Have Cassini scar the Rings of Saturn and with Earth telescopes, prove the Rings are Solid Body Rotation// also dock Cassini in the Rings

[Archimedes Plutonium]

Newsgroups: sci.physics
Date: Mon, 24 Apr 2017 01:23:12 -0700 (PDT)

Subject: Have Cassini prove the Rings of Saturn are Solid Body Rotation, by
diving into the rings scarring them
From: Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium....@gmail.com>
Injection-Date: Mon, 24 Apr 2017 08:23:12 +0000


Have Cassini prove the Rings of Saturn are Solid Body Rotation, by diving into the rings scarring them

Now Serg, help me out here,

How can we get Cassini, instead of plunging to death into Saturn, how can we get Cassini to prove the Rings are Solid Body Rotation.

I do not know if the craft still has cameras

Is there a way for the craft to sort of dive into the rings face on, so as to pollute the Rings as much as possible, while here on Earth we have our best and every telescope watching Cassini pollute and scar and mar the rings.

So that see this vandal like destruction of the rings by the spacecraft and able to calculate or observe whether the Rings are Solid Body from the track left behind of the scarring of the Rings.

In other words, can Cassini definitely prove the Rings are Solid Body Rotation.

I hate to see it where we have to wait another 50 years to prove Rings are Solid Body, when we have a vessel there, right now.

AP

I am trying to figure out the best sure fire way of proving the Rings are Solid Body, or not.

One idea is the above scarring and then Earth bound telescopes proving the track pattern.

Another idea is whether we can actually dock Cassini inside a Ringlet and then be able to use it visually from Earth to confirm Solid Body Rotation.

Of course, that means we lose out on whatever science we wanted of Saturn's atmosphere. But I wager that the most important data we need is not Saturn's atmosphere, but the confirmed knowledge that the Rings are Solid Body Rotation, and hence Newton gravity and General Relativity Gravity are hogwash. And that gravity is Magnetism, where magnetism is forcing solid body rotation of the rings.

It is more important to confirm Solid Body Rotation than it is to pick up tidbits of Saturn's atmosphere.

AP

[HVAC]

Great idea. Right up there with soldiers shooting the nose off the Sphinx.

[Archimedes Plutonium]

On Monday, April 24, 2017 at 8:08:01 AM UTC-5, HVAC wrote:
> Great idea. Right up there with soldiers shooting the nose off the Sphinx.

Your apology accepted.

Now go play with bending spoons with Benj, or esp with James Mcginn tornadoes, or ghosts with Porat.

You should invite them over for chocolate chip cookies and milk.

What, you think Saturn Rings are some USA National Park, that cannot be scarred

Fly the Cassini right smack directly through, etching out a line into the rings to observe on Earth telescopes.

Prove that the Rings are Solid Rigid Body Rotation.

[Edward Prochak]

On Monday, April 24, 2017 at 4:36:00 AM UTC-4, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
[]

>
> How can we get Cassini, instead of plunging to death into Saturn,
> how can we get Cassini to prove the Rings are Solid Body Rotation.
>
> I do not know if the craft still has cameras

Pictures already taken. Voyager data shows the rings are complex,
but they are NOT solid.

http://www.sciencechannel.com/video-topics/space-videos/the-planets-giants-saturns-rings/

Check out the comments at 1:20 about proposing that Voyager
pass inside the rings, and then from 2:39 to the end
of the video gives some information that may interest you AP.

>
> Is there a way for the craft to sort of dive into the rings
> face on, so as to pollute the Rings as much as possible,
> while here on Earth we have our best and every telescope
> watching Cassini pollute and scar and mar the rings.

What you are proposing is unnecessary. the rings are gas
and dust, not a solid body. The Voyager data shows that.

>
> I hate to see it where we have to wait another 50 years
> to prove Rings are Solid Body, when we have a vessel
> there, right now.

You will have to wait a lot longer, since we already
know the rings are NOT a solid body.

[]

>
> It is more important to confirm Solid Body Rotation
> than it is to pick up tidbits of Saturn's atmosphere.

Since we already know the rings are NOT solid,
your suggestion is outdated and unnecessary.

But you might enjoy that last part of the video.
ed

[Archimedes Plutonium]

Why be so dense as if you cannot understand something as Solid Body versus Solid Body Rotation. You do not know the difference.

You are sounding like the physics failures Moroney, Odd. Not quite there yet, but near the edge. The only thing saving you is Univ Dayton. You know i am a UCincy graduate

[Edward Prochak]

On Monday, April 24, 2017 at 9:54:47 AM UTC-4, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
> Why be so dense as if you cannot understand something as Solid Body
> versus Solid Body Rotation. You do not know the difference.

Then explain how a "Solid Body" rotating differs
from you "Solid Body Rotation".
Cannot test if we don't know the rules.

>
> You are sounding like the physics failures Moroney, Odd.
> Not quite there yet, but near the edge. The only thing
> saving you is Univ Dayton. You know i am a UCincy graduate

A decent school. Don't they have a good basketball program?
ed

[Archimedes Plutonium]

On Monday, April 24, 2017 at 9:43:09 AM UTC-5, Edward Prochak wrote:
> On Monday, April 24, 2017 at 9:54:47 AM UTC-4, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
> > Why be so dense as if you cannot understand something as Solid Body
> > versus Solid Body Rotation. You do not know the difference.
>
> Then explain how a "Solid Body" rotating differs
> from you "Solid Body Rotation".
> Cannot test if we don't know the rules.
>

Well, I think what you are saying is that the Rings are just one solid object, one solid and rigid object.

What I am saying is that the Rings are particles, each individually in motion. and that motion collectively is Rigid Body Motion, not that the particles are one disc. But that the Ring is millions of particles separated but in such a motion that their Velocity is proportional to the radius from Saturn's center.

Now maybe that is what you are thinking also, and I just misunderstood you.

Maxwell back in the 1860s was proving that the Rings were individual particles , not one solid sheet.

Now the Spiral Galaxies, most of them have this Solid Body Rotation, of its stars close in and out to the edge. Not that it is a one disc, but rather millions of stars moving with Velocity proportional to radius.

So maybe to cut confusion I should just say

Stars motion V proportional to R

Saturn Ring motion V proportional R for particles.

Maxwell proved the Rings were not a solid disc. But he did not nor could not prove the particles move with V proportional to R.

So here is the greatest opportunity to prove that the Rings are solid body rotation, by slamming Cassini into the Rings and then tracking that gaping hole and if anything survives of Cassini. So we can visually monitor the gaping hole track.

So bright physicists would have the equations to decide that the motion of the particles around the gap are solid body or not solid body.

Sort of like atomic physics were you monitor the tracks to find out the internals of atoms.

AP

[benj]

On 4/24/2017 9:07 AM, HVAC wrote:
> Great idea. Right up there with soldiers shooting the nose off the Sphinx.
>

Proof that HVAC is pathological Liar:

https://www.smithsonianjourneys.org/blog/photo-what-happened-to-the-sphinxs-nose-180950757/

He can' say ANYTHING without lying.

[Archimedes Plutonium]

I do not think it is too late for NASA scientists to change the Cassini dive death. Change it so the spacecraft dives into the Ring structure in parallel with the densest portions as to etch out a huge mark in the rings.

Tell all Earth telescopes to be focused and record and photograph the track.

Hopefully the craft survives and can be watched.

The AIM:: prove the rings are Solid Body Rotation.

I do not think it is too late, and if anyone says so, is probably just giving an excuse.

AP

[Archimedes Plutonium]

Yes, prove once and for all that the rings are solid body rotation proving Newton gravity is false

[Edward Prochak]

On Monday, April 24, 2017 at 11:03:41 AM UTC-4, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
> On Monday, April 24, 2017 at 9:43:09 AM UTC-5, Edward Prochak wrote:
> > On Monday, April 24, 2017 at 9:54:47 AM UTC-4, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
> > > Why be so dense as if you cannot understand something as Solid Body
> > > versus Solid Body Rotation. You do not know the difference.
> >
> > Then explain how a "Solid Body" rotating differs
> > from you "Solid Body Rotation".
> > Cannot test if we don't know the rules.
> >
>
> Well, I think what you are saying is that
> the Rings are just one solid object,
> one solid and rigid object.

That is another description of solid body,
but I did not say the rings are a solid body.
That is what I thought your claim was.

>
> What I am saying is that the Rings are particles,
> each individually in motion.

So far so good, that is what has been observed.

> and that motion collectively is Rigid Body Motion,
> not that the particles are one disc. But that the
> Ring is millions of particles separated but in
> such a motion that their Velocity is proportional
> to the radius from Saturn's center.

In a real solid body, say quarter, indeed the outer
edge rotates with the same angular speed as points
on the inside.

>
> Now maybe that is what you are thinking also,
> and I just misunderstood you.

yes we agree the rings are collections of particles.

>
> Maxwell back in the 1860s was proving that the
> Rings were individual particles , not one solid sheet.

yes. Now as to your conjecture that they rotate in a manner
similar to a solid body: That conjecture is wrong. The
outer rings rotate at a slower rate than do the inner rings.

This is similar to the solar system where the inner planets
orbit at faster speeds than the outer planets, Mercury going
the fastest and each planet successively slower than the ones
closer than it to the sun.

>
> Now the Spiral Galaxies, most of them have this
> Solid Body Rotation, of its stars close in and
> out to the edge. Not that it is a one disc,
> but rather millions of stars moving with Velocity
> proportional to radius.

Approximately, yes. This is one of the first pieces
of evidence of dark matter.

>
> So maybe to cut confusion I should just say
>
> Stars motion V proportional to R

In some galaxies, true.

>
> Saturn Ring motion V proportional R for particles.

For Saturn's rings, false.
There are many videos of the motions of the rings where
it is clear this is not the case.

>
> Maxwell proved the Rings were not a solid disc.
> But he did not nor could not prove the particles
> move with V proportional to R.

But we can and we have observed the rings of Saturn
close enough to know that this is not true for the
rings of Saturn.

>
> So here is the greatest opportunity to prove that
> the Rings are solid body rotation, by slamming
> Cassini into the Rings and then tracking that
> gaping hole and if anything survives of Cassini.
> So we can visually monitor the gaping hole track.

So first, this test would not prove what you want to prove.
The hole would not help in measuring the rotation
rates of inner versus outer rings. At most it might
make a hole in ONE ring.

Second, it would not be observable as you hope.
You do realize how tiny Cassini is relative
to the area of the rings? The reason Voyager,
Cassini and other probes are sent to the outer
planets is because ground based telescopes and
satellite based telescopes do not have the
resolution at that distance needed to observe
these details.

Third, it has been done by mother nature already:
https://www.jpl.nasa.gov/video/details.php?id=1075
(Shows a small moon cutting across a ring
and leaving a trail.) Even with this video
I do not see clear evidence either supporting
or disproving your conjecture.

I think there is other video that could disprove
your conjecture, but I cannot find it. Since this
is your proposal, and you apparently have lots of
time, maybe you should research the available data.

>
> So bright physicists would have the equations
> to decide that the motion of the particles
> around the gap are solid body or not solid body.

I am pretty sure the answer is not solid body.
But I cannot prove it right now.

>
> Sort of like atomic physics were you monitor
> the tracks to find out the internals of atoms.
>
> AP

I've toyed with the idea of building my own
cloud chamber. Not likely while I continue to work.

ed

[Archimedes Plutonium]

In each Ringlet each ringlet is solid body rotation

And for that reason the ringlets are having a gap between as one ringlet of solid body motion moves faster than next ringlet

[Michael Moroney]

Wow, it appears Archie Pu is projecting his failures on me and Odd yet
again. What is subconsciously bothering Archie into realizing that he
has failed once again? It must be learning that Saturn's rings don't
rotate as a solid body after all, shooting down his self-proclaimed
"laws of physics" in flames. But if Archie did his research, he'd
know that it was known that Saturn's rings didn't have solid body
rotation since the time of Maxwell. Maxwell himself proved that solid
body rotation of Saturn's rings would be unstable.

There is no need for Cassini to fly into Saturn's rings to show that
Saturn's rings aren't solid body rotation since that is already known.
It might be interesting to send it on a trip through the rings and
directly into Saturn with cameras transmitting live, if possible,
we can get some nice ring closeups before a possible destructive
collision and if it survives, a closeup as it flies into Saturn.

[Michael Moroney]

Edward Prochak <edpr...@gmail.com> writes:

>On Monday, April 24, 2017 at 11:03:41 AM UTC-4, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:

>> Now the Spiral Galaxies, most of them have this
>> Solid Body Rotation, of its stars close in and
>> out to the edge. Not that it is a one disc,
>> but rather millions of stars moving with Velocity
>> proportional to radius.

>Approximately, yes. This is one of the first pieces
>of evidence of dark matter.

Not quite. It has been observed that each star has (approximately)
the same *speed*, regardless of its distance from the center. That
means that a star twice as far from the center takes (approximately)
twice as long to orbit the center. Solid body rotation would have
the star twice as far from the center move twice as fast, in order for
it to take the same time to orbit once because its path is twice as long.
Like the outer vs. inner tracks of a record on a record player.

In the solar system, by contrast, not only does Mercury take less time
to orbit the sun than Neptune because it has a shorter path, it also takes
less time because it is also moving much faster than Neptune.

>> So maybe to cut confusion I should just say
>>
>> Stars motion V proportional to R

>In some galaxies, true.

Again, what is observed was V ~ constant for most spiral galaxies. They
expected V to decrease as distance from the center as distance increased,
somewhat like the solar system.
See Ford's and Rubin's papers on galaxy observations.

[Archimedes Plutonium]

On Tuesday, April 25, 2017 at 5:17:22 PM UTC-5, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
> In each Ringlet each ringlet is solid body rotation
>
> And for that reason the ringlets are having a gap between as one ringlet of solid body motion moves faster than next ringlet

Yes, so, we steer the death of Cassini into one of the Ringlets, hitting it smack on as to achieve a maximum track through the ringlet, not a hole, a gaping hole but a track, and hopefully part of Cassini survives so that we can watch it, focus on it by our Earth based telescopes.

What we can learn is how much that Ringlet is Solid Body or Rigid Body Rotation.

Will the track quickly close up, by neighboring particles. Will the track remain open for a long time to come?

The alternative is NASA's dive death into Saturn, with little new knowledge to be gleaned, and what knowledge is gleaned is relatively unimportant.

But a death dive into the Ring structure, that knowledge will go a long ways in our understanding of Gravity, gravity as magnetism, not as Newton or General Relativity. Important knowledge, knowledge we need now, up front and center knowledge.

AP

[Edward Prochak]

On Wednesday, April 26, 2017 at 10:19:56 AM UTC-4, Michael Moroney wrote:
> Edward Prochak <edpr...@gmail.com> writes:
>
> >On Monday, April 24, 2017 at 11:03:41 AM UTC-4, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
>
> >> Now the Spiral Galaxies, most of them have this
> >> Solid Body Rotation, of its stars close in and
> >> out to the edge. Not that it is a one disc,
> >> but rather millions of stars moving with Velocity
> >> proportional to radius.
>
> >Approximately, yes. This is one of the first pieces
> >of evidence of dark matter.
>
> Not quite. It has been observed that each star has (approximately)
> the same *speed*, regardless of its distance from the center. That
> means that a star twice as far from the center takes (approximately)
> twice as long to orbit the center. Solid body rotation would have
> the star twice as far from the center move twice as fast, in order for
> it to take the same time to orbit once because its path is twice as long.
> Like the outer vs. inner tracks of a record on a record player.

thanks for the details

>
> In the solar system, by contrast, not only does Mercury take less time
> to orbit the sun than Neptune because it has a shorter path, it also takes
> less time because it is also moving much faster than Neptune.
>
> >> So maybe to cut confusion I should just say
> >>
> >> Stars motion V proportional to R
>
> >In some galaxies, true.
>
> Again, what is observed was V ~ constant for most spiral galaxies. They
> expected V to decrease as distance from the center as distance increased,
> somewhat like the solar system.
> See Ford's and Rubin's papers on galaxy observations.

I'll have to do some more reading. I got the orbit speed detail wrong.
Thanks!
ed

[Edward Prochak]

On Wednesday, April 26, 2017 at 6:39:31 PM UTC-4, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
> On Tuesday, April 25, 2017 at 5:17:22 PM UTC-5, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:

[]
> AP

Talking to yourself is okay, replying to yourself is not okay.
You'd better take a break.

ed

[Archimedes Plutonium]

Your such a kook of physics Ed, for you recently said the Earth has the equation for gravity, and then it has a separate different equation for motion. Yet you do not realize how kookish that is

And I have not the time to press your mistakes and errors harder, that is why I end up replying to myself, because so few if any is able to do physics-- you are part of the "i hate AP and stalk him"

So, not much new here, and too bad for Univ Dayton, Ed, for you drag them down with you

[Archimedes Plutonium]

Alright, the death of my beloved cat "Stumper". I named her stumper because every day walking down the path, she would hop onto a stump there and greet me, as I fed her food. I name my cat's after some distinctive behavior of theirs. I named my new one "Underneath" for she glides underneath wood pallet.

But Stumper was special, not because of her all gray fur which to most would be "nothing special" but rather, because Stumper took life so well, for she had been driven out by the other cats and lived marginally nearby, always happy to see me and follow me.

She had succumbed to virus, probably calci along with another. She was so bad of shape, she was thin, and had mucus all over, labored-breathing. I put her out of her misery. Death somehow shakes my inner core, perhaps because I am not far away from my own.

I buried Stumper.

A fairwell Sermon for her::

++++++++++++
Dear Stumper

We have life, and life is number one

We have health, and health is number two

Without health, we have miserable life

What is number three, Stumper?

The good times we spent together.

Goodbye, my dear Stumper, may we meet again.

Atom

+++++++++++++

AP

[Archimedes Plutonium]

News of Cassini tonight

News of it flying near Saturn photographing weather storms

But no proof the Rings are solid body rotation

That is the biggest most important issue of Saturn-- are the rings rigid body rotation

That is like sending someone to the hospital for the baby's birth and everyone too daft to find out if boy or girl.

Cassini-- one of the greatest missions-- but nothing of importance for science

[Howler Monkey]

We know how the rings rotate, you idiot! (And it's not rigid body rotation.)

[Archimedes Plutonium]

Still shaken by my poor Stumpers death.

Will go to bed early tonight hopefully sleep soothe the wound

[Edward Prochak]

On Thursday, April 27, 2017 at 6:10:56 PM UTC-4, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
> On Thursday, April 27, 2017 at 12:22:56 PM UTC-5, Edward Prochak wrote:
> > On Wednesday, April 26, 2017 at 6:39:31 PM UTC-4, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
> > > On Tuesday, April 25, 2017 at 5:17:22 PM UTC-5, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
> > []
> > > AP
> >
> > Talking to yourself is okay, replying to yourself is not okay.
> > You'd better take a break.
> >
> > ed
>
> Your such a kook of physics Ed, for you recently said
> the Earth has the equation for gravity, and then

F=GmM/r^2 as Newton formulated it (a good first approximation)

> it has a separate different equation for motion.

When the calculations are done the orbital equation
results in a ellipse.

> Yet you do not realize how kookish that is

One is derived from the other. yet you do not understand that?

>
> And I have not the time to press your mistakes and
> errors harder, that is why I end up replying to myself,
> because so few if any is able to do physics-- you are
> part of the "i hate AP and stalk him"

I do not hate you. I only tried to correct you.
Your claim that because planets move in elliptical orbits
that the equation for gravity must have the form
((A^2+B^2))/r^2 is just wrong. You claim to know how
to do the math. Try it.

>
> So, not much new here, and too bad for Univ Dayton,
> Ed, for you drag them down with you

Has Cincy honored you yet for your discoveries? 8^)

ed

[Edward Prochak]

On Thursday, April 27, 2017 at 8:50:18 PM UTC-4, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
[]

> I buried Stumper.
>
> A fairwell Sermon for her::
>
> ++++++++++++
> Dear Stumper
>
> We have life, and life is number one
>
> We have health, and health is number two
>
> Without health, we have miserable life
>
> What is number three, Stumper?
>
> The good times we spent together.
>
> Goodbye, my dear Stumper, may we meet again.
>
> Atom
>
> +++++++++++++
>
> AP

Sorry to here that. Pets can bring a lot to our lives.
ed

[Archimedes Plutonium]

On Friday, April 28, 2017 at 1:09:42 PM UTC-5, Edward Prochak wrote:
> On Thursday, April 27, 2017 at 6:10:56 PM UTC-4, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:

(snip)

> >
> > Your such a kook of physics Ed, for you recently said
> > the Earth has the equation for gravity, and then
>
> F=GmM/r^2 as Newton formulated it (a good first approximation)
>
> > it has a separate different equation for motion.
>
> When the calculations are done the orbital equation
> results in a ellipse.

Not really, for you have a misconception of force laws and their mathematics. You seem to think there are different maths for a law of physics.

Everything about gravity comes out of Newton's kAA/d^2

And, no circle, no ellipse comes of that. Only a parabola comes of that.

>
> > Yet you do not realize how kookish that is
>
> One is derived from the other. yet you do not understand that?

You can derive a circle or ellipse from

(kAA + jBB)/ d^2

You cannot derive circle and ellipse from kAA/d^2

Now I am not going to tear into you for being dumb about this, for your professors at Dayton Univ were dumb about this, in fact, all of physicists since Newton were too dumb to realize that kAA/d^2 only at best gets a planet halfway around the Sun in orbit. You need the other half, the jBB in the numerator to get the planet a full circuit, a full loop.

> >
> > And I have not the time to press your mistakes and
> > errors harder, that is why I end up replying to myself,
> > because so few if any is able to do physics-- you are
> > part of the "i hate AP and stalk him"
>
> I do not hate you. I only tried to correct you.
> Your claim that because planets move in elliptical orbits
> that the equation for gravity must have the form
> ((A^2+B^2))/r^2 is just wrong. You claim to know how
> to do the math. Try it.
>

But you do hate me, for you opined early on that AP does not know what he is doing, therefor, attack everything he says. Signs, Ed, that you are not good in either physics or math or science in that regard.

You cannot even quote correctly what I post. I posted (kAA + jBB) in numerator, for the k and j are very important terms.

> >
> > So, not much new here, and too bad for Univ Dayton,
> > Ed, for you drag them down with you
>
>
> Has Cincy honored you yet for your discoveries? 8^)
>
> ed

Alright, Ed, let us put you to the test with your ignorance and that of Physics dept at Univ Dayton.

You say Newton was correct::

Well the speeds of orbits of planets::

So Ed, with your silly thoughts that there is Newton's force law and then there is side-show equation of motion.

The Sun is moving 220km/s in Free Space

The Earth is moving 30km/s in its orbit around the Sun

Let us say the Sun is moving in this direction SUN ---> at 220km/s

Now Ed, with a Dayton U, physics, how does Earth in orbit when it reaches Sun


Sun O

Earth o

And Ed, Sun is going 220km/s --->
And Earth is going 30km/s ---->

Ed, Ed Ed, with that Dayton wisdom, how is Earth going to cut in front of the Sun and go by it when Earth is only 30km/s while Sun is 220km/s

You see, Ed, in your birdbrain understanding, your math of Newton assumes, presumes, assumes and assumes again and again that Sun is sitting still while all the planets are moving.

That assumption works for F = ma

But does not work for a Sun that is moving.

To work for the Sun you need F = m(a1 + a2)

The a1 is the orbital acceleration, and the a2 is the Space acceleration, the 220 number.

So, Newton failed in math of the force of gravity. And of course little pipsqueacks of physics like Ed from Univ Dayton.


Newsgroups: sci.physics, sci.physics.electromag, sci.math
From: Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archime...@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 27 Mar 2012 22:52:42 -0700 (PDT)
Local: Wed, Mar 28 2012 12:52 am
Subject: is it the Faraday Law that replaces gravity? Chapt13.3 Maxwell Equations deriving Strong Nuclear and gravity forces #335 New Physics #455 ATOM TOTALITY 5th ed
Reply | Reply to author | Forward | Print | Individual message | Show original | Remove | Report this message | Find messages by this author
Sun 220 km/s orbital speed around Milky Way
Mercury, 0.24 yr orbital period, 47.87 km/s orbital speed
Venus, 0.61 yr orbital period, 35.02 km/s orbital speed
Earth, 1 yr orbital period, 29.78 km/s orbital speed 
Mars, 1.8 yrs orbital period, 24.07 km/s orbital speed 
Jupiter, 11.86 yrs orbital period, 13.07 km/s orbital speed 
Saturn, 29.45 yrs orbital period, 9.69 km/s orbital speed 
Uranus, 84.32 yrs orbital period, 6.81 km/s orbital speed 
Neptune, 164.79 yrs orbital period, 5.43 km/s orbital speed
Alright in my previous post I was trying to reconcile why Saturn Rings 
can be rigid body rotation as a form of gravity whilst the planets 
orbits 
are not rigid body rotation. I said that only EM force can provide 
rigid 
body rotation whether Saturn Rings or whether stars in a galaxy.
So how does the Faraday law give us rigid body rotation for Saturn's 
Rings but not the planets in orbit around the Sun. So offered the idea 
that in Faraday's law, when the bar magnet (Sun) thrusts through the 
middle of the closed wire loop that you have rigid body rotation but 
when the bar magnet is then thrust through an offset of the center 
that the offset disturbs the symmetry and causes a quantitative change 
in the amount of 
current flow in the wire loop.
So that Saturn with its 9.69 km/s offset of its Rings is not much of 
an offset to disturb the Rings and thus they remain solid-body- 
rotation.
But now consider the offset of the Sun in its velocity through space 
of 220 
km/s which is a speed that is 22 X greater than Saturn, would have a 
huge affect on the orbits of the planets. If the Sun were moving in 
Space at say 
10 km/s rather than 220 km/s, then we can expect the planets to have 
say a 50% rigid body rotation.
My guess as to why we see some galaxies have their stars at 70% rigid 
body rotation is because the speed of the centers of those galaxies 
are pretty much the same speed in space of the stars in orbit in those 
galaxies.
I am not sure of any of this, for it is brand new to astronomy and 
physics alike.
No-one before me has ever tried saying that gravity is Faraday's law, 
and so a lot of these questions are new and very complicated.
But what is certain is that the logic tells us that since Saturn Rings 
are rigid body rotation that both Newtonian gravity and General 
Relativity are fake theories and that dark matter and dark energy are 
fake also.
So I may flounder here for some time on finding the correct Maxwell 
theory to cover the EM-gravity, and mistakes will be made, but the aim 
and target is the same, that gravity comes out of the Maxwell 
Equations.
Archimedes Plutonium 
http://www.iw.net/~a_plutonium/ 
whole entire Universe is just one big atom 
where dots of the electron dot cloud are galaxies

[Michael Moroney]

Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium....@gmail.com> writes:

>Alright, Ed, let us put you to the test with your ignorance and that of Physics dept at Univ Dayton.

>You say Newton was correct::

>Well the speeds of orbits of planets::

>So Ed, with your silly thoughts that there is Newton's force law and then there is side-show equation of motion.

>The Sun is moving 220km/s in Free Space

>The Earth is moving 30km/s in its orbit around the Sun

>Let us say the Sun is moving in this direction SUN ---> at 220km/s

>Now Ed, with a Dayton U, physics, how does Earth in orbit when it reaches Sun


> Sun O

> Earth o

>And Ed, Sun is going 220km/s --->
>And Earth is going 30km/s ---->

>Ed, Ed Ed, with that Dayton wisdom, how is Earth going to cut in front of
>the Sun and go by it when Earth is only 30km/s while Sun is 220km/s

>You see, Ed, in your birdbrain understanding, your math of Newton assumes,
>presumes, assumes and assumes again and again that Sun is sitting still
>while all the planets are moving.

What? You don't even understand relative motion? Archimedes Plutonium
just keeps failing and failing. Galileo had this figured out hundreds
of years ago!

The Earth moves at 30 km/s RELATIVE TO THE SUN. The speed of the sun you
gave is relative to something else (I assume the center of the galaxy). So
if you treat the sun as 220 km/s inertial motion (close enough) you can
refer to a reference frame in which the sun is stationary. The Earth is
moving at 30 km/s in this frame. Remember, motion is relative!

Now, if you use the reference frame of the galaxy center, you see the sun
moving at 220 km/s. But the earth is not moving at 30 km/s in this frame
as the 30 km/s is relative to the sun, not to the galactic center. An
observer at the galaxy center measuring the Earth's speed will measure the
earth going at 220+30 km/s for part of the year (passing the sun), and 6
months later it will be measured as moving at 220-30 km/s (lagging the
sun).

This lack of physics knowledge from someone who awarded himself the title
"King of Physics"????

Now, go ahead, and project your failure at physics onto me and Ed again.
It's all you can do.

[Archimedes Plutonium]

The Sun is moving 220km/s in Free Space

The Earth is moving 30km/s in its orbit around the Sun

Let us say the Sun is moving in this direction SUN ---> at 220km/s

Now Ed, with a Dayton U, physics, how does Earth in orbit when it reaches Sun


Sun O

Earth o

And Ed, Sun is going 220km/s --->
And Earth is going 30km/s ---->

You see in Old Physics with bonehead relative motion you would have to have 220 + 30 and 220 - 30 and all points in between

Not in your math since your math is deplete in kAA/d^2

So the boneheads yakkity yak about where you measure and throw in crap of General Relativity

When all they needed to do is make the Law be a ellipse function-equation of two variables

(kAA + jBB)/d^2

That is an ellipse Ed

which is Force = mass (a1 + a2)

Where the a1 and a2 vary throughout the range of

220 + 30 and 220 - 30

You on the other hand with your ignorant parabola formula

F = kAA/ d^2 can not get in front of the Sun's forward motion but careen off into Space in a parabola path like a comet

Ed, Ed Ed, with that Dayton wisdom, how is Earth going to cut in front of the Sun and go by it when Earth is only 30km/s while Sun is 220km/s

You see, Ed, in your birdbrain understanding, your math of Newton assumes, presumes, assumes and assumes again and again that Sun is sitting still while all the planets are moving.

That assumption works for F = ma

But does not work for a Sun that is moving.

To work for the Sun you need F = m(a1 + a2)

The only way to get the gravity force to make planets go in a full loop is that the force of gravity has the MATH of a full loop, not a parabola

But but i never see you do math in sci.physics, or did you study physics that has no math

I rather think Dayton Univ has math

[HVAC]

Edward Prochak

--------------

Ed. This is a physics group. Please stop discussing pets.

First warning

[Michael Moroney]

Sorry to hear of the loss of your poor kitty.

[Archimedes Plutonium]

Can Ed of Univ Dayton live up to a tiny fraction of the science engineering fame of the Wright Brothers of Dayton or will Ed end up with the physics-Failures in sci.physics. as HVAC recently threaded-- let's not jump to our guns so fast fast. For even HVAC realizes at the end of the day some physics must be done.

So, Ed, Ed, do you understand yet, however difficult for you that the Newton gravity and the Coulomb force of EM are parabola math and not what they should be, not what they truly are-- Circle and Ellipse math of ADDITION NUMERATOR inverse square so that Earth can get in front of the Sun going 220km/s while Earth only 30km/s and be run over by the Sun

In fact i made a mistake last night in that Earth needs to be going faster than 250km/s when it steps into Sun"s oncoming path. How much faster? Is it close to 500km/s not to be run over? I do not know yet.

And this precession crap of Mercury with the fake General Relativity-- all fake huge fake. The strange orbit of Mercury is all due to the fact it has to really speedup-- accelerate as it gets in front of the Sun"s forward motion. And maybe it is Mercury needing to go 500km/s just to survive stepping in front of Sun"s forward motion.

AP

[Archimedes Plutonium]

[Archimedes Plutonium]

Alright, let us go back to the time of Newton in the late 1600's for many in physics today have the feeling that Newton was just yesterday and forget what conditions he was under, when using the math of Newton's gravity.

Back in the days of Newton, the world was just getting used to the idea that Earth is moving in space and is round, and the Sun is the center of the Solar System. For if you thought kooks of science were everywhere today, well, in the days of Newton, kooks were truly everywhere.

The mathematics that Newton had, would be laughable compared to the math for science we have today. Calculus was just beginning to take off, and no calculus or math was available to Newton to know that the law of gravity needed 2 variables, not 1 variable of F = ma but two variables of F = m(a1 + a2)

Now, can we picture Newton's mind? Can we picture that he wrestled with Gravity as a force of F = kAA/d^2 where the A represents mass. Can we picture Newton saying

Sun moves in Space at 220km/second and Earth moves 30 km/sec

Can we picture the mind of Newton wrestling with the idea that as Earth in its orbit of 30km/second and stepping out in front of the Sun barrelling ahead and going to collide with Earth, moving at 220km/sec while Earth moving at 30km/sec.

Can we picture Newton wrestling with that?

No, no, no, we cannot picture Newton wrestling with that for in his day, he and no-one else knew that Sun was moving at 220 km/sec while Earth a mere 30 km/sec.

So for Newton, forces can be just a mere petty tiny F= ma and that the Earth would go step in front of a Sun barrelling down at 220km/sec right at Earth.

No way could Newton have known that his F = ma was too small, too paltry, too tiny to get Earth out of the way of the Sun.

What Newton did, was what his environment allowed, that Force = mass multiply acceleration

Never mind that it was not enough, that he needed Force = mass multiply (acceleration 1 plus acceleration 2). Newton needed a 30km/second acceleration for Earth, but needed about a 500km/second acceleration on top of the 30 in order for Earth to move around the Sun that is barrelling forward and going to hit Earth, if it does not move fast enough out of the way.

So we see, that Newton is not to blame, and that he remarkably was on the correct path. But, he left it open for future generations to correct his primitive math.

His math that would have Sun swallow every planet as it steps in front of the Sun's forward motion.

Why do all the planets escape being swallowed by the Sun in their first full loop of the Sun? How and why do they escape?

Because gravity as a force is really Electromagnetism which like electricity needs a Full Loop-- what they call a Circuit in EM. And in EM the forces are not F = kAA/d^2, but rather are kAA +jBB/d^2

The Force of Gravity has to be so strong, that the Sun does not swallow the planets in their first loop around the sun.

That means, Gravity has two accelerations involved, always at least two accelerations involved, not one but two.

AP

[Archimedes Plutonium]

Awful quiet there Ed.

Have not found your alleged and fake equation of motion for Earth?

The diameter of Sun for distance, and when Earth is directly in front of the Sun in its forward path motion of 220km/sec call it the zone, the collision zone. Earth is moving 30km/sec.

But how much is it really moving to avoid a collision?

Does your equation of motion give 250km/sec or 300km/ sec or 400km/sec

Awfully quiet Ed awfully quiet

There at Univ Dayton. Now let us model it as the Wright Brothers might have. Take a huge ring tricycle as Earth moving 30 meters per hour around and a central diameter strip with a bicycle starting at the center moving 220 meters/hour

Now as the tricycle gets anywhere near where the two can collide, how fast must the tricycle go to avoid a collision?

AP

[reber G=emc^2]

On Monday, April 24, 2017 at 1:36:00 AM UTC-7, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
> Newsgroups: sci.physics
> Date: Mon, 24 Apr 2017 01:23:12 -0700 (PDT)
>
> Subject: Have Cassini prove the Rings of Saturn are Solid Body Rotation, by
> diving into the rings scarring them
> From: Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium....@gmail.com>
> Injection-Date: Mon, 24 Apr 2017 08:23:12 +0000
>
>
> Have Cassini prove the Rings of Saturn are Solid Body Rotation, by diving into the rings scarring them
>
> Now Serg, help me out here,
>
> How can we get Cassini, instead of plunging to death into Saturn, how can we get Cassini to prove the Rings are Solid Body Rotation.
>
> I do not know if the craft still has cameras
>
> Is there a way for the craft to sort of dive into the rings face on, so as to pollute the Rings as much as possible, while here on Earth we have our best and every telescope watching Cassini pollute and scar and mar the rings.
>
> So that see this vandal like destruction of the rings by the spacecraft and able to calculate or observe whether the Rings are Solid Body from the track left behind of the scarring of the Rings.
>
> In other words, can Cassini definitely prove the Rings are Solid Body Rotation.
>
> I hate to see it where we have to wait another 50 years to prove Rings are Solid Body, when we have a vessel there, right now.
>
> AP
>
> I am trying to figure out the best sure fire way of proving the Rings are Solid Body, or not.
>
> One idea is the above scarring and then Earth bound telescopes proving the track pattern.
>
> Another idea is whether we can actually dock Cassini inside a Ringlet and then be able to use it visually from Earth to confirm Solid Body Rotation.
>
> Of course, that means we lose out on whatever science we wanted of Saturn's atmosphere. But I wager that the most important data we need is not Saturn's atmosphere, but the confirmed knowledge that the Rings are Solid Body Rotation, and hence Newton gravity and General Relativity Gravity are hogwash. And that gravity is Magnetism, where magnetism is forcing solid body rotation of the rings.
>
> It is more important to confirm Solid Body Rotation than it is to pick up tidbits of Saturn's atmosphere.
>
> AP

Rings made up on ice and rock balls.One rock ball is the roundest rock in solar system.That has to tell us something. Trebert

[Archimedes Plutonium]

Ed is awfully silent, guess the math scared him away.

Dolike moroney or odd failures, read aparagraph of Wikipedia