Re: Moon up, satellites down?
Maurice Mitchell
Wed, 25 Jun 1997 00:28:18 -0700
phs503e@vaxc.cc.monash.edu.au wrote:
> It's knows that the Moon is moving *away* from the Earth (few
> centimeters
> a year I think) due to energy lost from tidal friction with the Earth.
>
> But on the other hand a satellite comes *down* when it loses energy
> due to
> friction with the atmosphere. Why the difference?
The PUSH of Gravity predicts the Moon moves away from the Earth during
both solar and lunar eclipses.
Do you, or your associates, know of a physical observation to
prove Gravity is not a PUSH? Please help us. Over the past
fifteen years, we have found more than five dozen physical
observations, indicating we need to modify our standard theories
of matter, light and gravity slightly to fit known physical
observations
Abstract
The Simple Oppositely Charged Twin Monopole (OCTM) Theory
of Everything is as simple and elegant as its name.
By definition, there is a smallest positively charged
basic Monopole of matter and a smallest negatively
charged basic Monopole of matter. These basic Monopoles
of matter, are twins with opposite charges. In the
beginning, the cosmos was filled with these equal and
oppositely charged basic Monopoles of matter.
The two basic Monopoles combine, forming larger
groupings of particles of matter in the shape of
ellipsoids of influence. These ellipsoids of influence,
automatically assume common crystal latticework
structures of ellipsoids of influence as taught in US
PTO document 'Educational Device and Method' at
.
Electromagnetic spectrum waves are very regular helical
like spirals of twinned domains of these ellipsoids of
influence. To obtain the relative speed of an
electromagnetic wave, the relative speed of the emitting
surface or reflecting surface must be added to or
subtracted from the speed of the electromagnetic wave.
On Earth, the known force of gravity is the net kinetic
energy differential of incoming basic Monopoles of
matter interacting with your and my basic Monopoles,
impelling our basic Monopoles into the matter shadow of
the basic Monopoles of the Earth as taught in US PTO
document at .
Simple Oppositely Charged Twin Monopole (OCTM)
Theory of Everything
Main Text
In the Simple Oppositely Charged Twin Monopole (OCTM) Theory of
Everything, Newton's three laws of motion, Coulomb's law of charges, and
Einstein's Energy/Mass equation are true.
The OCTM Theory of Everything postulates there is a smallest basic
'plus' particle of matter and a smallest basic 'minus' particle of
matter, each being a Monopole of influence and a twin of the other. All
larger particles of matter are postulated to comprise these two basic
particles.
Any defined volume of space is postulated to be completely void of
matter or contain one or more of the smallest basic particles of matter.
Initially, in deep space two basic Monopoles, being of opposite or like
charge, attract and/or repel each other according to Coulomb's law of
charges. When two oppositely charged basic Monopoles are close enough
to each other, so their fields of influence, according to Coulomb's law
of charges, are strong enough to overcome their relative net vector
linear momentum's, according to Newton's three laws of motion, the two
basic particles link forming the smallest postulated basic dipole of
matter.
When two oppositely charged Monopoles of matter attract each other as
above, they travel pursuit courses toward each other at an accelerating
relative velocity. Occasionally, their initial pursuit courses are on
perfectly centered straight lines resulting in a perfect, direct,
head-on collision. Such a perfect, direct, head-on collision results in
an enormous release of kinetic energy, raising the temperature of the
particles to the temperature range of some of the particles of matter in
the corona of the Sun.
Most of the particles of matter, attracting each other as above, have
initial relative net vector momentum paths that are not on perfect,
direct, head-on collision paths. Their courses are paired, curved,
pursuit courses. By Newton's three laws of motion and Coulomb's law of
charges, these paired, pursuit courses effectively change most of the
initial relative net vector linear momentum of the particles into
angular momentum of rotation, of the particles of matter.
If the above dipole is rotating slowly enough for Newton's laws of
motion to overcome Coulomb's law of charges, it becomes a stable
arrangement of particles of matter. When this dipole is viewed from the
outside, in the plane of rotation, the "plus" and "minus" hemispheres of
charge are alternating so rapidly, the dipole of matter "seems" to have
no charge when observed in current bubble chambers.
The smallest stable rotating tetrahedron of four particles is formed
from two basic dipoles.
The smallest stable rotating octahedron of six basic particles is
formed either from three basic dipoles of matter, or from four basic
particles of matter of one charge and two basic particles of matter of
opposite charge.
The dipoles of matter form into tetrahedrons, and octahedrons, or
larger combinations, that arrange themselves into helical-like spirals
of twinned domains, as taught in US PTO document 'Educational Device and
Method' at , when they are emitted from
larger groupings of particles of matter.
These smallest arrangements of basic particles of matter continue to
build into larger arrangements of basic particles, essentially
maintaining the one "minus" particle for each "plus" particle with a few
odd "plus" or "minus" particles in the outer layers of the particles of
matter until a sufficiently large number of particles have combined to
form the hydrogen atom and isotopes of hydrogen. As taught by the OCTM
Theory of Everything, deep space is filled with hydrogen and isotopes of
hydrogen. All elements can be formed from the particles of matter in
hydrogen.
Dr. Louis A. Frank's fluffy hundred ton snowballs hitting the upper
atmosphere at the rate of more than forty thousand per day is an example
of this. See
.
The combinations of particles of matter form crystals, solids, liquids,
gases and the very regular helical like spirals of particles of matter
in electromagnetic spectrum waves, including light.
In the OCTM Theory of Everything the speed of electromagnetic spectrum
of particles of matter, is a function of the escape velocity necessary
for basic Monopoles of matter, according to Newton's laws of motion, to
overcome Coulomb's law of attraction. The relative speed of the
emitting surface must be added to or subtracted from the escape velocity
of the emitted spiral rays of matter. As predicted by the OCTM Theory
of Everything, the famous Michelson-Morley experiment on the speed of
light gives a null result in all directions. A different interpretation
of the measurements of this famous experiment has caused unnecessary
modification of some great theories of Newton and other scientists.
In the OCTM Theory of Everything, neutrinos, which seem to have no
charge, are rapidly rotating particles of matter containing equal
numbers of oppositely charged basic Monopoles of matter. The diameter
of the "hard mass center" of the Monopoles is very small in relation to
the average distance between the "hard mass centers" of the twelve or so
closest Monopoles that touch the center Monopole in the crust of the
Earth. The average distance between "hard mass centers" of Monopoles
has been estimated to be as much as 30,000 to 90,000 the "hard mass
center" diameter. The diameters of the "hard mass centers" of neutrinos
are so small, if only one was passing through the earth by itself at one
time, the probability of it hitting another particle of matter in the
earth has been estimated to be between one chance in 10.0E10 and one
chance in 10.0E27.
However, by some estimates there are about 10.0E23 neutrinos coming in
from space each second for each square centimeter of the area of the
atmosphere of the Earth. In the OCTM Theory of Everything, the increase
in atmospheric pressure as one approaches sea level is the direct result
of the net balance of the kinetic energy force of particles from space,
acting on the particles of matter in the atmosphere. The increase in
temperature as one goes down into the Earth is the direct result of the
kinetic energy force of particles of matter from space, acting on the
particles of matter in the Earth. As one goes down into the Earth, the
rate of temperature increase is about the same until around 12,000
meters. At about 12,000 meters, the rate of temperature increase begins
to increase at a faster rate than before. The "cascade effect" of
particle collisions begins to be evident.
The "cascade effect" is where an incoming particle of matter, traveling
at about the speed of light, hits a particle of matter in the Earth and
then two or more particles of matter travel from the collision in
different directions. These particles of matter on average, are
traveling at less than half the speed of light, and are more likely to
hit other particles of matter in the Earth. When these particles of
matter traveling at less than half speed, hit other particles of matter,
there are more than four particles of matter traveling at less than one
fourth speed going in many random directions. When these particles of
matter traveling at less than one fourth speed hit other particles of
matter, there are more than eight particles of matter traveling on
average less than one-eighth speed going in even more random directions.
Soon this "cascade effect" causes more incoming particles to combine
with Earth particles, causing the Earth to expand from its center at an
ever increasing rate. This is shown at
.
Our Ocean floors are only two hundred million years old or less. Our
Oceans are spreading apart and have middle trenches that are also
becoming longer as demonstrated by their many cross rifts. This is
shown at .
A small amount of the total original net kinetic energy force
accelerates the Earth-Moon system into the "matter shadow" of the Sun,
or into their mutual "matter shadows".
In the OCTM Theory of Everything the force of gravity is the net
balance of kinetic energy force of all particles of matter from space,
driving two or more groupings of particles of matter into each other's
mutual "matter shadows". The net imbalance of the electromagnetic
radiation on the particles of two facing objects drives the objects
toward each other.
Scientists know (1) the Moon is locked in orbit with it's more massive
side pointed away from the Earth, (2) the Moon is slowly moving away
from the center of the Earth, (3) the rotation of the Earth about its
North-South axis is slowing down, and (4) the actual "tide action" not
fully understood, requiring that "Tide Tables" be continually updated.
The traditional PULL of Gravity Theory does not have completely
acceptable answers to why these four measured actions occur. The
"dumbbell" and "Tidal Force" theories are postulated but many scientists
agree the theories are not convincing.
The OCTM Theory of Everything predicts these four natural events as
follows:
(1) The massive end of an object in orbit automatically attempts to
point into the income particles from space and the object locks in
orbit, like a dart.
(2) The action of both Lunar and Solar eclipses PUSH the Earth and Moon
apart.
(3) The mass of the particles from space, which are absorbed by the
Earth, increases the combined mass of the Earth. By Newton's laws of
motion, this slows the rotation of the Earth down.
(4) Water of lakes, seas and oceans, up swell into the center of the
"Matter shadows", of the Earth and the Moon, as they slowly move across
the bodies of water. The areas opposite the "Matter shadows" receive
the full flux of incoming particles from space. The traditional PULL of
Gravity mechanics and mathematics give different answers for the "Tidal
force".
The OCTM Theory of Everything gives Newton's Universal Equation of
Gravity, adjusted for traveling at the speed of light. The force of
gravity causes moons to orbit their planets and planets to orbit the Sun
at radii that are 3/2ths power of their distances from their mutual
centers.
At any given point in orbit, the equal areas of the two circular
Moon-Earth "matter shadows" are a function of the square of the radius
of the Moon or Earth and the distance between the centers of the Moon
and Earth. At the same point, the masses of the Earth and Moon are a
function of the cube of their radii. The radii of the Moon and Earth
can be expressed as a function of the distance between their mutual
centers. Mathematically the equation for the net balance of kinetic
energy force of gravity can be expressed as a function of the masses
being accelerated toward each other, divided by the area of their mutual
"matter shadows". In other words, the force of gravity can be expressed
as a function of the cubes of the radii of the Moon and Earth (masses),
divided by a function of the square of the radius of either the Moon or
Earth (area of mutual "matter shadows"). This net balance of kinetic
energy force of gravity travels at the speed of the incoming particles
of matter from space, (speed of light). The radius of the mutual
"matter shadows" can be expressed as a function of the square of the
distance between their mutual centers. Therefore the OCTM Theory of
Everything predicts the force of gravity travels at the speed of light,
and can be expressed "as the 3/2ths power of the distances" between the
centers of the Earth and the Moon.
The masses of the Moon and Earth are essentially constant during an
orbit. The net kinetic energy force of matter from space, per square
centimeter, hitting the areas opposite their mutual "matter shadows" is
essentially constant during an orbit. The areas opposite their mutual
"matter shadows" change just like their mutual "matter shadows" change,
depending on the point in orbit and the distance between their mutual
centers. At any point in orbit, the Earth and Moon automatically move
into a dynamic net kinetic energy force balance, where the areas
receiving net kinetic energy force are just the right size to provide
the necessary net kinetic energy force to accelerate the Moon mass and
Earth mass toward each other to maintain their mutual orbits.
The tangential speeds of the Moon and Earth in their orbits are not
substantially changed due to the action of the net balance of kinetic
energy force acting on their mutual "matter shadows". When the distance
between their mutual centers increases as it does during an orbit, the
net balance of kinetic energy force decreases. When the distance
between their mutual centers decreases as it does in orbit, the net
balance of kinetic energy force increases. The greater distance between
their mutual centers, increases the time, the net balance of kinetic
energy force acts during a given arc of an orbit. The smaller distance
between their mutual centers, decreases the time, the net balance of
kinetic energy force acts during a given arc of an orbit. The
Earth-Moon orbit is a delicate balancing act of the area the net kinetic
energy force is acting on and the time this net kinetic energy force is
acting during a given arc of the orbit.
Mathematically, according to the OCTM Theory of Everything, two
spherical masses of matter orbiting each other, are accelerated toward
each other with a net kinetic energy force of gravity proportional to
their masses and inversely proportional to the square of the distance
between them, where the net kinetic energy force of gravity travels at
the speed of particles of matter from space, (speed of light).
The far side of the Moon points away from the center of the Earth.
Based on certain measurements over the past two hundred years, most
Scientists agree the center of the Moon has, on balance, moved away from
the center of the Earth.
Mathematically, except during eclipses, the traditional attractive
force of gravity theory and the balance of net kinetic energy force of
gravity of the OCTM Theory of Everything give almost the same results.
Without eclipses, both predict the Moon will move closer to the Earth
over a long period of time, just as a satellite's orbit slowly decays
and falls into the atmosphere. However, when eclipses are factored in,
the OCTM theory predicts that on balance the masses of the Moon will
move away from the Earth, as has been demonstrated through experimental
observation.
The net kinetic energy force of gravity of the OCTM Theory of
Everything explains mathematically how the Moon's most massive side can
remain locked in orbit essentially pointing away from the center of the
Earth, and how the Moon can very slowly move away from the Earth, when
eclipses are involved.
When a Solar eclipse occurs, the normal "net kinetic energy Sun matter
shadow" on the Earth is partially blocked by the "net kinetic energy
Moon matter shadow" on the Earth. When this occurs, more total net
kinetic energy force from space is pushing on the Earth from the
direction of the Sun and Moon. As long as this Solar eclipse continues,
this additional net kinetic energy force pushes the Earth away from the
Sun and Moon more than would have been the case if the Solar eclipse had
not occurred.
When a Lunar eclipse occurs, the normal "net kinetic energy Sun matter
shadow" on the Moon is partially blocked by the "net kinetic energy
Earth matter shadow" on the Moon. When this occurs, more total net
kinetic energy force from space is pushing on the Moon from the
direction of the Sun and Earth. As long as this Lunar eclipse
continues, this additional net kinetic energy force pushes the Moon away
from the Sun and Earth more than would have been the case if the Lunar
eclipse had not occurred.
During both Solar and Lunar eclipses the distance between the Earth and
the Moon is being increased by a slight amount. As predicted by the
OCTM Theory of Everything, by actual measurements over the past 200
hundred years, the center of the Moon has slowly moved away from the
center of the Earth.
The Moon is currently locked in orbit with it's "far side" always
essentially pointing away from Earth. As predicted by the OCTM Theory
of Everything, the Moon is locked in orbit with it's more massive side
essentially pointing away from the center of the Earth.
The Earth rate of rotation about its North-South axis is very slowly
decreasing. As predicted by the OCTM Theory of Everything, the Earth is
absorbing some of the particles from space and gradually increasing its
total combined Mass. By Newton's laws of motion, the Earth's rate of
rotation must slow down when its mass is increased by the absorption of
the particles of matter from space in the balanced net kinetic energy
force of the PUSH of Gravity.
The OCTM Theory of Everything brings the force of gravity into
agreement with Einstein's famous Energy/Mass equation. The OCTM Theory
of Everything is in agreement with the experimental results of presently
known experiments on solids, liquids, gases, light and the other
electromagnetic spectrum particles of matter. The simplicity of the
OCTM Theory of Everything is elegant.
--
Mitch
mitch1@accessnv.com
mitchbicpu.com
Maurice E. Mitchell, Retired Independent Businessman
MSME (Heat Transfer) UC Berkeley
10306 Cogswell Ave.,
Las Vegas, NV 89134
(702)243-6837
FAX (702)243-9135
--
Mitch
mitch1@accessnv.com
mitchbicpu.com
--
Mitch
mitch1@accessnv.com
mitchbicpu.com
Re: Antineutrons
Todd Pedlar
Thu, 26 Jun 1997 09:06:57 -0500
Thomas Lockyer wrote:
>
> .com> <33B04D3B.1CFB@numep0.phys.nwu.edu>:
> Distribution:
>
> Todd Pedlar (todd@numep0.phys.nwu.edu) wrote:
> : Thomas N. Lockyer wrote:
> : >
> : > Anthony Potts writes:
> : > Anthony, I have to assume that when three things always occur together, i.e.
> : > spin, rest mass and magnetic moment, that they are all intimately and
> : > inseparably connected. That is, spin, mass and magnetic moment cannot exist
> : > without the other.
Would you say that objects with the same spin and mass should
have similar magnetic moments?
Again, here is a point that people have pointed out to you, but
you have conveniently ignored.
The photon is observed to have a spin angular momentum of 1.
It has no rest mass, and no magnetic moment.
The neutrino is observed to have spin angular momentum of 1/2.
It has no rest mass, and no magnetic moment.
Secondly, you've claimed elsewhere that the neutrino has no
spin when in isolation, but has spin when in conjunction with
other particles. So it is a boson sometimes, and a fermion other
times?
> : >If spin occurs in isolation, what happened to the energy
> : > stored in the spin angular momentum?
> : Do you think the electron, which is massive and has a spin,
> : is actually physically spinning?
>
> : Do you think the proton, which is massive, and has spin,
> : is actually spinning?
>
> Todd, yes, I believe that the particles are spinning by virtue of
> the momentum of their structural photons acting at a radius of gyration.
> Read on.
>
> : Do you think a particle with no magnetic moment is not
> : spinning?
>
> If a particle is not spinning it will have no magnetic moment, like the
> alpha particle, for example. Individual protons and neutrons in the alpha
> particle, however, are spinning, but their spins and magnetic moments buck
> out giving the alpha particle zero spin and no magnetic moment.
This would jive with your idea that the photon, which has no
magnetic moment, must not spin. I see.
> : Secondly, a particle with no mass can indeed have spin.
> : The photon clearly has spin, and you cannot argue that it
> : has rest mass. So what is spinning?
>
> I have trouble with that. I don't see how the photon can spin, rather I
> would view spin as elliptical or circular polarization due to two photons
> displaced in phase.
So you claim that the photon does not have spin?
> : > In all other basic particles, the energy
> : > stored in the spin is exactly equal to the rest mass energy.
>
> : Another gem of particle physics knowledge. Who taught you
> : this crap? It's so wrong it's not funny.
> Rest mass is simply the result of spin. Who needs the Higgs, and what
> would you do with the Higgs to get exact mass energy, if you had it?
I see. What of particles which have no spin? Are they massless?
Your arguments are going in circles.
------------------------------------------------------------------
Todd K. Pedlar - Northwestern Univ., Nucl. & Particle Physics
FNAL E835 Homepage: http://numep1.phys.nwu.edu/tkp.html
------------------------------------------------------------------
Phone: (847) 491-8630 (630) 840-8048 Fax: (847) 491-8627
------------------------------------------------------------------
Controversy equalizes fools and wise men in the same way --and the
fools know it.
Oliver Wendell Holmes
------------------------------------------------------------------
Re: Global Worries? See: http://www.giss.nasa.gov/Data/GISTEMP/
"David B. Green"
Thu, 26 Jun 1997 12:53:49 -0700
meron@cars3.uchicago.edu wrote:
>
> In article , rfoy@netcom.com (Richard Foy) writes:
> >In article , wrote:
> >>
> ... snip ...
>
> >>It is a well documented phenomenon that people who adopt extreme
> >>positions, if they change their mind later they tend to switch to
> >>another extreme position, not the center. For example, a big part of
> >>the following of Le Pen (sp?) in France, an extreme right party by any
> >>definition, is made of people who were previously members of the
> >>French Communist party. Once you apply the "cylinder" image, you
> >>realize that switching from "extreme left" to "extreme right" is
> >>immediate.
> >
> >This is an intersting look at the classifications "left" and "right."
> >
> >However, I think it needs to be even more complicated than one can
> >think about in terms of a sphere. The reason is that there are
> >different domains of "left" and "right." A person might be left,
> >right or center on the domains of economics, safety, and morality and
> >probably more. And they may or may not be correlated with each other.
>
> Indeed. It is really a multi dimensional map. I do think however
> (though I have no more than anecdotal evidence for this) that paople
> who are "extreme right", not just "right" on one issue (more about
> terminology in a moment) may well be "extreme left" on another, but
> rarely "center".
>
> The distinction I'm making between the "extreme whatever" and just
> "whatever" is as follows: the extreme position is characterized by an
> enormous (usually absolute) certainty in one's "rightness" and in a
> total lack of tolerance for those who think otherwise. As a result
> you get rigidity and unwillingness to accept compromise. Those closer
> to the center (whether to the left or to the right of it) are more
> open to the possibility that people with different opinion are not
> necesserely wrong, and therefore more ready to search for a common
> ground. This is of course my personal classification, other may
> differ.
> >
> >When you say pretty well documented to you mean that there are
> >studies around that would give some percentage of people who switch
> >as opposed to people who drift from liberal say to conservative.
>
> I don't know to what extent numerical studies were performed. I'm
> rather aware of qualitative observations. The one with Le Pen's party
> is the newest one. Another one that I recall is from Germany. Lots
> of the people who joined the Nazi party around 1930 switched over from
> the German communist party. I'm talking about the time before the
> Nazis got to power, so it wasn't an issue of "siding with the winner".
> BTW, lots of ex-Nazi party members in what was East Germany joined the
> communist party after the war (but this could've been just a career
> move).
> >
> >There is a common exprsssion I believe attributed to Churchill that
> >more or less says, "A your person who is conservative has no heart,
> >an old person who is liberal has no head." This expression to me
> >implies taht people tend to drift towrds conservatism as they age.
>
> Yeah, I think that this is well observed too. A cynical friend of
> mine once commented that it simply has to do with how much taxes do
> you pay (on the average as you get older your income goes up and so do
> the taxes) but I'm not sure that fully explains the phenomenon. Still
> neither liberal nor conservative has to be extreme and I don't think
> that people become more "extreme" in old age.
>
> Mati Meron | "When you argue with a fool,
> meron@cars.uchicago.edu | chances are he is doing just the same"
As a volunteer fire chief I find that young adults with nothing are the
hardest people to get to donate their time or resources. As they get
older and more established they tend to wish to contribute to the
community. It seems that the busiest people find the time to be even
busier and will vote for progessive issues (new community centers, fire
engines and halls, medical clinics) and back their vote with time and
money.
They HATE to have their time wasted though. Eco freaks, PCers, cause
junkies all seem to love wasting time.
David |"A person who wishes to appear learned to fools,
| appears a fool to those who are learned."
