New definition for Magnetism is simple TOE

[Fortis]

Truedream, please can you respond to this

Quote:
Originally Posted by truedream
My view is pure natural science and reality of nature, and interesting thing is every thing perfectly fit in my view.

You get a perfect fit? Great. So can you use your view to tell me what the general shape of a planetary orbit should be for a two body system?

I await your response.

[truedream]

I repeat, yet again, it is because of the conservation of angular momentum.
Or do you not believe that angular momentum is conserved?

I disagree and 100 % not possible

[Fortis]

Truedream, you quoted my question,

Originally Posted by truedream
The moon's orbit only must be at equator of earth by gravity view(GR by wrapped space),red moon .

Why must it be? Please show this using the formalism of GR. If you cannot, then how can you possibly make this claim?

but you failed to address it. Do you have an answer?

[Fortis]

I disagree and 100 % not possible

Just to be explicit, you don't believe that total angular momentum is conserved?

[cjameshuff]

why don't rotation axis flip or spin in orbiting world ?

Why would they?

rotation axis did not flip or spin in orbiting world because they are locked by magnetisms. see fig post #1 & #2. only magnetic view can support this result.

The axis of rotation won't change without something to change it. There are small torques due to tidal effects, but they are very small...they do change the axis of rotation over time, but very slowly. We can, however, predict and measure the effects. The predictions don't include any "magnetic lock in", and yet match actual observations.

If you disagree with reality...well, you shouldn't be surprised when people disagree with you.

You've got several other questions to answer, I'll repeat them here:

Can you give a single source which supports your claims about what GR/Newtonian gravitation predict about rotation and gravity? Can you explain why satellites can stay in polar orbits if they are true? Your pictures don't count as a reliable source, show something that someone else has said or illustrated.

You claim gravity is a dipole field, but every prediction and observation indicates that dipole fields fall off as 1/r^3 rather than 1/r^2. Why are your dipole gravity/magnetism fields different?

Why, if gravity is magnetic in nature, does it depend only on mass, regardless of the magnetic properties of the material? No matter how many electrons each atom/molecule has or how they are arranged, gravity acts the same. This is not what one would expect, if gravity were caused by the motion of those electrons.

Can you use your theory to give a single testable prediction that simple Newtonian physics couldn't predict? Something that immediately comes to mind...can you show a situation where angular momentum is not conserved?

[truedream]

Truedream, please can you respond to this

I await your response.

The general shape of a planetary orbit should be for a two body system
Mainly depend upon the source of two body
eg: If both body are almost equal, then they naturally fall in parallel interaction and group together as couple.

[Fortis]

The general shape of a planetary orbit should be for a two body system
Mainly depend upon the source of two body
eg: If both body are almost equal, then they naturally fall in parallel interaction and group together as couple.

You have not answered the question. What should its shape be? Would you expect a planetary orbit to be square, triangular, or some other shape? If some other shape, what shape should it be, according to your model? (Please derive its shape using your model.)

[nauthiz]

why don't rotation axis flip or spin in orbiting world ?

For the same reason that a spinning top or gyroscope tends to stay upright - there's a lot of momentum on account of the spinning, and that causes the body to resist changes to the way it's spinning.

It's really not any different from the reason why a speeding freight train is hard to stop.

[AndreasJ]

But moon's orbit is not at equator of earth, it is tilted and perpendicular to the rotation axis of earth.

Could you show, preferably with a diagram, how something can be both tilted with respect to the Earth's equator and perpendicular to the Earth's axis?

[truedream]

You claim gravity is a dipole field, but every prediction and observation indicates that dipole fields fall off as 1/r^3 rather than 1/r^2. Why are your dipole gravity/magnetism fields different?

Why, if gravity is magnetic in nature, does it depend only on mass, regardless of the magnetic properties of the material? No matter how many electrons each atom/molecule has or how they are arranged, gravity acts the same. This is not what one would expect, if gravity were caused by the motion of those electrons.

I only say gravity is resultant of mono pole magnet (99%mass of atom) of nucleus (like charge).

.
Charge and Gravity both are magnetic

The structure of atom is created by electrostatic interaction in between two different charges of magnetic particle; likewise the structure of solar system is created by electrostatic interaction in between two different nucleus magnetic mass (greatest puzzles of science gravity and anti gravity).
Both are almost same forces but not exactly same because of there source. In an atom interaction between nucleus (99% of mass) and electrons. In solar system interaction between sun (99% of mass) and planets. Ok anyway both are equal and obey 1/r2 force rule. When both force act like same then atom gives the clue that there can be two different magnetic masses.

[truedream]

Could you show, preferably with a diagram, how something can be both tilted with respect to the Earth's equator and perpendicular to the Earth's axis?

sorry it is Earth's equator of mass (orbiting plain)
see image in reply # 31 & # 35.

[Fortis]

I only say gravity is resultant of mono pole magnet (99%mass of atom) of nucleus (like charge).

What evidence do you have that the nucleus is a magnetic monopole?

Is the nucleus a "north" or "south" pole?

[captain swoop]

truedream, you have been asked several direct questions relating to your ATM idea. You are required by the Rules (esp 13. Alternative Concepts and Conspiracy Theories) to answer direct and pertinent questions.

posting answers like

I only say gravity is resultant of mono pole magnet (99%mass of atom) of nucleus (like charge).

isn't enough.

[cjameshuff]

I only say gravity is resultant of mono pole magnet (99%mass of atom) of nucleus (like charge).

Your original claim was that monopolar gravity would make one of the Earth's poles always face the sun. You have been showing pictures that clearly illustrate a dipole field, and unmistakably claiming gravity is a dipole field, from your very first post in this thread:

If there view is true then two possibility as result first one is mono pole rotation axis of the earth is possible only at present equator region and the Second,earth will spin in random direction without any rotation axis in its orbit.If Newton and Einstein view is true, then 50% of the earth always facing the sun and not possible for day & night. So they are not true we have day & night with the help of dipole rotation axis so gravity is bidirectional force.

(BTW, you have yet to substantiate your claim about Newtonian gravity/GR's predictions, something you have been asked to do repeatedly, by several people.)

So no, you have not said that "gravity is resultant of mono pole magnet" before now. In doing so, you contradict your earlier statements.

Now you claim that it depends on the charge of the nucleus rather than the electrons? This doesn't help your case. Helium-4 atoms weigh 4 times as much as hydrogen-1 atoms, and only have twice the charge. Taking a hydrogen nucleus as one mass unit and one charge unit, helium-4 has a mass to charge ratio of 2:1, lead about 2.5:1. The nucleus of a lead atom has 82 times the charge of the nucleus of a hydrogen and on average (considering natural lead contains different isotopes) 207 times the mass. Per atom, lead has 207 times the gravitational attraction as hydrogen. The gravitational force is clearly proportional to mass, not charge.

I asked several other questions in that post you quoted. Do you plan on answering them?

[AndreasJ]

sorry it is Earth's equator of mass (orbiting plain)
see image in reply # 31 & # 35.

So when you say the Moon isn't orbiting in the Earth's equatorial plane, you actually mean it isn't orbiting in the Earth's orbital plane (the ecliptic)? Please draw a diagram including i) the Earth's orbital plane, ii) the Earth's rotation axis, and iii) the Moon's orbital axis, explicitly labeled.

[truedream]

Your original claim was that monopolar gravity would make one of the Earth's poles always face the sun. You have been showing pictures that clearly illustrate a dipole field, and unmistakably claiming gravity is a dipole field, from your very first post in this thread:

Its very hard for me to explain nature in to normal science view,because every thing is magnetisum ok I will try my old method.

Simple view : Temperature - hot and cold are opposite property.
Likewise, Gravity - high density and low density are opposite property.
Generally atoms can be divided in to two groups with respect to there mean density (see fig in reply #1: mean density of solar system). If atom itself magnet then we have two groups of magnetic atom ( high and low density groups), which are opposite to each other. high density group atom attract high density likewise low density group atom attract low density and intermediate atoms combine with both groups.
Formation of solar system, sun surrendered near by only high density and low atmosphere proves this magnetisms.

Anti Gravity in Mass View

If there is “High Density , High Gravity”
If there is “Low Density , Low Gravity”
If there is “No Density , No Gravity” let us find “Anti Density, Anti Gravity ”
Gravity is directly proportional to density, Density is the only way to measure gravity energy of different stars which have same volume. So use density as measuring unit of gravity in Macro scale. But we had never consider the importance of it as measuring unit of gravity .

Some of the lines from old thread: Be ready for next level of science
http://www.bautforum.com/against-mai...l-science.html

In my laws, I am comparing the magnetism of nucleus (atomic magnetic force) from micro to macro scale and relation in between them.
Atom has two physical characteristics, one is mass of atom and other is magnetic force of atom. This magnetic force of atom is very important or primary physical characteristics for nature and mass of atom is secondary characteristics for nature.Nature takes care or collects only magnetic force of atom and don’t take care of the mass of atom.

To understand atom, let us imagine a piece of sugar cane is an atom, The juice in sugar cane is magnetic force of atom and wastage of sugar cane with very little amount of juice is mass. So in a planet the collected juice of atom creates the resultant force gravity in the mass of atom.

So primary character of the matter is force (magnetic force) in it and mass is only secondary character of the matter. The gravity or anti gravity of atom is directly proposonal to this magnetic force.
nucleus of all solid atoms have type of magnetic force which i call as solid atomic magnetic force and likewise nucleus of all gas atoms have type of magnetic force which i call as gas atomic magnetic force .

Solid atomic magnetic force and gas atomic magnetic force are opposite to each other so only the bonding in between this two atoms (gas and solid) is very lose.

What is proof for antigravity in water ???
A material that is strongly attracted to a magnet is said to have a high permeability. Iron and steel are two examples of materials with very high permeability, and they are strongly attracted to magnets. Liquid oxygen is an example of something with a low permeability, and it is only weakly attracted to a magnetic field.
Water has such a low permeability that it is actually slightly repelled by magnetic fields.why water is repelled by magnetic fields?? how this low permeability water can reples magnetic field???

Truly water don't have low permeability but it has opposite or anti permeability force in it, that is it has anti gravity force so only it repels.

gravity or anti gravity of an atom is depond upon its place in space (depond upon near by source of gravity feild).for eg: gass atom in our earth (solid planet) works as anti gravity atom but when same gass atom when gos near to sun (gass planet) it works as gravity atom.

Imagine as, gas planet is placed in the place of mercury then what will happen? The sun made of gas atoms will pull the gas planet placed in the place of mercury, because of like atomic magnetic force place near to it. This is the true reason for not present of any gas planet in inner planets.

[Hornblower]

Its very hard for me to explain nature in to normal science view,because every thing is magnetisum ok I will try my old method.

Simple view : Temperature - hot and cold are opposite property.
Likewise, Gravity - high density and low density are opposite property.
Generally atoms can be divided in to two groups with respect to there mean density (see fig in reply #1: mean density of solar system). If atom itself magnet then we have two groups of magnetic atom ( high and low density groups), which are opposite to each other. high density group atom attract high density likewise low density group atom attract low density and intermediate atoms combine with both groups.
Formation of solar system, sun surrendered near by only high density and low atmosphere proves this magnetisms.

Can you show us, in appropriate mathematical and technical detail, how these ideas about opposite properties are supposed to outperform the mainstream theory in explaining all of the observations of the cosmos?

[truedream]

For the same reason that a spinning top or gyroscope tends to stay upright - there's a lot of momentum on account of the spinning, and that causes the body to resist changes to the way it's spinning.

It's really not any different from the reason why a speeding freight train is hard to stop.

Spinning sphere(center origin) cannot create solid spin axis
Newton ,Einstein and even angular momentum idea can only give result as one of the planets pole always face the sun ,flexible spin axis towards sun and 90 degree spin axis (horizontal spin axis) due to orbital moment.

Momentum fails to support present real angle of spin axis of planet, because we have (almost) 0 degree spin axis for most planet which is opposite to orbital moment.
So present Spin moment is directly opposite to orbital moment.

[nauthiz]

Momentum fails to support present real angle of spin axis of planet. . .

Sure it does. The axial tilt of the planets tends to align perpendicularly to the plane of the solar system's disk as it's forming, due to conservation of momentum. All the gas and dust that makes up the system is squashed into a roughly flat plane, so the majority of the movement is aligned with that plane. When it coalesces to planets the majority of the movement will still be aligned with that plane unless there's some input of force to change it.

. . .because we have (almost) 0 degree spin axis for most planet which is opposite to orbital moment.

They're really not all that close. Here's the list from Wikipedia:
Mercury: 0.01
Venus: 177.4
Earth: 23.4
Mars: 25.19
Jupiter: 3.13
Saturn: 26.73
Uranus: 97.77
Neptune: 28.32

That's an average tilt of 48 degrees and a median tilt of 26 degrees.

[truedream]

So when you say the Moon isn't orbiting in the Earth's equatorial plane, you actually mean it isn't orbiting in the Earth's orbital plane (the ecliptic)? Please draw a diagram including i) the Earth's orbital plane, ii) the Earth's rotation axis, and iii) the Moon's orbital axis, explicitly labeled.

It is very simple, moons orbital plane is not at equator of earth because, visualize as earth medium size magnetic sphere and moon as small size magnetic sphere.
This small size moon have energy to balance or resist earths flux and create resultant moons orbital plane. eg: If we have very small size moon then it will fall to equator orbit.

[truedream]

Sure it does. The axial tilt of the planets tends to align perpendicularly to the plane of the solar system's disk as it's forming, due to conservation of momentum. All the gas and dust that makes up the system is squashed into a roughly flat plane, so the majority of the movement is aligned with that plane. When it coalesces to planets the majority of the movement will still be aligned with that plane unless there's some input of force to change it.


They're really not all that close. Here's the list from Wikipedia:
Mercury: 0.01
Venus: 177.4
Earth: 23.4
Mars: 25.19
Jupiter: 3.13
Saturn: 26.73
Uranus: 97.77
Neptune: 28.32

That's an average tilt of 48 degrees and a median tilt of 26 degrees.

ok what is the reason for eccentricity in orbital motion

[nauthiz]

ok what is the reason for eccentricity in orbital motion

Interactions among bodies will change the shape of their orbits.

Earth's eccentricity, for example, is constantly changing due to gravitational interactions with other planets, primarily Jupiter and Saturn.

You can watch how it works with an orbit simulator like this one. (Flash link)

[captain swoop]

Truedream, you have been asked many times for answers to direct questions and you only ever seem to answer with what amounts to 'because I say so'.
It's time for you to start giving something more substantial replies as requested bearing in mind that 'I don't know' is a valid answer

[Fortis]

Truedream, can you answer even one of my questions?

You have not answered the question. What should its shape be? Would you expect a planetary orbit to be square, triangular, or some other shape? If some other shape, what shape should it be, according to your model? (Please derive its shape using your model.)

[mugaliens]

So, truedream - how do you explain Neptune, hmm? Tilted on it's axis like it is...

[cjameshuff]

So, truedream - how do you explain Neptune, hmm? Tilted on it's axis like it is...

A technicality, but you're thinking of Uranus. I'm also interested in Venus and Earth, which are close to the same mass...Venus rotates 1/243th as fast as Earth, and in the opposite direction. I've asked about it before and never got an answer...still waiting on answers to my other questions, too. So far, there's not been a satisfactory answer to even one.

[truedream]

In an atom, nucleus (99% of mass) at center and electrons orbit around it. In solar system, sun (99% of mass) at center and planets orbit around it both are almost same. The only problem is structure created by orbit. In an atom electron orbits spin randomly but in our solar system we have flat orbital system.

what is the reason for difference between atom and solar system orbit?
The reason is , it basically depends on its particles size.
In atom we have even size particles (electrons) but when we compare in solar system we have uneven particles size (planets). It clearly shows even size particles create random orbital and uneven particles can create flat orbital system.


Fig:If we have even size planets then this is the structure of solar system (its equal to structure of the atom).

So, truedream - how do you explain Neptune, hmm? Tilted on it's axis like it is...

A technicality, but you're thinking of Uranus. I'm also interested in Venus and Earth,

What is the reason for tilt in spin axis of planets ?
In our solar system, the sun first try to control all its planets and create orbital plane for every planets.
Sun and Jupiter (Saturn) will create Main orbital plane (eclipse) because Jupiter has maximum energy (mass) and next is Saturn energy compare to others, now sun try to balance other planets with the help of this orbital plane .

Fig:If we have unbalanced planets orbital system then this is the position of solar system.



This balancing process create flat orbital system for all the planets in our solar system (except Pluto).
so all the planets are forced to orbit in Main orbital plane (eclipse). This balancing force create tilt in an angle of other planets. But Pluto escapes from this balancing process and orbit in its own path because of its distance from sun.


Fig:The position of balanced planets orbital plane in solar system.

[Fortis]

what is the reason for difference between atom and solar system orbit?
The reason is , it basically depends on its particles size.

For once, you are correct. It is all down to the size (or mass) of the particles. Of course we then diverge from your explanation, in that quantum mechanics is imprtant if we want to correctly treat the atom, but is not if we want to treat the mechanics of massive objects like planets. Given that we can calculate atomic energy levels to extremely high precision using QM, unless your model can do something similar I think we will stick with QM.

Care to respond?

[Fortis]

By the way, I'm still hoping for an answer to my earlier questions.

[chrissy]

I think it is time this was closed, truedream, you have been asked to respond to questions asked and you have ignored this many times over.

Thread closed.