Geophysics of planets

Steven wrote:

I was a little puzzled about the suggestion that the planets have stable orbits because they have a white dwarf fragment at their core.

The concept hit me back when I first read Universe of Motion. In the RS, stellar evolution is "backwards", compared to conventional theory. One natural consequence of that is that the sun, and the planets, are constantly increasing in mass. If you check on the net, you'll find values for meteoric accumulation on Earth somewhere between 100-1000 tons a day. The sun has millions of tons accumulation per day. Increasing mass means decreasing distance of separation--we'll be spiraling into the sun--and an increase of velocity of Earth, making each year shorter. Yet, this is not the case. Given the Earth age of billions of years, all the planets should have been sucked into the sun by now, just like satellites about Earth regularly get pulled back into the atmosphere--unless propulsion is used to keep them in a stable orbit.

When you look around the solar system, meteors and comets travel in elliptical orbits, or just get pulled straight in by gravity. Planets and moons acted differently... as they say, "size doesn't matter," so there must be something inherently different about the nature of planets and moons that gives them the ability to "row upstream", against the flow of gravity.

Since gravity is scalar in 3 dimensions, the opposing force must be the inverse of gravity--anti-gravity. The only known astronomical objects in RS astronomy that exhibits strong, anti-gravity effects are the pulsar and quasar. The quasar is a bit large for consideration, but pulsars have the ultra-high speed motion (3-x) that fit the requirement of being an anti-gravity engine.

Consider Larson's "backwards" astronomical evolution. Star systems grow... singles, doubles, multiples. If planets formed during the 1st generation, single star, out of "ordinary" low speed (1-x) matter, they would behave just like meteors... elliptical orbits until they got sucked into the sun, because both planet and sun are increasing in mass at substantial rates, due to the presence of large quantities of dust and debris in the area where the star formed (and it is that dust and debris that caused the star to form!) Common sense says that 1st generation stars can't support planets--by the time they hit the main sequence, they would have all been assimilated.

So, that brings us up to 2nd generation stars, the binaries. That means the 1st generation star went supernova, with the stellar material outside the Ni-Fe-Co range reforming a dust/debris cloud, and the material inside blowing outward in time, creating the X-ray star. Over time, both cool and the debris collects to form the red giant, just as the 1st generation star did, following the same rules. The X-ray star, being inverse due to the explosion in time, cools down to the white dwarf and we have the classic red giant/white dwarf pair. But again, nothing to account for stable planets.

Because the supernova is triggered by the "age limit" of atoms, not any particular stellar class, it can occur at any time. And if you look at astronomical records, it does occur to all stellar classes--except the dwarf stars. The white dwarf, being in coordinate time, has to get "younger" before it can get older, and is therefore not subject to the age limit supernova explosion. That means it is still there in near orbit when the spatial star hits its age limit. And that explosion, which is in time as well as space, can accelerate the white dwarf into the pulsar range to exhibit anti-gravity, and also due to spatial proximity, blow it to fragments. That is the basis of my article, so you can see the line of reasoning.

Do you still stand by that article? And if so could you explain the mathematics of the planetary orbits as compared to material sector gravity only? I recently saw an article that explained that you can derive another law from the Kepler laws that would state: (planetary velocity)^2 * orbit radius = constant (constant depends on solar mass). So that would mean the orbits are independent of the planetary mass. What would that mean for the estimation of planetary masses?

Yes, I stand by it. In the 13 years since I wrote it, a lot of evidence has come to light in the field of astronomy to support the conclusion for both orbits and planetary expansion. (See Karl Luckert's work on Expansion Tectonics, for example).

As you may have noticed, I have more of a geometric mindset than a mathematical one--Nehru and Gopi are the experts there. But the V² x R = K equation does not necessarily infer that the orbits are "independent of the planetary mass"... in my opinion, it would be better stated that the planetary mass is insignificant compared to the solar mass, in terms of the relationship. Also consider where the "velocity" originates... if the Earth is constantly running into meteoric dust, that dust provides resistance, and velocity should be slowing, causing us to crash into the sun (it is virtually impossible to keep a stable orbit between two, low-speed bodies (1-x), since the mass and separation are constantly changing through interaction with the environment).

I think you will find that the velocity is related to the volume of the planetary core (the anti-gravity material in coordinate time--see RS articles on the precession of perihelia to get an idea of what coordinate time does to orbits and planetary velocities) and that the velocity is determining the orbital position in the gravitational field of the sun (kind of a "backwards" Kepler law to match the backward RS view of astronomy!)

But, if you're good with math, I'd be happy to help you figure out how to quantify it in terms of equations. It would be quite interesting. I would recommend you read the Forces and Force Fields topic to get an idea of time and gravity.

You may also want to look at the "Why do they gravitate?" topic.

I've edited the reply to "Forces and Force Fields" to include the original Powerpoint presentation I did on the subject of "Questioning the Rotational Base". I am in the process of converting the presentation to Video, as time permits.

So...if you still stand by the article, do you still think a core flare could be due any time around 2003 :) ?

Actually, I think we had one... just not a big one. Earthquakes are at an all-time high, and have you noticed that the seasons appear to be off by more than a couple of weeks? Mid February here--normally the coldest part of the winter--and they are saying it will hit 70F by Thursday.

Just waiting on the vernal equinox on March 20th to get out my sextant, shoot some stars and see if we are where we are supposed to be.

and how about this new magnetic pole forming in the Atlantic Ocean west of South-Africa?

"During the 20th century it [magnetic north] has moved 1100 km, and since 1970 its rate of motion has accelerated from 9 km/year to 41 km/year (2001–2003 average; see also Polar drift)" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Magnetic_Pole)

If Nehru's sunspot research is correct, we are at the "new thredule" point now, so we'll know shortly.