’ description of the photon/antiphoton ratio from the solar/galactic perspective in Miles’ Enceladus paper. As usual, I’ll re-read them; I’ll try to come up with a summary image using the numbers Jared quoted in his most recent post.
147. The Strange Moon Enceladus. http://milesmathis.com/encel.pdf Where we discover this moon is far too bright for current theory to explain. 17pp.
148. More on Enceladus and Albedo. http://milesmathis.com/encel2.pdf I show that the mainstream has covered up the brightness of all celestial bodies, including the Moon. I replace "opposition surge" with a mechanical explanation using the charge field. 11pp.
//////////////////////////////////
Lichtmechaniker has identified misdirection, a whole new complication. I noticed inconsistencies in collecting the images above as well. I suppose we are not surprised. It may just be a problem we have to live with as I don’t feel qualified to recognize the extent of the misdirection, let alone correct it.
Lichmechaniker, are you satisfied with the “Enceladus” solution?
//////////////////////////////////
Ciaolo wrote. They ignored a detail, the inclination of Earth’s orbit to the Sun’s equator is 7.155°.
In addition to that, it is generally ignored that all planets’ orbits around the Sun are inclined in the same direction. ALL the diagrams I found have the earth ecliptic as referral instead of the Sun rotation equator, and they look “mixed”.
All the orbits are inclined towards the galaxy core, some more (Earth’s is the maximum), some less (Mercury’s is the minimum).
Oh and you don’t expect the deception to go without a nice steaming pile of math, do you? A hint: Invariable Plane.
Edit: apparently the moon’s orbit inclination varies between certain limits with a cycle of about 18 years. Do you know if this variation has been measured for the various planets too?
Airman. “All the orbits are inclined towards the galaxy core” That is news to me, I always thought the planets were inclined to the Sun. I’m not sure I understand everything you’re saying, I’ve never studied orbital physics. Here’s a hyperphysics page that might be useful for me to start with http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/orbit.html#orbcon
Using your hint. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Invariable_plane
I see 7.155° - Earth’s inclination to Sun’s equator - is the largest number shown in wiki’s Inclination table, but if it’s a nice steaming pile, why am I trying to understand it? Do you have any comments about the direction of the sun’s galactic orbit?
I’m not aware of a moon 18yr inclination cycle.
How do you feel about Enceladus solution?
.
For the record, I believe Jared’s found “the answer” in Miles’ description of the photon/antiphoton ratio from the solar/galactic perspective in Miles’ Enceladus paper. As usual, I’ll re-read them; I’ll try to come up with a summary image using the numbers Jared quoted in his most recent post.
147. The Strange Moon Enceladus. http://milesmathis.com/encel.pdf Where we discover this moon is far too bright for current theory to explain. 17pp.
148. More on Enceladus and Albedo. http://milesmathis.com/encel2.pdf I show that the mainstream has covered up the brightness of all celestial bodies, including the Moon. I replace "opposition surge" with a mechanical explanation using the charge field. 11pp.
//////////////////////////////////
Lichtmechaniker has identified misdirection, a whole new complication. I noticed inconsistencies in collecting the images above as well. I suppose we are not surprised. It may just be a problem we have to live with as I don’t feel qualified to recognize the extent of the misdirection, let alone correct it.
Lichmechaniker, are you satisfied with the “Enceladus” solution?
//////////////////////////////////
Ciaolo wrote. They ignored a detail, the inclination of Earth’s orbit to the Sun’s equator is 7.155°.
In addition to that, it is generally ignored that all planets’ orbits around the Sun are inclined in the same direction. ALL the diagrams I found have the earth ecliptic as referral instead of the Sun rotation equator, and they look “mixed”.
All the orbits are inclined towards the galaxy core, some more (Earth’s is the maximum), some less (Mercury’s is the minimum).
Oh and you don’t expect the deception to go without a nice steaming pile of math, do you? A hint: Invariable Plane.
Edit: apparently the moon’s orbit inclination varies between certain limits with a cycle of about 18 years. Do you know if this variation has been measured for the various planets too?
Airman. “All the orbits are inclined towards the galaxy core” That is news to me, I always thought the planets were inclined to the Sun. I’m not sure I understand everything you’re saying, I’ve never studied orbital physics. Here’s a hyperphysics page that might be useful for me to start with http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/orbit.html#orbcon
Using your hint. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Invariable_plane
The invariable plane of a planetary system, also called Laplace's invariable plane, is the plane passing through its barycenter (center of mass) perpendicular to its angular momentum vector. In the Solar System, about 98% of this effect is contributed by the orbital angular momenta of the four jovian planets (Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus, and Neptune). The invariable plane is within 0.5° of the orbital plane of Jupiter,[1] and may be regarded as the weighted average of all planetary orbital and rotational planes.
I see 7.155° - Earth’s inclination to Sun’s equator - is the largest number shown in wiki’s Inclination table, but if it’s a nice steaming pile, why am I trying to understand it? Do you have any comments about the direction of the sun’s galactic orbit?
I’m not aware of a moon 18yr inclination cycle.
How do you feel about Enceladus solution?
.
LongtimeAirman- Admin
- Posts : 2078
Join date : 2014-08-10
Re: The Sun's Galactic orbit, and charge field implications.
by Jared Magneson Sat Mar 24, 2018 11:38 pm
So to clarify, we have a spinning, moving body (reference body) constantly bombarded by far smaller spinning, moving bodies. The "trail" of either is a sort of spiral, given a certain observation point, so we have all these particles and groups of them cork-screwing through space, skewed somewhat by gravity but also by collisions (contact-transfers of momentum).
So any given body will be spinning one way and not the other, just like any bodies it contacts or encounters. Charge spinning the same way (generally) we can call photons, and charge spinning the opposite way of the reference body we can call anti-photons. Does that seem right so far?
(screenshot from my example video on wavelength from our latest stacked spin video)
https://vimeo.com/260204278
From the Earth's reference point, it receives the most charge from the sun but still roughly 1/3 of our charge comes from... NOT the sun. Insolation and its magnetism causes our spin or compels it to continue in that direction, at the very least, so we can assume that most of the solar charge we feel sums to the same spin direction as the Earth spins, a'la Nevyns previous mechanism as the photons are "turned" to physically enter the Earth.
Not all photons will be turned - most will not, but the ones that are have a greater effect at this distance than all other sources, so the sun is the main cause of "photons" for the Earth. All other sources will be coming (generally) from a direction NOT the sun, since it's so big and we're so close, and thus those other sources will be delivering anti-photons - again, relative to the general charge photon direction we receive from the sun.
So to crossover slightly to the other paper and our other thread, most of the moon's photons will NOT be coming in from the same direction or feel the same "turn" to enter the Earth, and thus relative to insolation they can be considered anti-photons.
Is that feasible? Am I getting anywhere towards understanding this shit?
So any given body will be spinning one way and not the other, just like any bodies it contacts or encounters. Charge spinning the same way (generally) we can call photons, and charge spinning the opposite way of the reference body we can call anti-photons. Does that seem right so far?
(screenshot from my example video on wavelength from our latest stacked spin video)
https://vimeo.com/260204278
From the Earth's reference point, it receives the most charge from the sun but still roughly 1/3 of our charge comes from... NOT the sun. Insolation and its magnetism causes our spin or compels it to continue in that direction, at the very least, so we can assume that most of the solar charge we feel sums to the same spin direction as the Earth spins, a'la Nevyns previous mechanism as the photons are "turned" to physically enter the Earth.
Not all photons will be turned - most will not, but the ones that are have a greater effect at this distance than all other sources, so the sun is the main cause of "photons" for the Earth. All other sources will be coming (generally) from a direction NOT the sun, since it's so big and we're so close, and thus those other sources will be delivering anti-photons - again, relative to the general charge photon direction we receive from the sun.
So to crossover slightly to the other paper and our other thread, most of the moon's photons will NOT be coming in from the same direction or feel the same "turn" to enter the Earth, and thus relative to insolation they can be considered anti-photons.
Is that feasible? Am I getting anywhere towards understanding this shit?
Jared Magneson- Posts : 525
Join date : 2016-10-11
Re: The Sun's Galactic orbit, and charge field implications.
by Ciaolo Sun Mar 25, 2018 2:01 pm
You may find this info about the moon orbit inclination somewhat useful: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lunar_standstill
It contains some observational data.
It contains some observational data.
Ciaolo- Posts : 143
Join date : 2016-09-08
Re: The Sun's Galactic orbit, and charge field implications.
by LongtimeAirman Mon Mar 26, 2018 3:17 pm
.
I hope you didn't mind the delay. I, for one, needed the additional 'process' time.
Jared wrote. So to clarify, we have a spinning, moving body (reference body) constantly bombarded by far smaller spinning, moving bodies. The "trail" of either is a sort of spiral, given a certain observation point, so we have all these particles and groups of them cork-screwing through space, skewed somewhat by gravity but also by collisions (contact-transfers of momentum).
So any given body will be spinning one way and not the other, just like any bodies it contacts or encounters. Charge spinning the same way (generally) we can call photons, and charge spinning the opposite way of the reference body we can call anti-photons. Does that seem right so far?
Airman. I agree. I’ll try to sing along. On the smallest scale (due to light speed constraints), photons with any +/-X, +/-Y, or +/-Z spin will align the top spin orthogonal to the photon’s forward direction. Charged particles and aggregate atomic matter of all sizes must follow the same orthogonal spin rule. On the Solar scale, the planetary orbits about the sun must also align their orbits orthogonal to the sun’s forward direction through space. All those bodies’ motions can be described with skewed cork screw paths. Collisions will vary in intensity. Gentle side bumps tend to occur between bodies of the same polarity traveling in the same direction. The most energetic head-on collisions will be delivered by photons or bodies in the field with the same polarity, yet traveling in the opposite direction - antimatter.
Jared wrote. From the Earth's reference point, it receives the most charge from the sun but still roughly 1/3 of our charge comes from... NOT the sun. Insolation and its magnetism causes our spin or compels it to continue in that direction, at the very least, so we can assume that most of the solar charge we feel sums to the same spin direction as the Earth spins, a'la Nevyns previous mechanism as the photons are "turned" to physically enter the Earth.
Not all photons will be turned - most will not, but the ones that are have a greater effect at this distance than all other sources, so the sun is the main cause of "photons" for the Earth. All other sources will be coming (generally) from a direction NOT the sun, since it's so big and we're so close, and thus those other sources will be delivering anti-photons - again, relative to the general charge photon direction we receive from the sun.
So to crossover slightly to the other paper and our other thread, most of the moon's photons will NOT be coming in from the same direction or feel the same "turn" to enter the Earth, and thus relative to insolation they can be considered anti-photons.
Is that feasible? Am I getting anywhere towards understanding this shit?
Airman. The sun’s charge field has resulted in a wide distribution of matter, from Mercury to the Ort cloud. Over time, all that matter is subject to the constant torque of the sun’s emissions – be it 90% of the bodies charge intake, or a much smaller percentage. The photons of the solar system are turned to the sun, with dynamic exceptions that prove the rule. I see I was wrong in my previous thinking about 50/50 Venus (thanks for the gentle correction). Given the present discussion it seems logical that rather than diving closer to the sun from a greater orbit, Venus must have belonged to a gas giant before being captured by the sun. The sun’s emissions are anti-venus polarity. The sun is strongly reversing Venus’s retrograde - a’la sun - spin axis.
Scat aside Jared, I think you’ve got it. All charge the body receives – not from the sun – may be considered antiphotons. The poles recycle: 1) photons either received from the sun or not from the sun; as well as 2) photons, or charge, turned into the poles. Our loopy charge recycling diagrams should always include the dominant direct photon emission received, i.e., insolation from the sun.
Comments are appreciated.
.
I hope you didn't mind the delay. I, for one, needed the additional 'process' time.
Jared wrote. So to clarify, we have a spinning, moving body (reference body) constantly bombarded by far smaller spinning, moving bodies. The "trail" of either is a sort of spiral, given a certain observation point, so we have all these particles and groups of them cork-screwing through space, skewed somewhat by gravity but also by collisions (contact-transfers of momentum).
So any given body will be spinning one way and not the other, just like any bodies it contacts or encounters. Charge spinning the same way (generally) we can call photons, and charge spinning the opposite way of the reference body we can call anti-photons. Does that seem right so far?
Airman. I agree. I’ll try to sing along. On the smallest scale (due to light speed constraints), photons with any +/-X, +/-Y, or +/-Z spin will align the top spin orthogonal to the photon’s forward direction. Charged particles and aggregate atomic matter of all sizes must follow the same orthogonal spin rule. On the Solar scale, the planetary orbits about the sun must also align their orbits orthogonal to the sun’s forward direction through space. All those bodies’ motions can be described with skewed cork screw paths. Collisions will vary in intensity. Gentle side bumps tend to occur between bodies of the same polarity traveling in the same direction. The most energetic head-on collisions will be delivered by photons or bodies in the field with the same polarity, yet traveling in the opposite direction - antimatter.
Jared wrote. From the Earth's reference point, it receives the most charge from the sun but still roughly 1/3 of our charge comes from... NOT the sun. Insolation and its magnetism causes our spin or compels it to continue in that direction, at the very least, so we can assume that most of the solar charge we feel sums to the same spin direction as the Earth spins, a'la Nevyns previous mechanism as the photons are "turned" to physically enter the Earth.
Not all photons will be turned - most will not, but the ones that are have a greater effect at this distance than all other sources, so the sun is the main cause of "photons" for the Earth. All other sources will be coming (generally) from a direction NOT the sun, since it's so big and we're so close, and thus those other sources will be delivering anti-photons - again, relative to the general charge photon direction we receive from the sun.
So to crossover slightly to the other paper and our other thread, most of the moon's photons will NOT be coming in from the same direction or feel the same "turn" to enter the Earth, and thus relative to insolation they can be considered anti-photons.
Is that feasible? Am I getting anywhere towards understanding this shit?
Airman. The sun’s charge field has resulted in a wide distribution of matter, from Mercury to the Ort cloud. Over time, all that matter is subject to the constant torque of the sun’s emissions – be it 90% of the bodies charge intake, or a much smaller percentage. The photons of the solar system are turned to the sun, with dynamic exceptions that prove the rule. I see I was wrong in my previous thinking about 50/50 Venus (thanks for the gentle correction). Given the present discussion it seems logical that rather than diving closer to the sun from a greater orbit, Venus must have belonged to a gas giant before being captured by the sun. The sun’s emissions are anti-venus polarity. The sun is strongly reversing Venus’s retrograde - a’la sun - spin axis.
Scat aside Jared, I think you’ve got it. All charge the body receives – not from the sun – may be considered antiphotons. The poles recycle: 1) photons either received from the sun or not from the sun; as well as 2) photons, or charge, turned into the poles. Our loopy charge recycling diagrams should always include the dominant direct photon emission received, i.e., insolation from the sun.
Comments are appreciated.
.
LongtimeAirman- Admin
- Posts : 2078
Join date : 2014-08-10
Re: The Sun's Galactic orbit, and charge field implications.
by LongtimeAirman Tue Mar 27, 2018 3:15 pm
.
Hi Lichtmechaniker, It often takes me a great deal of time to figure out and then write what I’m thinking - that's part of why I keep begging others to post. Writing, like everything else worthwhile, takes practice and effort.
Your idea, that the photon/antiphoton ratio is based on the motion of the Solar system around the galaxy is, of course, correct. It could use a bit of fleshing out. Jared did a quick job at that. I’ll summarize (part of my practice and effort regimen ).
All matter in the Solar system varies in the amount of direct photon emissions it receives from the sun, vice the charge it receives not directly from the sun. That’s our new working definition of the photon/antiphoton ratio given Jared’s matter/antimatter idea - charge received not directly from the sun is equivalent to antimatter. Over time the sun constantly torques all the objects in the solar system, and so all bodies within the system reach a polarized equilibrium energy level driven by the charge emitted by the sun.
Charge received not directly from the sun needs further clarification. I suspect much if not most of the charge in this category will be received “indirectly” from the sun, such as solar charge turned by the poles, or reflected sunlight, as with moonlight. Recycled charge returning from all other objects in the solar system gets more complicated. At some point, all the remaining charge received not directly from the sun must come from the galaxy. The Solar system’s equilibrium always includes galactic charge.
If that’s the equilibrium that determines our 2:1 ratio here on Earth, how can it change? The ratio must change during the Solar system’s motion through the galaxy. We could calculate the changes to the ratio if we knew: 1. the energy output from the sun, 2. the velocity of the Solar system and 3. the direction and density of the local galactic charge field. If there was little galactic charge available and the solar system traveled slowly, the energy level of the solar system would depend more exclusively on the sun. If the solar system encountered a great deal of interstellar charge, or traveled at a high velocity, the energy of most all the bodies in the solar system would increase. How that affects the photon/antiphoton ratio, I’m not certain, but I’m sure it must. Again, see Enceladus.
Again, you are right, the ratio depends on the motion of the Solar system around the galaxy. Thanks for proposing it. Please forgive me for running you through a process. I believe we've all benefited from the discussion.
.
Hi Lichtmechaniker, It often takes me a great deal of time to figure out and then write what I’m thinking - that's part of why I keep begging others to post. Writing, like everything else worthwhile, takes practice and effort.
Your idea, that the photon/antiphoton ratio is based on the motion of the Solar system around the galaxy is, of course, correct. It could use a bit of fleshing out. Jared did a quick job at that. I’ll summarize (part of my practice and effort regimen ).
All matter in the Solar system varies in the amount of direct photon emissions it receives from the sun, vice the charge it receives not directly from the sun. That’s our new working definition of the photon/antiphoton ratio given Jared’s matter/antimatter idea - charge received not directly from the sun is equivalent to antimatter. Over time the sun constantly torques all the objects in the solar system, and so all bodies within the system reach a polarized equilibrium energy level driven by the charge emitted by the sun.
Charge received not directly from the sun needs further clarification. I suspect much if not most of the charge in this category will be received “indirectly” from the sun, such as solar charge turned by the poles, or reflected sunlight, as with moonlight. Recycled charge returning from all other objects in the solar system gets more complicated. At some point, all the remaining charge received not directly from the sun must come from the galaxy. The Solar system’s equilibrium always includes galactic charge.
If that’s the equilibrium that determines our 2:1 ratio here on Earth, how can it change? The ratio must change during the Solar system’s motion through the galaxy. We could calculate the changes to the ratio if we knew: 1. the energy output from the sun, 2. the velocity of the Solar system and 3. the direction and density of the local galactic charge field. If there was little galactic charge available and the solar system traveled slowly, the energy level of the solar system would depend more exclusively on the sun. If the solar system encountered a great deal of interstellar charge, or traveled at a high velocity, the energy of most all the bodies in the solar system would increase. How that affects the photon/antiphoton ratio, I’m not certain, but I’m sure it must. Again, see Enceladus.
Again, you are right, the ratio depends on the motion of the Solar system around the galaxy. Thanks for proposing it. Please forgive me for running you through a process. I believe we've all benefited from the discussion.
.
LongtimeAirman- Admin
- Posts : 2078
Join date : 2014-08-10
Re: The Sun's Galactic orbit, and charge field implications.
by Nevyn Tue Mar 27, 2018 6:34 pm
Airman wrote:The ratio must change during the Solar system’s motion through the galaxy.
The Sun is also feeding on that same charge so any changes are reflected in the Sun's output as much as the direct input to the planets. I would expect some fluctuation to that ratio, because the Sun can store some charge, but it should return to the same value eventually.
I think that ratio is a result of the Solar System rather than the Galaxy. The Galaxy provides the charge but it is the Solar System's structure that dictates the value of that ratio. The distance from the Sun seems to be the major factor but I imagine the Jovians also play a part. I think it would be very interesting to see how the galactic charge changes effect Jupiter and Saturn.
Nevyn- Admin
- Posts : 1887
Join date : 2014-09-11
Location : Australia -
Re: The Sun's Galactic orbit, and charge field implications.
by LongtimeAirman Tue Mar 27, 2018 9:34 pm
.
Hi Nevyn, I like your idea of charge "turned by the poles". Except for the odd photon or two, I'll keep arguing the charge turned must be at sub light speed.
I like Jared's idea that all charge not received directly from the sun is, for all intents and purposes, antimatter.
"Feeding" sounds animate to me. Matter, including the Solar system, sweeps up and recycles charge. How much energy does the sun store? What if there were no charge in space, how long can a Solar system recycle charge without a source of fresh charge? I suppose all the bodies within the system would tend to lose energy. What does that mean? We hope the sun is a constant and reliable charge particle, but there may be limits. We need to examine the sun in another thread.
With respect to charge turned by the poles, I guess there’s no difference between galactic or solar charge. Compared to the Solar system, I expect greater fluctuation in galactic charge availability. All bodies in the solar system receive direct galactic charge according to their own masses; this charge must be a fairly constant component of the anti-side of the photon/antiphoton ratio. The ratio is mainly due to the sun, although the path of the Solar system through the galaxy is probably the most important factor when determining the anti-side of the ratio, with very different ratios in much "hotter" or "colder" areas of the galaxy.
The Jovians may make things very interesting.
.
Hi Nevyn, I like your idea of charge "turned by the poles". Except for the odd photon or two, I'll keep arguing the charge turned must be at sub light speed.
I like Jared's idea that all charge not received directly from the sun is, for all intents and purposes, antimatter.
"Feeding" sounds animate to me. Matter, including the Solar system, sweeps up and recycles charge. How much energy does the sun store? What if there were no charge in space, how long can a Solar system recycle charge without a source of fresh charge? I suppose all the bodies within the system would tend to lose energy. What does that mean? We hope the sun is a constant and reliable charge particle, but there may be limits. We need to examine the sun in another thread.
With respect to charge turned by the poles, I guess there’s no difference between galactic or solar charge. Compared to the Solar system, I expect greater fluctuation in galactic charge availability. All bodies in the solar system receive direct galactic charge according to their own masses; this charge must be a fairly constant component of the anti-side of the photon/antiphoton ratio. The ratio is mainly due to the sun, although the path of the Solar system through the galaxy is probably the most important factor when determining the anti-side of the ratio, with very different ratios in much "hotter" or "colder" areas of the galaxy.
The Jovians may make things very interesting.
.
LongtimeAirman- Admin
- Posts : 2078
Join date : 2014-08-10
Re: The Sun's Galactic orbit, and charge field implications.
by Nevyn Tue Mar 27, 2018 11:58 pm
If the charge source was stopped instantly, then I expect the solar system to disintegrate very, very shortly after that. The Sun can not store enough charge to support the planets for very long. What is a short time in this context? Maybe hours. Maybe days. Maybe weeks. I doubt much more than that but I have nothing to back up such claims. Thankfully, I've never been around a starved star.
We do hear of things taking hundreds of thousands of years to move from the internal to the external of the Sun but I don't think that is applicable here because the internals are being shutdown and the size of the Sun itself will shrink as all of this happens. I expect that us here on Earth will not even get to see much of it because the charge field of the Sun would be reduced dramatically which would let gravity override it. We would be swallowed up before the Sun started to shrink. Although we may be able to survive long enough to actually get inside of the Sun because its heat output would be reduced. We may just collide with another planet before that though.
There are just too many ways to die!
Well, that's a depressing thought!
I think the Jovians may be the key piece to link the charge ratio to the galactic core. They are big enough to draw on that galactic charge quite heavily. Other than that, I can't see how to link them.
We do hear of things taking hundreds of thousands of years to move from the internal to the external of the Sun but I don't think that is applicable here because the internals are being shutdown and the size of the Sun itself will shrink as all of this happens. I expect that us here on Earth will not even get to see much of it because the charge field of the Sun would be reduced dramatically which would let gravity override it. We would be swallowed up before the Sun started to shrink. Although we may be able to survive long enough to actually get inside of the Sun because its heat output would be reduced. We may just collide with another planet before that though.
There are just too many ways to die!
Well, that's a depressing thought!
I think the Jovians may be the key piece to link the charge ratio to the galactic core. They are big enough to draw on that galactic charge quite heavily. Other than that, I can't see how to link them.
Nevyn- Admin
- Posts : 1887
Join date : 2014-09-11
Location : Australia -
Re: The Sun's Galactic orbit, and charge field implications.
by Lichtmechaniker Tue Apr 03, 2018 4:24 pm
LongtimeAirman wrote:.
Lichmechaniker, are you satisfied with the “Enceladus” solution?
.
Yes, most definitely. And I'd like to further comment on it and how this quote applies to the current topic.
MM encel.pdf wrote:.
Why would charge coming out of Enceladus hit an opposing field, creating a big interaction, while charge coming out of Mimas would not? Well, since both Mimas and Enceladus are in synchronous orbit, they don't have any of their own spin. We can't tell which way they were initially spinning before they went synchronous. I would suggest that although Mimas and Enceladus appear to be charged the same, they are not. I would suggest Mimas is actually upside down to Enceladus, like Venus is upside down to the Earth. What if the Sun slowed Venus' spin down until she went synchronous? Would she and the Earth then have the same poles and charge profiles? No, Venus' north pole would still be opposite our north pole. Venus could not change her charge profile through her entire body unless she started spinning the other way. After some time, that new spin would change the spin of all her interior particles, and her poles would switch. But in a synchronous orbit, she would have no spin of her own, and could not change the internal spins of her constituent particles. Her interior would keep her initial charge profile. I suggest that is what we are seeing with Mimas and Pan. They are recycling from the “wrong” poles, and so they are acting in the opposite way to Enceladus. Enceladus is creating rings while Mimas and Pan are sweeping them away.
.
This is the point I've been trying to make. If we simplify the galactic orbit to a straight line, focusing locally it is a straight line, I notice that it aligns almost perfectly with each planets magnetic poles. Taking what we know about magnetism and the charge field I think that this directional alignment with the magnetic poles of all planets is not a coincidence at all. The motion of the bodies through the energetic field of space is what brings in more charge through the South pole than the North, it's like aerodynamics 101 but for light. Anyways, the ambient charge field that all the planets travel through is spinning the same, so that's why Venus spins backwards, the "corkscrew" effect of charge channeling is completely reversed from North to South with retrograde spin. Also I am right now looking into Uranus and trying to orient its odd magnetic poles with galactic motion as well. Using charge to explain these previously "unexplainable" planetary movements is the nail in the coffin of classical gravity based astronomy.
ps. 1/1300 the speed of light is our velocity around the galaxy. Very fast, many photons encountered per planet per second, enough to be the cause of the axis spin and global magnetism in my opinion.
Lichtmechaniker- Posts : 11
Join date : 2018-03-05
Re: The Sun's Galactic orbit, and charge field implications.
by LongtimeAirman Wed Apr 04, 2018 2:03 pm
.
LongtimeAirman wrote:.
Lichmechaniker, are you satisfied with the “Enceladus” solution?
Oops, I misspelled your name. I’m a lousy long nailed two-fingered typist with too small a tablet. I’ll call you Licht.
I like the quote Licht. All objects have an apparent polarity, as well as a degree of consistent internal polarity. That, and Ciaolo’s engine got me thinking about Miles’ “Central Engine”*. All objects within the suns heliosphere are constantly being spun up or down by the sun. The degree of polarity of all those objects slowly changes over time as a function of the distance of the object to the sun. Also, to a lesser degree, due to its much greater distance, the galaxy is also spinning all its constituent objects in the anti-polarity. The degree of polarity for all objects is slowly changing. With respect to the Central Engine, it may be safe to say that all matter slowly oscillates between the two spin polarities, at a rate determined by the relative charge densities in the object’s ambient field.
Licht wrote. This is the point I've been trying to make. If we simplify the galactic orbit to a straight line, focusing locally it is a straight line, I notice that it aligns almost perfectly with each planets magnetic poles.
A local straight line approximation is certainly acceptable. I must admit I’m not able to imagine how each planet’s magnetic pole aligns to the galactic orbit. What about the fact that the magnetic poles of the Earth have moved fairly significantly throughout the Earth’s history, are you saying the galactic orbit was changing along with the poles?
Project Gutenberg's The Story of the Solar System, by George F. Chambers
https://www.gutenberg.org/files/47021/47021-h/47021-h.htm
I would expect the spin inclination of each planet is the important factor, not the magnetic pole. Here’s a diagram of the spin axii of the planets. It may just be an artifact of the diagram, but it appears the left/right line joining the planetary centers might align to the sun’s orbit about the galaxy. Is that true? If so, then I guess one can say the planets’ spin axii are inclined to the galactic orbit. Are the planetary inclinations also orthogonal to the galactic center? Are we looking toward or away from galactic central in this image?
Does everyone agree?
* 184. The Central Engine. http://milesmathis.com/engine.pdf What drives the galaxies? 3pp.
.
LongtimeAirman wrote:.
Lichmechaniker, are you satisfied with the “Enceladus” solution?
Oops, I misspelled your name. I’m a lousy long nailed two-fingered typist with too small a tablet. I’ll call you Licht.
I like the quote Licht. All objects have an apparent polarity, as well as a degree of consistent internal polarity. That, and Ciaolo’s engine got me thinking about Miles’ “Central Engine”*. All objects within the suns heliosphere are constantly being spun up or down by the sun. The degree of polarity of all those objects slowly changes over time as a function of the distance of the object to the sun. Also, to a lesser degree, due to its much greater distance, the galaxy is also spinning all its constituent objects in the anti-polarity. The degree of polarity for all objects is slowly changing. With respect to the Central Engine, it may be safe to say that all matter slowly oscillates between the two spin polarities, at a rate determined by the relative charge densities in the object’s ambient field.
Licht wrote. This is the point I've been trying to make. If we simplify the galactic orbit to a straight line, focusing locally it is a straight line, I notice that it aligns almost perfectly with each planets magnetic poles.
A local straight line approximation is certainly acceptable. I must admit I’m not able to imagine how each planet’s magnetic pole aligns to the galactic orbit. What about the fact that the magnetic poles of the Earth have moved fairly significantly throughout the Earth’s history, are you saying the galactic orbit was changing along with the poles?
Project Gutenberg's The Story of the Solar System, by George F. Chambers
https://www.gutenberg.org/files/47021/47021-h/47021-h.htm
I would expect the spin inclination of each planet is the important factor, not the magnetic pole. Here’s a diagram of the spin axii of the planets. It may just be an artifact of the diagram, but it appears the left/right line joining the planetary centers might align to the sun’s orbit about the galaxy. Is that true? If so, then I guess one can say the planets’ spin axii are inclined to the galactic orbit. Are the planetary inclinations also orthogonal to the galactic center? Are we looking toward or away from galactic central in this image?
Does everyone agree?
* 184. The Central Engine. http://milesmathis.com/engine.pdf What drives the galaxies? 3pp.
.
LongtimeAirman- Admin
- Posts : 2078
Join date : 2014-08-10
Re: The Sun's Galactic orbit, and charge field implications.
by Lichtmechaniker Wed Apr 04, 2018 3:40 pm
I disagree, the horizontal line in that picture is the solar plane, which is angled about 60 degrees from the galactic orbit.
Here is my train of thought.
1. every region of space has some amount of charge in it. (spinning)
2. as bodies (our sun, earth...) move through space they "eat" the charge (channeling)
3. the channels make the E/M field (also spinning)
4. the E/M field makes the matter spin. (axis rotation)
5. earth is moving south, rotating clockwise if looking at the south pole
6. same with all other planets, except venus and uranus
Venus,
i) moving north (it's poles are opposite the rest)
ii) spinning retrograde (backwards compared to the rest)
iii) still spinning clockwise if viewed from south pole (like every magnet)
Uranus,
to be continued... take a look at it yourself and think about how 27 moons can pull the main charge stream off center enough to cause the rolling motion, instead of the central corkscrew like channels of the "normal" planets axis spin.
Here is my train of thought.
1. every region of space has some amount of charge in it. (spinning)
2. as bodies (our sun, earth...) move through space they "eat" the charge (channeling)
3. the channels make the E/M field (also spinning)
4. the E/M field makes the matter spin. (axis rotation)
5. earth is moving south, rotating clockwise if looking at the south pole
6. same with all other planets, except venus and uranus
Venus,
i) moving north (it's poles are opposite the rest)
ii) spinning retrograde (backwards compared to the rest)
iii) still spinning clockwise if viewed from south pole (like every magnet)
Uranus,
to be continued... take a look at it yourself and think about how 27 moons can pull the main charge stream off center enough to cause the rolling motion, instead of the central corkscrew like channels of the "normal" planets axis spin.
Lichtmechaniker- Posts : 11
Join date : 2018-03-05
Re: The Sun's Galactic orbit, and charge field implications.
by Lichtmechaniker Thu Apr 05, 2018 7:28 pm
LongtimeAirman wrote:.
Oops, I misspelled your name. I’m a lousy long nailed two-fingered typist with too small a tablet. I’ll call you Licht.
.
Licht is fine by me, I can't seem to spell this username correct half the time either. It's just something I picked out for this forum, it means Light Mechanic in German. I find it ironic as I'm an electrician and wire up lots of lights, but at the same time I'm aware of the fact that all the copper I sling carries light. Electron holes are what lead me here, I mean come on mainstream, "electron holes"
So I found this little page on physics.stackexchange [https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/160993/why-does-a-magnetic-field-go-anticlockwise-of-the-direction-of-current] [https://archive.is/LsHeF]
This is the quote that interested me the most.
Faraday imagined a current in the earth running the same direction as the apparent path of sun producing the earths magnetic field.– Georg Jan 23 '15 at 15:03 wrote:.
Sun dials placed on walls run counterclockwise, don't they? But nevertheless: there is something behind sun , earth rotation, direction of current and magnetic field. Faraday imagined a current in the earth running the same direction as the apparent path of sun producing the earths magnetic field.
.
Boom, just like that I find some very serious confirmation about the relationship between directional charge channeling and the galactic orbit. Not quite from Faraday himself, can anyone tell me where this is written, I've read a fair bit of early 1900's physics but not a thing he wrote.
Lichtmechaniker- Posts : 11
Join date : 2018-03-05
Re: The Sun's Galactic orbit, and charge field implications.
by Jared Magneson Thu Apr 05, 2018 7:37 pm
Perhaps this is helpful?
"English physicist Michael Faraday gets the credit for discovering magnetic induction in 1830; however, an American physicist, Joseph Henry, independently made the same discovery about the same time, according to the University of Texas."
"What is Faraday's Law of Induction?"
https://www.livescience.com/53509-faradays-law-induction.html
"Faraday’s Law of Induction describes how an electric current produces a magnetic field and, conversely, how a changing magnetic field generates an electric current in a conductor."
"English physicist Michael Faraday gets the credit for discovering magnetic induction in 1830; however, an American physicist, Joseph Henry, independently made the same discovery about the same time, according to the University of Texas."
"What is Faraday's Law of Induction?"
https://www.livescience.com/53509-faradays-law-induction.html
Jared Magneson- Posts : 525
Join date : 2016-10-11
Re: The Sun's Galactic orbit, and charge field implications.
by Lichtmechaniker Thu Apr 05, 2018 7:46 pm
It's definitely on topic, the law of induction is built upon the chirality of magnetism, it's all about how moving charge creates a magnetic field and how a moving magnet can "induce" current in a wire.
What I'm after is some pdfs of Faradays writing, so I can see where that quote from above comes from.
"Faraday imagined a current in the earth running the same direction as the apparent path of sun producing the earths magnetic field."
What I'm after is some pdfs of Faradays writing, so I can see where that quote from above comes from.
"Faraday imagined a current in the earth running the same direction as the apparent path of sun producing the earths magnetic field."
Lichtmechaniker- Posts : 11
Join date : 2018-03-05
Re: The Sun's Galactic orbit, and charge field implications.
by Jared Magneson Thu Apr 05, 2018 8:05 pm
Indeed, I was searching "Faraday earth magnetic field" and came upon his Induction stuff. There were some .pdf's in the search, but I tend to use DuckDuckGo anymore (instead of Google) so you might have better luck finding stuff if you toss in a "pdf" in the search?
One thing I am aware of is that applying current to a Faraday disc setup produces a spin one way, and not the other. The right-hand rule. But why it's one way and not the other is explained straight-forward by Mathis and his photons/anti-photons, it seems to me.
One thing I am aware of is that applying current to a Faraday disc setup produces a spin one way, and not the other. The right-hand rule. But why it's one way and not the other is explained straight-forward by Mathis and his photons/anti-photons, it seems to me.
Jared Magneson- Posts : 525
Join date : 2016-10-11
Re: The Sun's Galactic orbit, and charge field implications.
by LongtimeAirman Thu Apr 05, 2018 8:41 pm
.
I recommend Archive.org, for all the old stuff. https://archive.org/
https://archive.org/search.php?query=Michael+Faraday&sin=TXT
Most of these pdf's are only images, so you cannot word search. Right now I'm thumbing through Michael Faraday; his life and work by thompson, silvanus phillips, 1851-1916
https://ia800205.us.archive.org/10/items/cu31924015746096/cu31924015746096.pdf
.
I recommend Archive.org, for all the old stuff. https://archive.org/
https://archive.org/search.php?query=Michael+Faraday&sin=TXT
Most of these pdf's are only images, so you cannot word search. Right now I'm thumbing through Michael Faraday; his life and work by thompson, silvanus phillips, 1851-1916
https://ia800205.us.archive.org/10/items/cu31924015746096/cu31924015746096.pdf
.
LongtimeAirman- Admin
- Posts : 2078
Join date : 2014-08-10
Re: The Sun's Galactic orbit, and charge field implications.
by Jared Magneson Thu Apr 05, 2018 9:11 pm
If there's a specific .pdf you want to be able to search, link me to it and I can run it through NitroPDF which has a pretty good OCR function, even converts to Word .doc files easily too if necessary.
It's among the reasons I wish Miles didn't have so much trouble with his site formatting and .pdf files, but he hasn't seemed interested in my help updating all that.
It's among the reasons I wish Miles didn't have so much trouble with his site formatting and .pdf files, but he hasn't seemed interested in my help updating all that.
Jared Magneson- Posts : 525
Join date : 2016-10-11
Similar topics» Use the charge field
» The Charge Field
» Microcosm - Physics
» Charge Field Storage
» Psychedelics and the Charge Field?
» The Charge Field
» Microcosm - Physics
» Charge Field Storage
» Psychedelics and the Charge Field?
Page 1 of 1
Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum