The Coriolis Force on Earth and in the Universe

  • 51 Replies
  • 3728 Views
*

Fermer05

  • 45
  • Если лошадь сдохла, слезь.
The Coriolis Force on Earth and in the Universe
« on: February 23, 2020, 04:25:12 AM »
The Coriolis effect occurs when an object approaches or moves away from the axis of the Earth.
At the same time, when an object that moves on the Earth approaches or moves away from the axis of the Sun, the Coriolis Solar Force arises.
The deflecting Coriolis Solar Force, due to the axial and orbital rotation of the Earth, is much more complicated.
The course of the Volga River is constantly pressed against the western bank of the river, by the force of the Coriolis Earth.
And the Coriolis Solar Force, due to the axial and orbital rotation of the Earth, deflects the Volga River first to the west coast, then to the east, twice a day.
For this reason, winding currents form in the seas and oceans.
The aforesaid can be easily verified by rotating the globe around the axis and in orbit. Wrapped along the equator and meridian with a plastic hose in which fluid moves. http://astrogalaxy1.narod.ru/astro016.html
The Coriolis effect of the Earth does not depend on the inclination of the axis of the earth, and the Solar Coriolis force depends.

The solar Coriolis effect is involved in the formation of the moon ellipse.
When the Moon revolving around the Earth in the last quarter approaches the Sun at a speed of 1 km / s, and in the first quarter moves away from the Sun at a speed of 1 km / s, the Coriolis solar force stretches the moon's orbit along the Earth's orbit, due to which an ellipse of the Moon is formed.
When the moon is in the phase of the new moon and the full moon, the solar Coriolis effect does not affect the orbit of the moon, because in these phases the moon does not approach and does not move away from the sun.

The eccentricity of the Moon's orbit can be calculated using the following formula. E = Vz / Vl = 0.0411 / 0.55 = 0.0747
Where Vz - Earth's orbital speed - 0.0411 degrees / hour.
Vl - Moon's orbital speed - 0.55 degrees / hour.
The eccentricity of the Moon's orbit can be calculated using the following formula.
E = (Vz / Sz) / (Vl / Sl) = 0.00071 / 0.0095 = 0.0747
Where Vz is the Earth's orbital speed - 107,218 km / h.
Sz - Distance from the Sun to the Earth - 150,000,000 km.
Where Vl is the Moon's orbital speed - 3683 km / h.
Sl - Distance from the Earth to the Moon 384,000 km.
The eccentricity of the Moon's orbit varies, from 0.026 to 0.077.
Both formulas show that the average eccentricity of the Moon's orbit is 0.0747.
And the average eccentricity of the moon's orbit, obtained using radar, is 0.054.
http://www.aggregateria.com/R/radiolokatsionnaja_astronomija.html
Also, the eccentricity of the Moon's orbit can be determined by the following formula. E = Vl / Vz = 27.3 / 365.2 = 0.0747
Where Vl is the Moon's orbital angular velocity.
Vz - Orbital angular velocity of the Earth.
By dividing the orbital speed of the Moon by the eccentricity of the Moon's orbit, the Earth's orbital speed can be calculated. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moon
The statement that the Moon's orbit rotates and makes one revolution in 8.8 years does not correspond to reality, since the Solar Coriolis effect constantly stretches the Moon's orbit along the Earth's orbit.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apsidal_precession
Based on the fact of the approach and removal of the moon from the sun, it is possible to construct. Reactionless drive.

The reason for the geological activity of the planets is also the Coriolis solar force.
The side of the Earth that is at dawn, due to the daily rotation of the Earth, approaches the Sun at a speed of 1600 km / h, and the side of the Earth that is at sunset moves away from the Sun at a speed of 1600 km / h. Due to this, the Coriolis solar force stretches the Earth along the Earth's orbit, and as a result, the geological activity of planets and satellites increases. (Spinning planets heat up, similar to a flat tire in a car.)
The high geological activity of Jupiter's moon Io can be explained by the fact that the axial and orbital velocity of Io is 15 times greater than that of the Moon.
Io's orbital speed is 17 km / s, and the Moon's orbital speed is 1 km / s. Io's axial velocity is 1 revolution per 42 hours, and the moon's axial velocity is 1 revolution per month.
The distance from Jupiter to Io, the surface temperature and diameter of Io are the same as those of the Moon.
Geologically active are also Earth, Jupiter, Ceres, Enceladus, etc.
The geological activity of Venus and Mercury, due to the slow rotation, is extremely low. https://images.app.goo.gl/EC2iXou7XDLBWMB66
If Io gets closer to Jupiter, then the axial and orbital velocity of Io will increase, due to which the Solar Coriolis force can tear Io into numerous pieces, which will then be located along Io's orbit, forming a ring.
Perhaps the Shoemaker Comet, Levi 9, was torn apart by the Solar Coriolis effect as it approached Jupiter at perihelion.
At the time of the comet's rupture, the distance from Jupiter to the comet reached about 40,000 km, and the orbital speed was 60 km / s. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comet_Shoemaker%E2%80%93Levy_9
It is possible that the asteroid belt formed from a planet that, due to an increase in axial velocity, was torn apart by the Coriolis solar force.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asteroid_belt
The coefficient of geological activity of planets depends on the diameter, axial and orbital speed of the planets.
The video shows how the Coriolis solar force is pulling the Earth and the Moon's orbit along the Earth's orbit.

The Earth’s orbit is formed by the Galactic Coriolis force.
When the Earth, revolving around the Sun, approaches and moves away from the center of the galaxy at a speed of 30 km / s, the galactic Coriolis force stretches the Earth’s orbit along the orbit of the Sun, due to which the Earth’s orbit similar to the Lunar one should form. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galactic_year https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milky_Way
But the orbits of the planets are not stretched along the orbit of the Sun, which means that the Sun does not revolve around the center of the galaxy, but is in space, in a motionless state.
The reason for the formation of the ellipse of the planets and the reason for the rotation of the orbits of the planets is in the problem of two bodies, which has not yet been solved, like the problem of three bodies.
The statement that the ellipse of the planets is formed due to the disturbance of the planets does not stand up to criticism, since Venus and Neptune move in a circular orbit. https://m.habr.com/en/post/411567/
The objects of the solar system cannot endlessly revolve around numerous centers.
The laws of celestial mechanics are not omnipotent and are limited by the task of three bodies. The Earth revolves around the Sun, the Moon revolves around the Earth, and nothing revolves around the Moon. No natural planetary satellite has a permanent or temporary satellite, because this will be the task of four bodies, which contradicts the laws of being.
In nature, there is no relationship without symbiosis, and in the center of the galaxy, the solar system does not need.
https://spaceworlds.ru/solnechnaya-sistema/orbity-planet.html
And the main question is why planetary satellites do not have satellites, and asteroids possess satellites. Despite the fact that asteroids are much smaller than planet satellites. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minor-planet_moon
The two satellites of Saturn, Janus and Epimetheus, move in the same orbit, and overtake each other every four years.
If these two satellites revolved around the Sun, then Janus would capture Epimetheus. https://elementy.ru/kartinka_dnya/430/Tanets_Yanusa_i_Epimeteya

Based on the foregoing, we can put forward the hypothesis of the formation of the solar system.
1. The solar system is an autonomous object of the Universe and does not revolve around the center of the "galaxy" but is in space, in a stationary state.
2. Sunlight, due to the deflecting force of the Coriolis, revolves around the solar system.
3. At the edge of the solar system, sunlight rotates against the rotation of the sun, at a speed of about 0 km / s, relative to the universe. https://images.app.goo.gl/GZMt3h1e1dH86wWN6
4. The radius of the solar system depends on the speed of light and the angular velocity of rotation of the sun. R ≈ c / ω
The speed of light ≈ 1,000,000,000 km / h.
The angular velocity of the Sun ≈ 0.0105 rad / h.
The radius of the solar system is ≈ 95,000,000,000 km.
http://universetoday-rus.com/blog/2008-07-16-10
5. I believe the stars are huge luminous balls that formed from sunlight.
6. Sunlight transforms into nebulae, stars, globular clusters, galaxies, Kuiper belt, asteroids, protoplanets, planets, which after billions of years, spinning, fall back onto the Sun. There is a cycle of solar matter in nature. Otherwise, for billions of years of its existence, the Sun has long been burned.
7. Outside the solar system, sunlight does not penetrate and it will be impossible to see the solar system from the side of the universe.
8. A planet is an object in the Solar System that has an atmosphere, daily rotation, etc. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/IAU_definition_of_planet
9. All mechanical processes that occur in the atmosphere also occur in the starry sky.
10. The hypothesis that the Moon was formed from the rings of the Earth, and Mercury is a former satellite of Venus, is within the laws of celestial mechanics.
11. In the solar system, everything is programmed and everything moves according to the strict laws of celestial mechanics, due to which randomness and chaos are not possible in the solar system.
12. The theory of the evolution of the Universe should not contradict and go beyond the laws of celestial mechanics. http://www.ponjatija.ru/node/938

Everything is relative!!!
The mechanism of rotation of cyclones, anticyclones, cycles and galaxies is one and the same. This can be verified by comparing these two pictures.
https://images.app.goo.gl/1QaUggrb6N1qQ3xF8 https://images.app.goo.gl/xozpZJsAfkq1owoX9
The galaxy is a single slowly rotating "monolith", which does not obey the law of gravity, because all stars in galaxies rotate with the same angular velocities (like a gas tank cover).
And in the solar system - the farther from the sun the planet is, the lower the orbital speed of the planet. While Neptune makes one revolution around the Sun, Mercury makes more than 500 revolutions.
The orbital speed of Mercury is 50 km / s, and Neptune is 5 km / s. https://life.ru/p/907112
Based on the foregoing, we can conclude that in the center of the galaxy is the eye of the storm, and not a black hole and dark matter. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eye_(cyclone) https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galaxy_rotation_curve
Black holes leave their galaxies. https://news.rambler.ru/scitech/43938566-astronomy-pokazali-kak-chernye-dyry-pokidayut-svoi-galaktiki/
Astronomers accidentally discovered a strange star escaping from the Milky Way.
https://in-space.ru/astronomy-sluchajno-obnaruzhili-strannuyu-zvezdu-ubegayushhuyu-iz-mlechnogo-puti/
The black hole spawned a unique kind of planet. https://m.lenta.ru/news/2020/04/27/hole/amp/
Own movement of stars. https://spacegid.com/zvezda-barnarda.html
Regeneration of cyclones. https://slide-share.ru/regeneraciya-anticiklonov-28872

There are no answers to the following questions:
1. In the solar system, all eight planets revolve around the sun in the same plane.
a) And the stars, rotating around the nucleus of the galaxy, form dozens of planes.
b) What force is involved in the formation of the lenticular form of the galaxy?
c) Within the laws of celestial mechanics, stars should rotate around the core of the galaxy in only one plane, similar to the planets of the solar system.
2. The statement that globular star clusters are satellites of galaxies and rotate in very elongated orbits at a speed of ≈ 200 km / s also goes beyond celestial mechanics. https://images.app.goo.gl/7HbHogMoCKWPswX18
a) If only globular star clusters revolved around the galaxy, then globular star clusters would have a disk shape. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galaxy
b) Will Saturn and its satellites be able to rotate around the Sun, in the form of a globular cluster?
3. In globular star clusters, there is no orbital rotation of stars.
a) Then what forces form a globular cluster of stars?
4. If globular star clusters are satellites of galaxies, then star clusters should have, rotation axis, libration, etc. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Globular_cluster

Continuation: "The mechanism of thermoregulation of the Earth."
Forum on the flagship. https://vmf.net.ru/forums/viewtopic.php?f=6&t=2328&sid=a49d602d08c50eda4f043b73838e5f8a
Forum of Nizhny Novgorod State University named after N.I. Lobachevsky.
http://forum.unn.ru/viewtopic.php?f=39&t=10331&sid=cfbc49e0cf32263eff20888ca205ab15
The opening was published in the Russian-German peer-reviewed journal “Eastern European Scientific Journal” No. 3/2015. Page 64. June
Scientific journal NBIKS-Nauka.Tehnologii No. 4/2018. Page 104. (Nanotechnological Society of Russia).
French Maritime Forum. http://forummarine.forumactif.com/t9357-le-flux-et-reflux-est-le-resultat-de-la-rotation-de-la-terre
English forum. "Weather / Earth Sciences" https://www.wxforum.net/index.php?topic=35094.0
« Last Edit: September 04, 2020, 02:40:44 PM by Fermer05 »

Re: Earthquake hypothesis
« Reply #1 on: February 23, 2020, 09:05:11 AM »
Hello everybody!

The Coriolis effect occurs when ...

Flat Earthers do not believe the Coriolis effect exists. Nor that the Earth revolves about its axis. Nor that it orbits the sun.

*

Danang

  • 4241
  • Everything will be "Phew" in its time :')
Re: Earthquake hypothesis
« Reply #2 on: February 23, 2020, 02:59:18 PM »
Lands under the sun and the moon are attracted down due to unknown causes. This causes destabilization of those lands to certain radius which go up and down all the time with various rates.
• (Curved Grided) South Pole Centered FE Map AKA Phew FE Map
• Downwards Universal Deceleration.

Phew's Silicon Valley: https://gwebanget.home.blog/

*

Fermer05

  • 45
  • Если лошадь сдохла, слезь.
Re: Earthquake hypothesis
« Reply #3 on: February 24, 2020, 06:29:05 PM »
Seismologists explained why earthquakes more often occur at night. https://www.google.com/amp/s/news.mail.ru/amp/incident/35211141/

His findings were published in New Concepts in the Global Tectonics Bulletin and in the Journal of the Geophysical Union of India.
At the same time, says Kolvankar, the number of earthquakes and their intensity decreases during the day and is the lowest day (15-16 hours), and then increases until midnight.
“This typical daily painting of seismicity seems to be constant throughout the world, regardless of period, season, longitude and depth,” said Kolvankar.
BARC seismologists based their research on data collected over 36 years - between 1973 and 2008 - analyzing different monthly stages and identifying repeating phases.

*

rabinoz

  • 26528
  • Real Earth Believer
Re: Earthquake hypothesis
« Reply #4 on: March 08, 2020, 03:00:43 PM »
Lands under the sun and the moon are attracted down due to unknown causes. This causes destabilization of those lands to certain radius which go up and down all the time with various rates.
Might your "unknown causes" be gravitation? And any surface movement is very slight.

There is some evidence that big earthquakes are correlated with the times of full and new moon: Scientific American: Moon’s Gravity Linked to Big Earthquakes and many more similar reports.

*

Danang

  • 4241
  • Everything will be "Phew" in its time :')
Gravitation?
Which  one? The moon attracts up? Why the land goes down?
or The earth attracts down? Why applies only at some area?

"Einstein Might Be Wrong!" -- Prof. Michio Kaku 8)
• (Curved Grided) South Pole Centered FE Map AKA Phew FE Map
• Downwards Universal Deceleration.

Phew's Silicon Valley: https://gwebanget.home.blog/

*

rabinoz

  • 26528
  • Real Earth Believer
Gravitation?
Which  one? The moon attracts up? Why the land goes down?
or The earth attracts down? Why applies only at some area?
Roughly it's because:
The Earth attracts down almost equally everywhere but the Moon attracts more on the side facing the moon and less one the side facing away from the moon.
The nett effect is a little less "downward pull" on both the side face the Moon and the opposite side.
This might explain that aspect better What Causes Tides? but it's not by any means a full description of all the details of the different tides experienced around the world.

Quote from: Danang
"Einstein Might Be Wrong!" -- Prof. Michio Kaku 8)
Yes, "Einstein Might Be Wrong!" Not that Einstein had anything to say about the tides in our oceans.

But his Theory of General Relativity hasn't yet been proven wrong but physicists are doing their best to find improvements because both it and Quantum Mechanics are probably  incomplete.

*

wise

  • Professor
  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 22984
  • The Most Forum Legend
Re: Earthquake hypothesis
« Reply #7 on: March 09, 2020, 06:43:05 AM »
Flat Earthers cdo not accept coriolis affect but accept moon has a negative affect.


this workplace is on strike

*

wise

  • Professor
  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 22984
  • The Most Forum Legend
Since nobody can measure, you can argue that they simulate celestial events as you wish and claim they cause negative events on a desired date. both globalists and flat eartherss can do this. it makes no sense.


this workplace is on strike

*

rabinoz

  • 26528
  • Real Earth Believer
Re: Earthquake hypothesis
« Reply #9 on: April 01, 2020, 05:35:48 PM »
Flat Earthers do not accept coriolis affect but accept moon has a negative affect.
So flat Earthers do not accept the easily proven physics of the Coriolis effect?
Quote
Scientist of the Day - Gustave Coriolis, May 21, 2019
Gaspard-Gustave de Coriolis, a French engineer and mathematician, was born May 21, 1792. Coriolis was a well-respected instructor in the French engineering school system, and has long been recognized as the person who first determined that kinetic energy is correctly given by the expression, 1/2 m.v2, and who coined the word “work” to represent the quantity of force times distance.

But Coriolis is best known for a paper that he published in 1835, “Sur les équations du mouvement relatif des systems de corps” (”On the equations of relative motion of a system of bodies”). Here he pointed out, among other things, that a body moving radially (toward or away from the center) on a rotating body (like a merry-go-round) will veer to the right or left, when observed from the rotating object, as if there were a force on it (a Coriolis force), even though, to an observer on the ground, it continues in a straight line and feels no force at all. The paper was published in the Journal of the École Polytechnique.
And Gaspard-Gustave de Coriolis was writing in particular about the flow of water over water-wheels.

So, wise, are all flat Earthers as ignorant as you about physics?

*

MaNaeSWolf

  • 1984
  • Show me the evidence
Re: The reason for the geological activity of the planets
« Reply #10 on: April 18, 2020, 09:20:45 AM »
1. Do the stars hang motionless above the poles of the galaxy?
No
a) Without a doubt, this is a state of levitation, and contrary to the laws of nature.
I said no
b) Whether the planet can hang motionless, above the pole of the sun. http://www.astro.caltech.edu/ay1/Ay1_main.html it is still no
2. Stars rotating around the galactic nucleus form dozens of planes.
a) What force prevents the stars from spinning around the core of the galaxy in one plane. nothing, they spin around the center of mass of their respective galaxy
b) What force is involved in the formation of the lenticular shape of the galaxy. mostly gravity and the conservation of energy, specifically kinetic energy in the form of rotational energy
c) Within the laws of celestial mechanics, stars can rotate around the core of the galaxy, only in one plane, similar to the planets of the solar system. Nope. Stars can and do rotate in different orbital planes. But they usually end up rotating with the average rotational energy of the total system. 
d) In the solar system, all eight planets revolve around the sun in one plane.
Kinda, but not really. Mercury is off by 6 degrees and many asteroids are way off. One plane would be an approximation.
e) Do the orbits of stars intersect in irregular and other galaxies? say what?
f) Like the stars of the galaxy, the objects of the solar system can theoretically rotate around the equator and meridian, forming dozens of planes, and in practice they will quickly collide with each other. The reason why most planets fall within one plane is that collisions caused during the early development of the solar system forced most of the mass into a more stable single[ish] plane. but planets are frikken far away from each other
https://joshworth.com/dev/pixelspace/pixelspace_solarsystem.html - here is a very good indication of the size of the solar system
 

3. The claim that globular star clusters revolve around spiral galaxies also goes beyond celestial mechanics. No
a) For globular star clusters to rotate around the center of the galaxy, the galaxy itself must rotate around the center, and not be in free flight. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galaxy https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Globular_cluster No, again, the stars are VERY far from each other.

*

sandokhan

  • Flat Earth Sultan
  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 6745
Re: The reason for the geological activity of the planets
« Reply #11 on: April 19, 2020, 12:14:23 AM »
Your nays count for nothing.

Unless you can explain what dark matter is (a second gravitational force) your "arguments" are useless.

Let me remind you of what you are up against.

"The first piece of evidence came from the work of a young Dutch astronomer
named Jan Oort . . . Oort had already made a significant contribution to Galactic
astronomy.

Oort measured the positions and motions of a number of stars lying outside
the visible disk of the galaxy. Then he used that information to calculate how much
mass must lie inside their orbits to produce their observed motions. This amount is
called the Oort Limit, and it is equal to about 0.03 of a solar mass per cubic lightyear.
Next, Oort added up the masses of the visible stars in the Galactic disk. The
result was surprising: The actual mass present in the Galaxy seemed to be 50
percent less than what was needed to cause the actual movements of the stars that
lay outside the visible Galactic disk."

Joel Davis, Journey to the Center of Our Galaxy


Another problem arose in the 1930s: certain celestial motions were not in accordance
with Newtonian theory.

“The first glimmer that something was amiss in astronomy’s understanding of
the universe came in the 1930s. Caltech astronomer, Fritz Zwicky, an eclectic
wizard of his craft, was measuring the velocities of galaxies within the famous
Coma cluster and noticed that they were moving at a fairly rapid pace. He added
up all the light being emitted by these galaxies and realized that there was not
enough visible, or luminous, matter around to gravitationally bind the speeding
galaxies to one another. Under the standard laws of celestial mechanics, the Coma
cluster should [have been] flying apart, but it [wasn’t]. The situation seems
paradoxical . . . "

"By the 1970s, however, the problem of the missing mass was brought closer
to home. By then, both radio and optical telescopes were beginning to reveal
curious rotations in both the Milky Way and nearby galaxies which suggested that
galaxies contained more mass than previously assumed. Astronomers always took
it as a matter of course that stars in a spiral galaxy would evolve around the galaxy’s
core like planets in the solar system whose motions adhere to Newton’s laws of
gravitation. Newton recognized that the gravitational attraction between a planet
and the Sun follows a simple rule of thumb: the attraction between two celestial
objects is inversely proportional to the square of the distance between them. That
means that if the distance between the Earth and the Sun were doubled, their mutual
gravitational grip would lessen by a factor of four. Triple the distance, and the
attraction would fall off to a ninth of its original strength, and so on."

“The distance between a planet and the Sun also determines the planet’s orbital
velocity. “In the solar system, the planets all orbit the Sun with velocities that get
smaller and smaller as they get farther from the Sun, the system’s center of mass,”
explained Vera Rubin of the Carnegie Institution of Washington. “So the inner
planets go fast and the outer planets go slow. That’s just a direct response to
Newton’s law.”

“But to everyone’s surprise, observers discovered that galaxies weren’t acting
like [a] gigantic solar system at all.

“In spiral galaxy after spiral galaxy, the Carnegie group saw that stellar material
on the outer edges of a disk travels around at speeds much faster than theory had
estimated. It was the Coma cluster problem all over again.”

Marcia Bartusiak, Thursday’s Universe

Therefore, the stars in spiral galaxies do not follow Kepler’s law of distance cubed
equal period squared. In order to do so, the stars farther from the central mass of spiral galaxies must revolve slower than stars closer to the central mass, and they simply do not do this; they travel at the same velocity. James Trefil states, “In fact, no galactic rotation curve has ever been observed to turn over and become Keplarian. All of them remain flat out to distances of 200,000 or 300,000 light years.”

This evidence is a basic contradiction of fundamental gravitational theory and implies
that something is fundamentally wrong with our understanding of these matters.

"mostly gravity and the conservation of energy, specifically kinetic energy in the form of rotational energy"

Not even a joke, in the light of the above scientific facts.

The actual mass present in the Galaxy seemed to be 50 percent less than what was needed to cause the actual movements of the stars that lay outside the visible Galactic disk.

« Last Edit: April 19, 2020, 12:31:05 AM by sandokhan »

*

Stash

  • 7236
Re: The reason for the geological activity of the planets
« Reply #12 on: April 19, 2020, 01:24:52 AM »
Your nays count for nothing.

Unless you can explain what dark matter is (a second gravitational force) your "arguments" are useless.

An issue in the outer reaches of our galaxy. Not so much a concern here in our tiny little solar system - Here Keplerian/Newtonian physics works just fine.

*

sandokhan

  • Flat Earth Sultan
  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 6745
Re: The reason for the geological activity of the planets
« Reply #13 on: April 19, 2020, 01:34:43 AM »
Here Keplerian/Newtonian physics works just fine.

It does you say.

What if I were to post the exact formula for this second gravitational force (published in mainstream journals, having been derived by the greatest mathematician of the 20th century, ranks above Einstein in terms of the theory of relativity) which has been verified experimentally by mainstream scientific institutions?

Would you give up on the dogma you have been taught? Perhaps you might even consider becoming a flat earth believer...

*

Stash

  • 7236
Re: The reason for the geological activity of the planets
« Reply #14 on: April 19, 2020, 01:53:41 AM »
Here Keplerian/Newtonian physics works just fine.

It does you say.

What if I were to post the exact formula for this second gravitational force (published in mainstream journals, having been derived by the greatest mathematician of the 20th century, ranks above Einstein in terms of the theory of relativity) which has been verified experimentally by mainstream scientific institutions?

Would you give up on the dogma you have been taught? Perhaps you might even consider becoming a flat earth believer...

You make it seem like I should be frightened. Of course, post your exact formula. Let's have a look.

*

sandokhan

  • Flat Earth Sultan
  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 6745
Re: The reason for the geological activity of the planets
« Reply #15 on: April 19, 2020, 02:09:24 AM »
“And now I want to ask you something more: They tell me that you and Einstein are the only two real sure-enough high-brows and the only ones who can really understand each other. I won’t ask you if this is straight stuff for I know you are too modest to admit it. But I want to know this -- Do you ever run across a fellow that even you can’t understand?”

“Yes,” says he.

“This will make a great reading for the boys down at the office,” says I. “Do you mind releasing to me who he is?”

“Weyl,” says he.

(an interview that Paul Dirac gave in America back in April, 1929)

It is known that the metric component g44 acts like a gravitational potential used in Newtonian mechanics. For a static system (where gravity and electromagnetism balance each other out), it is almost expected that there should be a functional relationship between the gravitational potential and the electric potential φ. Weyl’s classical paper in 1917 examined a static electric field in curved spacetime with axial symmetry. He found that, if there exists a functional relationship between g44 and, φ it must be in the form of:

g44 (φ)= φ2 + C1φ + C0

Any field with this relation is known as a Weyl-type field.

Weyl's derivation of the electrogravitational equations for static systems (Biefeld-Brown effect):

http://www.jp-petit.org/papers/cosmo/1917-Weyl-en.pdf

http://www.jp-petit.org/papers/cosmo/1917-Weyl-de.pdf

Using Hermann Weyl's electrovacuum solutions, Professor S.D. Majumdar found the relationship between gravitational and electrostatic forces (Biefeld-Brown effect).

https://journals.aps.org/pr/abstract/10.1103/PhysRev.72.390




The Weyl-Majumdar-Papapetrou-Ivanov solution is the exact formula for the Biefeld-Brown effect:






https://arxiv.org/pdf/gr-qc/0507082.pdf

Weyl electrovacuum solutions and gauge invariance
Dr. B.V. Ivanov

https://arxiv.org/pdf/gr-qc/0502047.pdf

On the gravitational field induced by static electromagnetic sources
Dr. B.V Ivanov



This is the REAL universal gravitational formula: TWO COUNTEROPPOSITE GRAVITATIONAL FORCES, terrestrial gravity opposed by antigravity (which acts in the opposite direction).

This is what should be taught in high schools and freshman university courses on mechanics/electrogravitation, not the fake "newtonian" formula.

*

Stash

  • 7236
Re: The reason for the geological activity of the planets
« Reply #16 on: April 19, 2020, 03:23:49 PM »
This is the REAL universal gravitational formula: TWO COUNTEROPPOSITE GRAVITATIONAL FORCES, terrestrial gravity opposed by antigravity (which acts in the opposite direction).

This is what should be taught in high schools and freshman university courses on mechanics/electrogravitation, not the fake "newtonian" formula.

Hermann Weyl's work is an adjunct to Relativity not in lieu of. And has no bearing on the shape of the earth.

*

MaNaeSWolf

  • 1984
  • Show me the evidence
Re: The reason for the geological activity of the planets
« Reply #17 on: April 19, 2020, 10:38:39 PM »
Unless you can explain what dark matter is (a second gravitational force) your "arguments" are useless.

"unless you can explain X, all your theories are junk" is a terrible argument. And intellectually fragile.

Your essentially saying that you can only start to explain how the universe works after you know how the universe works.
Acknowledging that you dont know how something works, and then going out to study it is the only honest way to study anything.

Dark Matter; is by its very definition, unexplained gravitational forces. Scientists called it that as an acknowledgement that they dont know what it is.
I suppose the hundreds of thousands of scientist just failed to send you an email, other wise they would have a perfectly reasonable explanation for everything in the universe, right?

Is that what you want? Just acknowledgment that you know absolutely everything?

*

sandokhan

  • Flat Earth Sultan
  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 6745
Re: The reason for the geological activity of the planets
« Reply #18 on: April 19, 2020, 11:02:22 PM »
"unless you can explain X, all your theories are junk"

But in this case it's true.

Unless you can explain why stars, galaxies clusters simply DEFY on a grand cosmic scale the laws attributed to Kepler and Newton, your cherished "theories" amount to nothing at all.

There is one way to account for dark matter: Weyl fields.

https://arxiv.org/pdf/0705.3921.pdf

https://arxiv.org/pdf/gr-qc/9608035.pdf

https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/cb96/2dc8aa198d68f859b219f74d199c3a58cab1.pdf

Weyl already included the Reissner-Nordstrom metric in his transverse gravitational concept:

https://arxiv.org/pdf/1608.00285.pdf

He even introduced the concept of the gravitational potential in his transverse gravity equations:

https://arxiv.org/pdf/1610.05441.pdf

Reissner-Nordstrom metric (electrogravity):

https://archive.org/details/philtrans04375412


Hermann Weyl's work is an adjunct to Relativity not in lieu of.

Einstein's version of relativity is in lieu of Weyl's non-riemannian general relativity.



In 1918, H. Weyl introduced the physical concept of gauge at points within an affinely connected space corresponding to a non-Riemannian geometry to unify electromagnetism and gravitation. The Riemannian metric was used to explain gravity, while the new non-Riemannian geometries in the points of space were used to express the electromagnetic field.

Einstein immediately objected and argued that certain vectors can be treated as clocks marking the histories of atoms, whose spectral lines never change with time. Pauli used a different kind of a counterargument to Weyl's theory: the discovery of an “absolute length” in the Dirac theory of the electron (its “Compton wave length”).

However, Weyl responded to both objections.

https://www.scribd.com/document/316926632/Weyl-Reichenbach-and-the-Epistemology-of-Geometry (the best work on Weyl's response to Einstein's objections)

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg2182319#msg2182319 (Nobel prize winner C.N. Yang explains that Einstein's objection was not valid)

Weyl even addressed the Compton wavelength argument in 1949:




https://arxiv.org/pdf/1703.06355.pdf

Weyl relativity: A novel approach to Weyl’s ideas

Weyl did not press the matter further and was thus prevented from investigating additionally the unification of gravitation and electromagnetism in a single unified field theory.

Dr. James Beichler

https://www.academia.edu/12035946/The_Einstein_unified_field_theory_completed_A_direct_challenge_to_the_basic_assumptions_theories_and_direction_of_modern_and_post-modern_physics_1st_Edition_ (pages 21 24 26 28 29 30 33 34 38 42 43 44* 45 48* 51 52* 53 68* 70 72* 73** 77-78 84*)

Einstein's TGR addresses ONLY the F=mg component of Newton's equation, and NOT the gravitational potential.


Finishing Einstein Point by Point: The unification of quantum and relativity

Dr. James Beichler

https://www.academia.edu/16201568/Finishing_Einstein_Point_by_Point_The_unification_of_quantum_and_relativity
 
"For his part, Einstein envisioned the four dimensional space-time continuum of our world as a unified field out of which both gravity and electromagnetism emerged. He further hoped that the quantum would emerge as an over-restriction of field conditions. His worldview was that of a purely three dimensional brain logical external world. He seemed unable to completely break loose from his positivistic semi-Newtonian beliefs and perspective. However, from the perspective of the non-Newtonian fourth spatial dimension (or a five-dimensional space-time), the four dimensional expanse of space is filled with a single field of potential that is the precursor to everything that exists in three dimensional space – gravity, electricity, magnetism, matter, quantum, life, mind and even consciousness. These physical ‘things’ are just different aspects of field interactions (single field density patterns or complexes) modified by the physical constants that describe the physical nature of the single field."


G. 't Hooft discovered that "by using light rays alone, one cannot detect the scalar component of the energy-momentum tensor":

https://arxiv.org/pdf/1410.6675.pdf


Weyl’s gauge theory explained by C.N. Yang in a historical context:

http://www.tgeorgiev.net/Yang_AboutWeyl.pdf

C.N. Yang explains that Einstein’s original objection was not valid. The leading idea of Weyl’s theory is that the fundamental laws of physics should be invariant under position-dependent scale transformations. Weyl, in his original theory, postulated local-scale symmetry. That is, he postulated that one could change the size of objects independently at every point in space-time—and still get the same behaviour! To make that outrageous idea viable, he had to introduce a ‘gauge’ connection field. The gauge connection field tells us how much we must adjust our scale of length, or re-gauge our rulers, as we move from one point to another. Weyl made the remarkable discovery, that this gauge connection field, in order to do its job of implementing local-scale symmetry, must satisfy the Maxwell equations. Dazzled by that apparent miracle, Weyl proposed to identify his ideal mathematical connection field with the real physical electromagnetic field. In the new theory, the local symmetry transformations are no longer space-time dependent changes in the scale of length of space–time, but rather rotations in the new dimension, whose coordinate is dual to electric charge. (Note that multiplication by a phase faithfully implements rotations of a circle.) After that modification gauge symmetry leads to a satisfactory theory of electromagnetism.

Hermann Weyl in 1918 first conceived the idea that electrodynamics might be unified with gravitation by analyzing a “twisting” of vectors under parallel transport to measure the geometric curvature of a gauge space. While gravitation operates via the curvature of a physical, noncompact configuration space ℜ4 first pioneered by Minkowski based on Einstein’s 1905 development of Lorentz invariance into Special Relativity, Weyl’s theory operates along the circle of an abstract phase space using a non-observable local phase expixθ(x) for Abelian theory.

The connection between the vector potential theory of J.C. Maxwell and H Weyl’s gauge theory explained by C.N. Yang:

https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/stamp/stamp.jsp?arnumber=6078096

It was Weyl who emphasized the role of gauge invariance as a symmetry principle from which electromagnetism can be derived. It took several decades until the importance of this symmetry principle — in its generalized form to non-Abelian gauge groups developed by Yang, Mills, and others — became also fruitful for a description of the weak and strong interactions. The mathematics of the non-Abelian generalization of Weyl’s 1929 paper would have been an easy task for a mathematician of his rank, but at the time there was no motivation for this from the physics side.

Invariance under scale transformations was thus the pivoting point of Weyl’s theory. This led Weyl to field equations that cannot be transformedinto Einstein’s equations in the limit φi(x) = 0.

It is highly improbable that Einstein’s equations for the gravitational field are strictly valid. First and foremost, it is improbable because the gravitational constant is out of place among other natural constants, so that the gravitational radii of the charge and the mass of the electron have values of quite different orders of magnitude than, for example, the radius of the electron itself (they are smaller than the latter—the first by 1020 and the second by 1040). (Weyl, Gravitation und Elekrizität, 1918, p. 476)

Weyl’s new geometry was much richer than the Riemannian geometry in both its mathematical and philosophical content. Mathematically, the new geometry introduced new quantities into space that had no analogy in other geometries. Philosophically, these new quantities, unaccounted for by Riemannian geometry and thus unaccounted for in General Relativity, were used by Weyl to represent electromagnetic phenomena. Every point in space, represented by a vector having both magnitude and direction, could be displaced to another point in the same space yielding electromagnetism. When only the direction of the vector was taken into account, ignoring the vector’s magnitude, there remained a parallel displacement of the kind described by Levi-Civita, which accounted for gravity. The difference with Weyl’s geometry lay in the fact that it was no longer necessary for a vector’s magnitude or length to remain constant while being displaced between points in space.


*

rabinoz

  • 26528
  • Real Earth Believer
Re: The reason for the geological activity of the planets
« Reply #19 on: April 20, 2020, 02:33:37 AM »
"unless you can explain X, all your theories are junk"

But in this case it's true.

Unless you can explain why stars, galaxies clusters simply DEFY on a grand cosmic scale the laws attributed to Kepler and Newton, your cherished "theories" amount to nothing at all.

There is one way to account for dark matter: Weyl fields.
In case you hadn't noticed the topic is "The reason for the geological activity of the planets".

So all your "stars, galaxies clusters . . . on a grand cosmic scale" is quite irrelevant.
Whether dark matter exists or not is of no significance in the Solar System.

Try posting something relevant to "geological activity of the planets".

PS: It's dangerous to ever claim something like "There is [i]one way[/i] to account for dark matter".
       All one has to do to prove you wrong is to present another "way to account for dark matter".
       But that's for another time and place.

*

Bullwinkle

  • The Elder Ones
  • 19535
  • Standard Idiot
Re: The reason for the geological activity of the planets
« Reply #20 on: April 20, 2020, 01:43:45 PM »

What if I were to post the exact formula for this second gravitational force (published in mainstream journals, having been derived by the greatest mathematician of the 20th century, ranks above Einstein in terms of the theory of relativity) which has been verified experimentally by mainstream scientific institutions?

I can't wait . . .

Re: The reason for the geological activity of the planets
« Reply #21 on: May 02, 2020, 04:00:29 PM »
This is the REAL universal gravitational formula: TWO COUNTEROPPOSITE GRAVITATIONAL FORCES, terrestrial gravity opposed by antigravity (which acts in the opposite direction).

This is what should be taught in high schools and freshman university courses on mechanics/electrogravitation, not the fake "newtonian" formula.

Hermann Weyl's work is an adjunct to Relativity ***not in lieu of*** (Da fuk did u said). And has no bearing on the shape of the earth.

I don't understand. It is adjustment, not a lie of?

*

Stash

  • 7236
Re: The reason for the geological activity of the planets
« Reply #22 on: May 02, 2020, 05:39:06 PM »
This is the REAL universal gravitational formula: TWO COUNTEROPPOSITE GRAVITATIONAL FORCES, terrestrial gravity opposed by antigravity (which acts in the opposite direction).

This is what should be taught in high schools and freshman university courses on mechanics/electrogravitation, not the fake "newtonian" formula.

Hermann Weyl's work is an adjunct to Relativity ***not in lieu of*** (Da fuk did u said). And has no bearing on the shape of the earth.

I don't understand. It is adjustment, not a lie of?

First off, DO NOT change other people's posts. I did not write the ***'s and did not write "(Da fuk did u said)".

Secondly, it's just what I said, Weyl's work does not replace Relativity and it has no bearing on the shape of the Earth.

Thirdly, DO NOT change other people's posts.

*

rabinoz

  • 26528
  • Real Earth Believer
Re: The reason for the geological activity of the planets
« Reply #23 on: May 02, 2020, 07:16:35 PM »
Hermann Weyl's work is an adjunct to Relativity ***not in lieu of*** (Da fuk did u said). And has no bearing on the shape of the earth.

I don't understand. It is adjustment, not a lie of?
Stash did not write " ***not in lieu of*** (Da fuk did u said). " he wrote:
Look!
Hermann Weyl's work is an adjunct to Relativity not in lieu of. And has no bearing on the shape of the earth.

If you don't understand just ask!
"An adjunct to" means something like "an addendum to" or a "supplement to".
And "in lieu of" means "in place of" and have no connection with anyone "lying".

You might read this about Hermann Werl:
But you should be careful about relying on Hermann Weyl to support your weird ideas because he was a great proponent of the "General Theory of Relativity", assisted in the development of it, lectured on it and wrote at least one of the seminal books in it.
Have a look at:
Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy: Hermann Weyl
Quote
Space, Time, Matter Paperback – June 1, 1952 by Hermann Weyl
"The standard treatise on the general theory of relativity." — Nature
"Whatever the future may bring, Professor Weyl's book will remain a classic of physics." — British Journal for Philosophy and Science

Reflecting the revolution in scientific and philosophic thought which accompanied the Einstein relativity theories, Dr. Weyl has probed deeply into the notions of space, time, and matter. A rigorous examination of the state of our knowledge of the world following these developments is undertaken with this guiding principle: that although further scientific thought may take us far beyond our present conception of the world, we may never again return to the previous narrow and restricted scheme.
Although a degree of mathematical sophistication is presupposed, Dr. Weyl develops all the tensor calculus necessary to his exposition. He then proceeds to an analysis of the concept of Euclidean space and the spatial conceptions of Riemann. From this the nature of the amalgamation of space and time is derived. This leads to an exposition and examination of Einstein's general theory of relativity and the concomitant theory of gravitation. A detailed investigation follows devoted to gravitational waves, a rigorous solution of the problem of one body, laws of conservation, and the energy of gravitation. Dr. Weyl's introduction of the concept of tensor-density as a magnitude of quantity (contrasted with tensors which are considered to be magnitudes of intensity) is a major step toward a clearer understanding of the relationships among space, time, and matter.
Dr Hermann Weyl had no doubts about Einstein's Theory of General Relativity.

Re: The reason for the geological activity of the planets
« Reply #24 on: May 02, 2020, 11:42:14 PM »
I apologise.


And to continue debate, sandokhan needs to (figurativly) claim he found something in Weyl's work Weyl didn't found

*

wise

  • Professor
  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 22984
  • The Most Forum Legend
Re: The reason for the geological activity of the planets
« Reply #25 on: May 03, 2020, 12:00:12 AM »
Sandokhan does not need to claim furthermore. He has already put forward many evidences. Instead of critize flat earthers whose bring you tons of evidences, you ball lovers have to start thinking with scientific method likewise we real earthers do.


this workplace is on strike

Re: The reason for the geological activity of the planets
« Reply #26 on: May 03, 2020, 12:22:46 AM »
Sandokhan does not need to claim furthermore. He has already put forward many evidences. Instead of critize flat earthers whose bring you tons of evidences, you ball lovers have to start thinking with scientific method likewise we real earthers do.

He copy pasted many evidences which get destroyed but somhow thread gets 10+ pages

*

wise

  • Professor
  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 22984
  • The Most Forum Legend
Re: The reason for the geological activity of the planets
« Reply #27 on: May 03, 2020, 12:28:36 AM »
Sandokhan does not need to claim furthermore. He has already put forward many evidences. Instead of critize flat earthers whose bring you tons of evidences, you ball lovers have to start thinking with scientific method likewise we real earthers do.

He copy pasted many evidences which get destroyed but somhow thread gets 10+ pages
His evidences never destroyed. You are lying. Otherwise, prove the opposite. You have been destroyed now. Why so angry lie against flat earthers?


this workplace is on strike

Re: The reason for the geological activity of the planets
« Reply #28 on: May 03, 2020, 12:41:03 AM »
Sandokhan does not need to claim furthermore. He has already put forward many evidences. Instead of critize flat earthers whose bring you tons of evidences, you ball lovers have to start thinking with scientific method likewise we real earthers do.

He copy pasted many evidences which get destroyed but somhow thread gets 10+ pages
His evidences never destroyed. You are lying. Otherwise, prove the opposite. You have been destroyed now. Why so angry lie against flat earthers?

Ah, yes, sandokhan, who:

1. Claims that two forces applied at two ends of ideal rope produce tension as result

2. "Black Sun photo", do I need to say more

3. "Flood happend 300 years ago"

4. Thinks Christ is crusified 260 years ago. In Constantinople

5. Who went to www.scienceforums.net to talk about his Generalised saganac formula and got destroyed.

6. Literaly his entire chronology


That or some other sandokhan?


*

Fermer05

  • 45
  • Если лошадь сдохла, слезь.
Re: The reason for the geological activity of the planets
« Reply #29 on: May 15, 2020, 02:15:10 AM »
1. Do the stars hang motionless above the poles of the galaxy?
No
a) Without a doubt, this is a state of levitation, and contrary to the laws of nature.
I said no
b) Whether the planet can hang motionless, above the pole of the sun. http://www.astro.caltech.edu/ay1/Ay1_main.html it is still no
2. Stars rotating around the galactic nucleus form dozens of planes.
a) What force prevents the stars from spinning around the core of the galaxy in one plane. nothing, they spin around the center of mass of their respective galaxy
b) What force is involved in the formation of the lenticular shape of the galaxy. mostly gravity and the conservation of energy, specifically kinetic energy in the form of rotational energy
c) Within the laws of celestial mechanics, stars can rotate around the core of the galaxy, only in one plane, similar to the planets of the solar system. Nope. Stars can and do rotate in different orbital planes. But they usually end up rotating with the average rotational energy of the total system. 
d) In the solar system, all eight planets revolve around the sun in one plane.
Kinda, but not really. Mercury is off by 6 degrees and many asteroids are way off. One plane would be an approximation.
e) Do the orbits of stars intersect in irregular and other galaxies? say what?
f) Like the stars of the galaxy, the objects of the solar system can theoretically rotate around the equator and meridian, forming dozens of planes, and in practice they will quickly collide with each other. The reason why most planets fall within one plane is that collisions caused during the early development of the solar system forced most of the mass into a more stable single[ish] plane. but planets are frikken far away from each other
https://joshworth.com/dev/pixelspace/pixelspace_solarsystem.html - here is a very good indication of the size of the solar system
 

3. The claim that globular star clusters revolve around spiral galaxies also goes beyond celestial mechanics. No
a) For globular star clusters to rotate around the center of the galaxy, the galaxy itself must rotate around the center, and not be in free flight. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galaxy https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Globular_cluster No, again, the stars are VERY far from each other.
4. The claim that globular star clusters are satellites of galaxies also goes beyond celestial mechanics. https://images.app.goo.gl/goz9RPyJb3QqMxEZ7
a) If spherical star clusters revolved around the galaxy, then spherical star clusters had the shape of a disk. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galaxy
b) Why does Saturn and its moons not revolve around the Sun in the form of a globular cluster?
2. Do stars rotate in globular star clusters, if so, around what?
« Last Edit: May 18, 2020, 11:35:34 PM by Fermer05 »