Planet X: Moon SWIRL
Nancy Lieder
statement that the moons of Planet X travel behind it in a slow swirl.
Below, further explanation. Perhaps those snickering would like to have
a debate on the issues, such as how such bodies WOULD act in space,
etc.
Where spin on the surface of a planet is dictated by the
moving core of the planet, pulling or pushing on an
object free to move on the surface, spin in space is
dictated by whatever the spinning object is bound to.
This is not explored by man, who strives to move
directly in space and treats any spin in an object
under their control as a problem to be corrected
promptly, as in "the probe has developed a spin and
is threatening to spin out of control". The reasons for
the spin having developed in the first place is treated
as an irrelevancy, and the only issue whether or not
the probe is under control. The spin is suppressed by
the little jets that allow man to control his probes
when their trajectory needs to be corrected, and this
thus allows mankind to feel smug about his knowledge
of how things work. The moons of Planet X, which
trail it like a string of pearls out in space, have no such
little jets, so nature, not man, rules, and the full
RESULT of a spin out in space can be observed. Why
do the moons trail, and spin in a slow whirlwind
behind Planet X, rather than orbit the planet?
Moons in orbit around planets in a relatively circular
orbit around a sun have MORE than their planet
affecting their behavior. They are of a mass that
prevents their plummeting to the planet, as they are
evoking the gravitational repulsion force between
themselves and their planet. They are MOVING, not
stationary, not because of the attraction to the planet,
which is at a standstill, but because of attractions to
other elements in the solar system. Like a liquid core
of a rotating body, they are moving TOWARD what
attracts them, overshooting the point where they are
closest to the attractant, moving around to the far
point because of momentum, and proceeding to
approach the attractant again. Where there are a
number of moons orbiting a planet, they position
themselves like the planets around a sun, at a
comfortable distance from each other to avoid
collision, as the repulsion force is in operation
between the moons, which are of relatively equal
size, too.
Where it would seems that an orbit, in an orbital
plane, around a sun or an planet is the NATURAL
outcome, this is disrupted during the swift passage that
Planet X makes past one of its foci, the sun or its dead
twin some 18.74 Sun-Pluto lengths away. Planet X
moves AWAY from its moons, pulling forward with
increasing speed, at the same time that it is passing
one of its suns and any planets that are orbiting that sun.
The moons have conflicting dictates.
- Their primary allegiance is to Planet X, due to the
flow of gravity particles which force it TOWARD
Planet X, which they are thus bound to. They are
thus trying to catch up to Planet X, even when
Planet X leaves them behind.
- The secondary influence over the moons is momentum,
which continues to cause them to overshoot a reach
for an attractant in the vicinity, to return to the far
point of their spin whence they start back again
toward the attractant. Thus, they continue the
rotation or orbit pattern, even when not in a tight
orbit around their planet.
- The third influence, which comes to interfere with a
return to a tight orbit around Planet X, is each other.
Moons around a planet that does not move rapidly
away from its moons have established their positions
in part because the moons arrive one at a time!
Each new arrival finds an orbit plane taken, and
assumes another or displaces the first, but the factors
that dictate position are more static than moons
traveling behind a rapidly moving planet. In essence,
the positions are determined because one moon says
"I am larger than you, and I wish this position of
closeness to the planet, so YOU have to move."
Moons that have arrived in a whirlwind behind a rapidly
traveling planet have a NEW dictate to deal with, in that
they find OTHER moons directly in the path they wish
to take toward their gravitational giant, in this case
Planet X. They are trying to catch the planet, while
caught in momentum that their circular chase toward
other attractants in the vicinity has created, but during
their approach to their planet they find OTHER moons
in the way and this causes a FOURTH dictate - a bump
AWAY from their traveling planet.
- In moons around a static or slowly orbiting planet, the
moons have opportunity to snug closer to the planet
when competing moons are on the opposite side of
the planet. When such moons encounter each other,
having assumed the same orbital plane, the smaller
gets bumped out of the path of the larger, either
below the path of the larger moon, or most often
farther away from the planet.
- In moons that have found themselves trailing their
planet, this bumping takes the form of increased
circular motion. The moons are already moving in
a circular path, caused as we have mentioned by
attractants in the vicinity which they are chasing
toward and overshooting while still bound to their
gravitational master. The swirling is increased as
each time a larger moon attempts to approach its
planet, it encounters other moons DIRECTLY in
its path which have nowhere to go but round and
round, so they go faster. Collisions are avoided by
more rapid motion, and none of the moons can place
themselves on the opposite side of the planet. They
are all stuck in a corridor behind the planet, not
able to leave, not able to pass each other, and not
able to catch the planet to reinstated a circular orbit
around it.
Why would such a moon pattern perpetuate itself? Does
Planet X not come to a virtual stop at the mid-point
between its two foci? Having established a swirl behind
the planet, the moons have two factors preventing a
return to the normal orbital pattern of moons around a
planet. First, their swirl perpetuates itself. The speed
is dictated not only by the normal rotation around a
gravitational master that attractants in the vicinity would
create, it is dictated by the need to move away from the
other moons in the swirl. Second, the larger moons in
the cluster are perpetually trying to reach a closer
proximity to their planet, the point where the repulsion
force between the moon and its planet creates a stalemate.
Being the larger moons, they push smaller moons away
from their path, but this pushing action, in space, has the
effect of causing them BOTH to move, thus not only
increasing and perpetuating their swirling motion, but
also pushing the larger moon AWAY from the planet it
seeks to come closer to.
Thus, the moons of Planet X, having assumed a swirl
that perpetuates itself, remain in a dance BEHIND
Planet X even during its dither point between its two foci.
Planet X moves, however slowly, at its dither point, so
the swirl is always positioned between Planet X and the
foci it is leaving. This swirl, unique to man in any
comets or planets it observes, is what caused the
ancients to call the passing monster, red in the sky
because of its illuminated red dust cloud, a dragon,
lashing its tail, the swirl of moons.
ZetaTalk
-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =-----
Bill Nelson
> comfortable distance from each other to avoid
> collision, as the repulsion force is in operation
> between the moons, which are of relatively equal
> size, too.
You mean like the rings of Saturn, minute compared to the
even the smallest of the major moons? The major moons themselves
vary by a factor 10 in size and 4 orders of magnitude (10,000
times) in mass?
Or the major moons of Jupiter - which vary in size by a factor of
250+ in radius and 7 orders of magnitude (10,000,000 times) in mass?
--
Bill Nelson (bi...@peak.org)
The Small Kahuna
Remember a few (OK, so more than a few) years back when the Voyager
spacecraft were still producing "new" science data? (Not that they have
stopped, just slowed down A LOT.) They produced the first close-up
picture of Saturn's rings.
And guess what?
It turns out that the rings of Saturn are not simply composed of
billions of little bits, each of which is in its own circular
trajectory. It turns out that the rings were actually *braids* of
billions of litle bits. The bits wound around each other like a
gigantic DNA molecule or rope. I remember at the time that the
astronomers and such were stunned because this did not fit their
understanding of gravity. However, the braided construction of the
rings came as a shock and to my limited knowledge, remains unexplained.
Perhaps the ring itself is gravitationally bound to Saturn, but the
little rocks and pebbles and such that make up each ring are bound to
each other in a attraction/repusion dance which revolves around a mutual
center of gravity. Over time, these rotating groups synchronize because
it is the lowest energy condition and form braids. The center of
gravity of the braid is what orbits Saturn. This self stabilizing dance
(attraction/repulsion) would also explain why there could be some kind
of sorting function by type and this would explain why the rings of
saturn are distinctly different colors shapes and sizes.
So do you care to illuminate the masses as to why Saturn's rings are
braided? If you can explain why the rings are braided, could not that
basic explanation also translate to moons of our favorite unknown
planet?
Greg Neill
news:3C3A012A...@company.com...
> It turns out that the rings of Saturn are not simply composed of
> billions of little bits, each of which is in its own circular
> trajectory. It turns out that the rings were actually *braids* of
> billions of litle bits. The bits wound around each other like a
> gigantic DNA molecule or rope. I remember at the time that the
> astronomers and such were stunned because this did not fit their
> understanding of gravity. However, the braided construction of the
> rings came as a shock and to my limited knowledge, remains unexplained.
Much of the observed features of the braids are known to be due
to resonant/chaotic interactions of the ring material with
the 'shepherd' moons. You can probably find numerous papers
on the LANL server dealing with this, and I believe that there
was at least one smi-popular book that dealt with it.
Interestingly, there is strong evidence for some static electric
effects taking place as well, although not directly related to
braiding. The mutual friction of ring particles and their motion
in the local magnetic fields give rise to voltage potentials. If
memory serves, the radio signals of static discharges were noted
in the voyager data. If I recall correctly, one effect of the
electrostatic potentials was to separate individual rings into
oppositely charged vertical layers. Very neat.
>
> Perhaps the ring itself is gravitationally bound to Saturn, but the
> little rocks and pebbles and such that make up each ring are bound to
> each other in a attraction/repusion dance which revolves around a mutual
> center of gravity. Over time, these rotating groups synchronize because
> it is the lowest energy condition and form braids. The center of
> gravity of the braid is what orbits Saturn. This self stabilizing dance
> (attraction/repulsion) would also explain why there could be some kind
> of sorting function by type and this would explain why the rings of
> saturn are distinctly different colors shapes and sizes.
>
> So do you care to illuminate the masses as to why Saturn's rings are
> braided? If you can explain why the rings are braided, could not that
> basic explanation also translate to moons of our favorite unknown
> planet?
The moons are claimed to be trailing behind the planet, "twirling"
like kites on strings. So, first one needs to explain the "strings".
Gravity won't do it, since it would result in orbits about the
planet. There can't be a 'wind' causing that much disturbance; not
even Wolf Rayette stars produce enough wind to flutter moons. Also,
gravity's inverse square law makes a lousy 'string'. There's too
much give in the old 1/r^2 to allow a flutter. Same goes for the
electric field, which is also inverse-square. Better would be
something like the strong nuclear force, which can cause confinement
and has a limited range. Unfortunately, that force only works over
distances on the order of the radius of an atomic nucleus.
The Small Kahuna
> Much of the observed features of the braids are known to be due
> to resonant/chaotic interactions of the ring material with
> the 'shepherd' moons. You can probably find numerous papers
> on the LANL server dealing with this, and I believe that there
> was at least one smi-popular book that dealt with it.
If you should remember a piece of a title or author or any other bit
which would allow me to look up the book on amazon, I'd appreciate it.
Thanks
Jeff Root
I have have carefully read your post in which the moons are
described to "spin in a slow whirlwind behind Planet X", but
cannot decipher what is meant in it by the word "spin".
The Earth spins, one rotation per 24 hours, causing day and
night. Likewise, all the other planets in our Solar System
spin at their own rates, causing day and night cycles of
different lengths. Jupiter, though very large, spins rapidly,
so that it completes a rotation in about ten hours. Venus,
slightly smaller than Earth, rotates very, very slowly, and
in the opposite direction from most of the other planets.
The Moon spins slowly, too, rotating just once each time it
orbits Earth, in about 28 Earth days.
Artificial satellites always spin to some exent. If they are
made to constantly face one side toward the Earth, as the Moon
does, then they will spin one rotation per orbit, just as the
Moon does. Since a satellite in low Earth orbit takes about
100 minutes to go around the Earth, a satellite there which
constantly faces Earth would also rotate once per 100 minutes.
Hundreds of satellites and probes have been deliberately given
a spin once they are in Space, to maintain a constant attitude.
When an object is spinning, it keeps on spinning in that same
direction until something makes it stop spinning. That is used
to great advantage in Space, where the lack of air friction
means a spacecraft can keep on spinning at a constant speed for
years or even decades. The Pioneer 10 and 11 spacecraft were
each given an initial spin shortly after being launched in 1972
and 1973, and continue to spin now, far beyond Pluto's orbit.
Gyroscopes in spacecraft are used both to measure the attitude
and rotation of the spacecraft, and to control that rotation.
The gyroscopes themselves spin at very high speed. The Hubble
Space Telescope is just one of hundreds of spacecraft which use
or have used gyroscopes for this purpose. The Apollo flights
to the Moon used gyroscopes to measure the attitude of the
spacecraft, but not to directly control it, since it was easier
to use thrusters for all attitude control on a flight lasting
less than two weeks. The Apollo spacecraft was given a slow
spin so that the heat of sunlight would be evenly distributed
over the entire surface.
> This is not explored by man, who strives to move
> directly in space and treats any spin in an object
> under their control as a problem to be corrected
> promptly, as in "the probe has developed a spin and
> is threatening to spin out of control". The reasons for
> the spin having developed in the first place is treated
> as an irrelevancy, and the only issue whether or not
> the probe is under control.
is when something specific causes it to do so, and the specific
cause is of great concern. In 1966, astronauts Dave Scott and
Neil Armstrong were in orbit in a tiny Gemini capsule, docked
to a small Agena rocket upper stage which had been launched
into orbit for them to practice approach and docking. Shortly
after the docking (the first ever), the spacecraft unexpectedly
began to slowly rotate. When they couldn't stop the rotation,
they guessed that the problem was in the Agena, and undocked
from it, expecting to be able to move away from the Agena.
Instead, the spin immediately accelerated. The astronauts had
guessed wrong: the problem was that one of the thrusters on the
Gemini capsule had stuck open. They had to shut down the main
thruster system and use the much smaller re-entry thrusters to
stop the spin. If they had known immediately *which* thruster
was malfunctioning, they'd have shut down only the thrusters in
that one cluster, and used the other main thrusters to stop the
spin while still attached to the Agena.
A second, colloquial meaning of the word "spin" is "the motion
of a body in a circle or loop", such as that of a car around a
racetrack, or the orbit of a satellite around the Earth, a moon
around a planet, or the planets around the Sun. For example,
the Moon may be said to "spin around the Earth", and you can
"take a spin around the block" in your car.
Part of what is said in your message is about the first kind
of spin, and part of it is about the second kind of spin. Yet
the writer was apparently unaware of the difference.
> The spin is suppressed by the little jets that allow
> man to control his probes when their trajectory needs
> to be corrected, and this thus allows mankind to feel
> smug about his knowledge of how things work. The moons
> of Planet X, which trail it like a string of pearls out
> in space, have no such little jets, so nature, not man,
> rules, and the full RESULT of a spin out in space can be
> observed. Why do the moons trail, and spin in a slow
> whirlwind behind Planet X, rather than orbit the planet?
and ends using the word "spin" to mean "bodies moving along
circular or looping paths". The writer was apparently unaware
that the definition changed in mid-paragraph.
-- Jeff, in Minneapolis
.
Jeff Root
> Moons in orbit around planets in a relatively circular
> orbit around a sun have MORE than their planet affecting
> their behavior. They are of a mass that prevents their
> plummeting to the planet, as they are evoking the
> gravitational repulsion force between themselves and
> their planet.
If the gravitational force between the Earth and the Moon
were a repulsion, the Moon would simply fly away, never to
be seen again.
The mass of a body in orbit around a planet isn't a factor in
how long it will stay in orbit, unless something other than
gravity is slowing it or speeding it up. Atmospheric drag can
do that to satellites in low Earth orbit, but they have to be
fairly close to the Earth for it to be a problem. More than
1000 miles above Earth's surface, atmospheric drag can be
ignored, even for fairly lightweight satellites. It is so
obvious that an object large enough to be called a "moon" has
mass vastly greater than necessary to be unaffected by anything
like atmospheric drag, that it is strange that the writer felt
it should be mentioned.
> They are MOVING, not stationary, not because of the
> attraction to the planet, which is at a standstill, but
> because of attractions to other elements in the solar
> system.
planets that we can see are in motion, and the reason that it
was obvious to the ancients that planets were different from
stars was the fact that they move, so this statement is as
wrong as it is possible to be. The word "planet" comes from
the Greek for "wanderer".
> Like a liquid core of a rotating body, they are moving
> TOWARD what attracts them, overshooting the point where
> they are closest to the attractant, moving around to the
> far point because of momentum, and proceeding to approach
> the attractant again.
of an ordinary orbit. It would be simpler and clearer to just
say, "they are in orbit."
> Where there are a number of moons orbiting a planet, they
> position themselves like the planets around a sun, at a
> comfortable distance from each other to avoid collision,
> as the repulsion force is in operation between the moons,
> which are of relatively equal size, too.
moons which *were* so close together that they would collide,
did so, making either one larger moon or lots of little moons.
The gravitational force of attraction between the moons, once
they find stable orbits, does actually keep them separated
from one another, so that they won't collide.
Why do you say that moons "are of relatively equal size"?
We have seen more than sixty moons orbiting seven different
planets, and they are of all sizes, ranging from Titan, larger
than the planet Mercury, to tiny moons just a few miles in
diameter. To say that they are of relatively equal size is
completely wrong.
Greg Neill
My pleasure. The book I recalled was "Rings; Discoveries from
Galileo to Voyager" by James Elliot and Richard Kerr, MIT Press.
Bill Nelson
>
>> Moons in orbit around planets in a relatively circular
>> orbit around a sun have MORE than their planet affecting
>> their behavior. They are of a mass that prevents their
>> plummeting to the planet, as they are evoking the
>> gravitational repulsion force between themselves and
>> their planet.
>
> You meant to say "attraction" rather than "repulsion".
> If the gravitational force between the Earth and the Moon
> were a repulsion, the Moon would simply fly away, never to
> be seen again.
No. Nancy meant repulsion. She claims there is such a force that,
for example, keeps comets from hitting the Sun. She states that they
fall straight toward the Sun, until close enough that this repulsive
force pushes them around the Sun.
Of course, there are all sorts of holes in this claim.
> obvious that an object large enough to be called a "moon" has
> mass vastly greater than necessary to be unaffected by anything
> like atmospheric drag, that it is strange that the writer felt
> it should be mentioned.
Actually, some moons ARE affected by atmospheric drag. I think
Deimos is one of them.
--
Bill Nelson (bi...@peak.org)