hold tight
this is a doosie
QUOTE
Patterns of scalloped-edged cliffs or lobate scarps on Mercury’s surface are thrust faults that are consistent with the planet shrinking and cooling with time. However, compression occurred in the planet’s early history and Mariner 10 images revealed decades ago that lobate scarps are among the youngest’ features on Mercury. Why don’t we find more evidence of older compressive features?
From ESGT analysis of the parameters of the planet Mercury
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Patterns of scalloped-edged cliffs or lobate scarps on Mercury’s surface are thrust faults that are consistent with the planet shrinking and cooling with time. However, compression occurred in the planet’s early history and Mariner 10 images revealed decades ago that lobate scarps are among the youngest’ features on Mercury. Why don’t we find more evidence of older compressive features? |
From ESGT analysis of the parameters of the planet Mercury
Derived Values for Mercury
Inertial orbit, Gcentral spin-mercury = 2.2 X 10^4 km3 sec-2
Theoretical inertial mass = 3.3 X 10^23 kg
Inertial radius = 2439 km
L1 inertial orbit = 3.18 X 10^5 km
g = 3.7 m sec-2
Surface field velocity = 3 km / sec
At aphelion,
Gcentral spin-mercury = 1.14 X 10^4 km3 sec-2
Distance to the Sun = 70 X 10^6 km
L1 at aphelion = 3.1 X 10^5 km
g = 2.49 m sec-2
At perihelion,
Gcentral spin-sun = 2.43 X 10^11 km3 sec-2
Gcentral spin-mercury = 4.0 X 10^4 km3 sec-2
Distance to the Sun = 46 X 10^6 km
L1 at perihelion = 3.1 X 10^5 km
g = 5.4 m sec-2
Gcentral spin-mercury = ( Gcentral spin-aphelion X Gcentral spin-perihelion )^0.5
= (1.14 X 4.0 X108 )^0.5
= 2.14 X 104 km3 sec-2
This derived value of Gcentral spin-mercury compares well with the value 2.2 X 10^4 km3 sec-2 derived in section 12.
The results listed below are the induced values and represent a virtual set of parameters to describe the orbit of Mercury. There is no change in the intrinsic parameters because in reality the real parameters, such as mass and size, do not vary. This can be shown by the constancy of the surface B field density and the size of the secondary field of Mercury, when the calculations are made using normalised values.
Apparent Values for Mercury
At aphelion
Mass = 1.7 X 10^23 kg
Radius = 1947 km
Surface field velocity = 2.2 km sec-1
At perihelion
Mass = 6.0 X 10^23 kg
Radius = 2962 km
Surface field velocity = 4 km / sec
Just an example of an edited analysis of the most interesting newest planet of the Solar System.
The Solar System was boring, I thought..., but a thorough analysis has shown so many exciting and unexpected surprises, I can now say it really is a VERY interesting place.
Mercury has lobate scrapes.... high ridges criss-crossing the planet's surface.
These are formed by the changing gravity at the surface due to the planet's highly elliptical orbit.
If you care to view the g values listed above, as Mercury completes its orbit the value of gravity at its surface cycles from a low value to a value almost double, causing considerable expansion and compression of the planet.
Just thought I would share some insights
PS, the article quoted above has one interpretation, with no supporting evidence
I present another interpretation WITH evidence.
QUOTE (Zarkov+)
Just thought I would share some insights
Insights or delusions?
AHAHAHAHAHAHAHA BWAHAHAHAHAHA AHAHAHAHAHA
Insights or delusions?
QUOTE
I present another interpretation WITH evidence.
AHAHAHAHAHAHAHA BWAHAHAHAHAHA AHAHAHAHAHA
QUOTE (Zarkov+Mar 17 2008, 08:58 PM)
These are formed by the changing gravity at the surface due to the planet's highly elliptical orbit.
All planets have elliptical orbits.
Does the gravity also change on the other planets?
If not, why not?
Arthur
All planets have elliptical orbits.
Does the gravity also change on the other planets?
If not, why not?
Arthur
QUOTE (Zarkov+Mar 18 2008, 02:58 PM)
PS, the article quoted above has one interpretation, with no supporting evidence
They have plenty of supporting evidence. They also have more in depth data than the brief summary that was released.
Unless it's evidence of you being an idiot. You oversupply on this.
They have plenty of supporting evidence. They also have more in depth data than the brief summary that was released.
QUOTE
I present another interpretation WITH evidence.
This must be some meaning of the word "evidence" that we are previously unaware of Unless it's evidence of you being an idiot. You oversupply on this.
QUOTE (N O M+)
Unless it's evidence of you being an idiot. You oversupply on this.
Seconded.
Seconded.
QUOTE
(1) All planets have elliptical orbits.
(2) Does the gravity also change on the other planets?
(2) Does the gravity also change on the other planets?
yes to 1 and yes to 2
however the gravity changes are minute for the "domesticated" planets,
because the orbital velocity variance is very small, and because of the low sun-spin-gradient at distance.
Mercury's orbital velocity changes dramatically with distance from the Sun, and therefore its field spin velocity driven by the Sun changes dramatically, and because it is so close to the Sun there is a high sun-spin-gradient couple.
therefore as the calculations demonstrate, surface gravity changes enormously.
Mercury is a very interesting planet.
I expect the effects are set in stone, however since Mercury has a liquid core, surface effects would still be measured. (on edit... hey hey a prediction !)
These lobate scrapes, of course will weather down as the planet recedes from the Sun and becomes domesticated.
QUOTE (Zarkov+Mar 17 2008, 11:22 PM)
yes to 1 and yes to 2
however the gravity changes are minute for the "domesticated" planets,
because the orbital velocity variance is very small, and because of the low sun-spin-gradient at distance.
Mercury's orbital velocity changes dramatically with distance from the Sun, and therefore its field spin velocity driven by the Sun changes dramatically, and because it is so close to the Sun there is a high sun-spin-gradient couple.
therefore as the calculations demonstrate, surface gravity changes enormously.
Mercury is a very interesting planet.
I expect the effects are set in stone, however since Mercury has a liquid core, surface effects would still be measured. (on edit... hey hey a prediction !)
These lobate scrapes, of course will weather down as the planet recedes from the Sun and becomes domesticated.
Actually you have made many predictions.
Zarkov predictions based on ESGT:
1) The surface gravity varies on all planets due to the eliptical nature of their orbits.
2) The surface gravity on Mercury varies from 2.49 m/s^2 at aphelion to 5.4 m/s^2 at perihelion
3) The surface gravity on Earth varies from X m/s^2 at aphelion to Y m/s^2 at perihelion (Zarkov could you fill in the X and Y values here please)
Arthur
QUOTE
(Zarkov could you fill in the X and Y values here please)
yes easily....... reason ? but NO
If you knew anything about "gravity" you would know it changes OFTEN
here is another prediction, since you LOVE predictions
the Earth is moving away from the Sun
it is moving into a lower velocity sun-spin-field-gradient
EARTH's GRAVITY will just get weaker
AND as the Earth spirals out from the Sun, the radius of the planet will GROW (see volcanoes,quakes etc)
and gravity will get weaker
It seems that you have failed in your appreciation of the data
The data CLEARLY shows gravity IS NOT linked to mass ! PREDICTION (from math)
you guys are really getting boring, for me and I am sure, for the readers.
QUOTE (Zarkov+)
you guys are really getting boring, for me and I am sure, for the readers.
Keep telling yourself that, bobo
Keep telling yourself that, bobo
QUOTE (Zarkov+Mar 18 2008, 04:57 PM)
QUOTE (adoucette+)
Zarkov predictions based on ESGT:
...
3) The surface gravity on Earth varies from X m/s^2 at aphelion to Y m/s^2 at perihelion (Zarkov could you fill in the X and Y values here please)
yes easily....... reason ? but NO
Now wait a second Zarkov.
You WANT your theory of ESGT to be believed, but you WON'T provide the data that would allow for it to be experimentally verified?
Why is that?
Clearly that is NOT how science works and if you really believe in your theory then this would be the IDEAL way for it to be independently verified.
Then you say:
QUOTE (Zarkov+)
The data CLEARLY shows gravity IS NOT linked to mass ! PREDICTION (from math)
No, Zarkov, the data DOESN'T show that.
Why?
Because you haven't provided the DATA.
Arthur
No, Zarkov, the data DOESN'T show that.
Why?
Because you haven't provided the DATA.
Arthur
QUOTE
Why is that?
There is a saying about pearls and pigs... no I think swine is the word, not pigs.
Valid discussion is good, goading is not, demanding is a total turn off... and then I bring my AK47 LOL,.... (is that a gun?) .. no, I just turn off to all but a genuine thirst for knowledge
You expect me to waste my time doing trivial work for you. I said the result would be very small... experimental evidence shows that measured small changes/variations in g are "confusingly" to THEM, but seen all the time.
Here is a job for you... to improve your understanding..
Find the history for the measurement of g on Earth?
Has it changed?
Why is the kilo losing weight?
do some background.... I am not interested in a one sided discussion, with inane/insane and derogatory comments as the other side !!!!
You are not even interested in the basics and yet you criticise the outcomes.
Human beings, you really are a total drag.
QUOTE (Zarkov+Mar 19 2008, 01:01 AM)
Human beings, you really are a total drag.
Equus asinus, STFGiddy-Up.
Equus asinus, STFGiddy-Up.
It is hard to catalog the hypothetical disconnect with experiment which would allow Zarkov to maintain his beliefs.
Here is an animation by a crackpot who has invested time and effort into the sale pitch:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VjgidAICoQI
Interview with animator:
http://www.theskepticsguide.org/skepticsgu...info.asp?pid=51
Credit for discovery to:
http://scienceblogs.com/pontiff/2008/02/th...g_the_earth.php
Here is an animation by a crackpot who has invested time and effort into the sale pitch:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VjgidAICoQI
Interview with animator:
http://www.theskepticsguide.org/skepticsgu...info.asp?pid=51
Credit for discovery to:
http://scienceblogs.com/pontiff/2008/02/th...g_the_earth.php
Hi Zarkov,
Remember when I showed you that your formula for Gcentral-spin was simply a rehashing of Kepler's Third Law in this post http://www.physforum.com/index.php?showtop...ndpost&p=306548 ? It's not very honest of you to claim that ESGT is your own new theory when in fact it is 400 years old.
Remember when I showed you that your formula for Gcentral-spin was simply a rehashing of Kepler's Third Law in this post http://www.physforum.com/index.php?showtop...ndpost&p=306548 ? It's not very honest of you to claim that ESGT is your own new theory when in fact it is 400 years old.
QUOTE
Gcentral-spin was simply a rehashing of Kepler's Third Law
indeed (no idea who you are)
however I have given rv^2 a NAME
and as such it can not be broken apart
yes, Gcentral spin = Gnewton X mass
the last formulation is what NASA uses
however they believe Gcentral spin is more accurate, they call it mu (written as the greek letter )
ALL NEWTONIAN
I have never claimed different
HOWEVER
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Gcentral-spin was simply a rehashing of Kepler's Third Law |
indeed (no idea who you are)
however I have given rv^2 a NAME
and as such it can not be broken apart
yes, Gcentral spin = Gnewton X mass
the last formulation is what NASA uses
however they believe Gcentral spin is more accurate, they call it mu (written as the greek letter )
ALL NEWTONIAN
I have never claimed different
HOWEVER
I do claim spin fields and their structure
I do claim the electrodynamic extensions that characterise the Universe
I do claim the proposed mechanism of gravity
and much more...
none of this is Newtonian
What do you now claim
I made it ALL up ???? LOL
I stand on the shoulders of a GIANT... that ain't no disgrace
I did not fabricate as Dr E has.... LOL "attraction at a distance, disguised as "space-time-curvature".
Treating rv^2 as a CONSTANT for a spin system allowed a complete unraveling of the cosmic mystery; by accurately quantifying the Lagrangian points the spin fields could be mapped
and the quantum structure of the Solar System exposed.
now please get back on-topic.
QUOTE (Zarkov+Mar 18 2008, 08:01 PM)
You expect me to waste my time doing trivial work for you. I said the result would be very small... experimental evidence shows that measured small changes/variations in g are "confusingly" to THEM, but seen all the time.
You say you won't waste your time doing this trivial work.
Fine.
I'll do it.
But to do so YOU have to publish your FORMULAS.
Oh, and yes, you DID say the result would be small,
BUT
You also indicate that the gravitational force would PREDICTABLY vary based upon our orbital distance.
Thus, even though the variations are small, we should be able to CLEARLY match these variations to the Earth's orbital position.
Arthur
You say you won't waste your time doing this trivial work.
Fine.
I'll do it.
But to do so YOU have to publish your FORMULAS.
Oh, and yes, you DID say the result would be small,
BUT
You also indicate that the gravitational force would PREDICTABLY vary based upon our orbital distance.
Thus, even though the variations are small, we should be able to CLEARLY match these variations to the Earth's orbital position.
Arthur
yes all true
I have written a 60 page document
I have edited out instructions
BECAUSE
Let me think on this awhile
This is more complex than you imagine..... easy, but it involves a lot of theory/formulations I am not willing to be made public.
I have written a 60 page document
I have edited out instructions
BECAUSE
Let me think on this awhile
This is more complex than you imagine..... easy, but it involves a lot of theory/formulations I am not willing to be made public.
QUOTE (Zarkov+Mar 18 2008, 10:41 PM)
what formula do you require
The one that allows us to calculate the change in gravity on earth based on its distance from the sun.
Arthur
The one that allows us to calculate the change in gravity on earth based on its distance from the sun.
Arthur
QUOTE (Zarkov+Mar 19 2008, 03:41 AM)
it involves a lot of theory/formulations I am not willing to be made public.
Then it is not science. Science is public.
Then it is not science. Science is public.
QUOTE (rpenner+Mar 19 2008, 05:11 AM)
Then it is not science. Science is public.
Zarkov probably just typed up something nonsensical and then edited it out to act like he was protecting his "work".
Zarkov probably just typed up something nonsensical and then edited it out to act like he was protecting his "work".
QUOTE (Zarkov+Mar 18 2008, 10:41 PM)
yes all true
I have written a 60 page document
I have edited out instructions
BECAUSE
Let me think on this awhile
This is more complex than you imagine..... easy, but it involves a lot of theory/formulations I am not willing to be made public.
I expected no less.
I knew when this started I would never see the formulas.
I know why you won't post them and its simply because Zarkov formulas have a short SHELF LIFE.
Well Zarkov,
Since you won't publish your supposed proof,
Then you have no grounds to WHINE about it when no one believes you.
I mean, seriously, WHAT DO YOU EXPECT??????
Arthur
I have written a 60 page document
I have edited out instructions
BECAUSE
Let me think on this awhile
This is more complex than you imagine..... easy, but it involves a lot of theory/formulations I am not willing to be made public.
I expected no less.
I knew when this started I would never see the formulas.
I know why you won't post them and its simply because Zarkov formulas have a short SHELF LIFE.
Well Zarkov,
Since you won't publish your supposed proof,
Then you have no grounds to WHINE about it when no one believes you.
I mean, seriously, WHAT DO YOU EXPECT??????
Arthur
QUOTE (adoucette+Mar 19 2008, 09:00 AM)
I mean, seriously, WHAT DO YOU EXPECT??????
He expects us to believe he makes observations without using his senses, for one. Look at my signature.
He expects no-one to see through his lies, for another. Look at his posts.
He expects to win a nobel prize one day. Look at his website.
He expects us to believe he makes observations without using his senses, for one. Look at my signature.
He expects no-one to see through his lies, for another. Look at his posts.
He expects to win a nobel prize one day. Look at his website.
Hummm, let me see ,,,
The earth will loose gravity because it is getting further away from the sun.
I found this guy that says just the opposite.
http://www.johnkharms.com/gravity-growth.htm
Now I don't know who to believe.
The earth will loose gravity because it is getting further away from the sun.
I found this guy that says just the opposite.
http://www.johnkharms.com/gravity-growth.htm
Now I don't know who to believe.
Zarkov also claims that the Lagrangian points used for the SOHO satellites (L4 and L5, I believe) are determined by the magnetic Bloch wall location (where the Earth's magnetopause meets interplanetary space subject to the coronal magnetic field)... if I remember correctly.
But this puts the L4 and L5 points under 15 to 20 Earth radii away, and conventional Lagrangian dynamics necessitates that they lie 60 degrees ahead and behind of Earth's orbit. Combined with the fact that the SOHO satellites DO have a stable orbit around the L4 and L5 points (despite some of Zarkov's claims) and are returning images of the sun's western and eastern limbs from 60 degrees ahead of and behind Earth, does anyone understand why he's confused?
Well, keep thinking Zarkov, but perhaps find a new methodology.
But this puts the L4 and L5 points under 15 to 20 Earth radii away, and conventional Lagrangian dynamics necessitates that they lie 60 degrees ahead and behind of Earth's orbit. Combined with the fact that the SOHO satellites DO have a stable orbit around the L4 and L5 points (despite some of Zarkov's claims) and are returning images of the sun's western and eastern limbs from 60 degrees ahead of and behind Earth, does anyone understand why he's confused?
Well, keep thinking Zarkov, but perhaps find a new methodology.
LOL
a lot of words put into my posts that just aren't there... I have only spoken of L1 and l2
Paul H... mmmh..... inconsistent with observations..... how can particles gain mass as they move out..... we would have bigger objects outside than inside
Arthur... nice site,,, nice map.... explanations 'seem' rational... this is a static g variational map
you would need to plot g over many years
water is diamagnetic
water is diamagnetic
The Earth's gravity signal changes day-to-day, even minute by minute. The image above shows how the average variability in Earth's gravity field in August 2002 compared to the yearly average of 2001. The red and pink areas show where the variation measured in August 2002 is the most different from the variation measured for the year 2001, while the blue and purple areas show where the variation measured in August 2002 is just about the same as the variation measured for the year 2001.
note the poles change the most
Thanks Arthur
no... no math no credence
indeed there isn't.... I said "apparent"
however this does not bode well for Paul H's link
But I am not play this slanging match thing !
Y'all are sooooooooo strange
[SARCASM]Must be magnetism, then. Yeah, there is no gravity, just magnetism! It explains everything!
(Except why objects don't go flying off into space every time they're turned upside down...)
Hmm, maybe it has something to do with distance?
No.... After all, we're being pulled towards the sun more than we are towards the center of earth...
And even moreso to the center of the galaxy...
Aren't we?
Of course, if I'm wrong, then so is Zarkov, and how could someone who believes that the existance of altocumulus clouds is a sure sign of an impending global ice age be wrong? Hell, he's even privy to the secrets of the ancient egyptian high priests, and knows more about space travel than NASA! How could he possibly be wrong?
[/SARCASM]
Oh yeah: Easily and obviously. THAT'S how he could be wrong.
a lot of words put into my posts that just aren't there... I have only spoken of L1 and l2
Paul H... mmmh..... inconsistent with observations..... how can particles gain mass as they move out..... we would have bigger objects outside than inside
Arthur... nice site,,, nice map.... explanations 'seem' rational... this is a static g variational map
you would need to plot g over many years
QUOTE
Water will not flow in aqueducts if the pipes are perfectly aligned along the geoid. Surveyors use knowledge of the geoid and the horizontal when they lay out highways and boundaries.
water is diamagnetic
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Water will not flow in aqueducts if the pipes are perfectly aligned along the geoid. Surveyors use knowledge of the geoid and the horizontal when they lay out highways and boundaries. |
water is diamagnetic
The Earth's gravity signal changes day-to-day, even minute by minute. The image above shows how the average variability in Earth's gravity field in August 2002 compared to the yearly average of 2001. The red and pink areas show where the variation measured in August 2002 is the most different from the variation measured for the year 2001, while the blue and purple areas show where the variation measured in August 2002 is just about the same as the variation measured for the year 2001.
note the poles change the most
Thanks Arthur
>Paul H... mmmh..... inconsistent with observations..... how can particles gain mass as they move out..... we would have bigger objects outside than inside
Did you read the link? He said that the object would gain mass due to gravity photons concentrating at the center of the mass.
Did you read the link? He said that the object would gain mass due to gravity photons concentrating at the center of the mass.
I still want to know how Zarkov manages to make observations while discounting all sensory input...
QUOTE (BigDumbWeirdo+)
I still want to know how Zarkov manages to make observations while discounting all sensory input...
Maybe he sends his assistant to observe them.
But wait! Wouldn't observing his assistant's findings be sensory input as well?
Maybe he sends his assistant to observe them.
But wait! Wouldn't observing his assistant's findings be sensory input as well?
QUOTE
Did you read the link?
no... no math no credence
QUOTE (Zarkov+)
no...
Why am I not surprised?
Why am I not surprised?
QUOTE (Zarkov+Mar 19 2008, 10:08 PM)
The percentage ratio of the geomagnetic mass of the planet Mars to the geomagnetic mass of the Earth is about 10.75%, and yet the gravity on Mars is 37.7% that of the gravity measured on Earth. This apparent anomaly is examined in section 15,
There's no anomaly if you are aware that the strength of gravity at a planet's surface is not simply a function of its mass. But of course you are not aware of this. Clueless as usual.
There's no anomaly if you are aware that the strength of gravity at a planet's surface is not simply a function of its mass. But of course you are not aware of this. Clueless as usual.
QUOTE (barakn+)
Clueless as usual.
barakn = correct as usual. Zarkov has a nasty habit of ignoring any direct argument against his claims, you see. Don't expect him to listen to you now.
barakn = correct as usual. Zarkov has a nasty habit of ignoring any direct argument against his claims, you see. Don't expect him to listen to you now.
QUOTE (Zerkoff+)
no... no math no credence
What have we been telling you bozo.
What credance do you deserve? Telling us to believe that you have done some mythical maths doesn't count.
What have we been telling you bozo.
What credance do you deserve? Telling us to believe that you have done some mythical maths doesn't count.
QUOTE
There's no anomaly
indeed there isn't.... I said "apparent"
however this does not bode well for Paul H's link
But I am not play this slanging match thing !
Y'all are sooooooooo strange
QUOTE (Zarkov+)
however this does not bode well for Paul H's link
I highly doubt that you are correct.
Not nearly as strange as you
I highly doubt that you are correct.
QUOTE
Y'all are sooooooooo strange
Not nearly as strange as you
QUOTE
The percentage ratio of the geomagnetic mass of the planet Mars to the geomagnetic mass of the Earth is about 10.75%, and yet the gravity on Mars is 37.7% that of the gravity measured on Earth. This apparent anomaly is examined in section 15
[SARCASM]Must be magnetism, then. Yeah, there is no gravity, just magnetism! It explains everything!
(Except why objects don't go flying off into space every time they're turned upside down...)
Hmm, maybe it has something to do with distance?
No.... After all, we're being pulled towards the sun more than we are towards the center of earth...
And even moreso to the center of the galaxy...
Aren't we?
Of course, if I'm wrong, then so is Zarkov, and how could someone who believes that the existance of altocumulus clouds is a sure sign of an impending global ice age be wrong? Hell, he's even privy to the secrets of the ancient egyptian high priests, and knows more about space travel than NASA! How could he possibly be wrong?
[/SARCASM]
Oh yeah: Easily and obviously. THAT'S how he could be wrong.
PhysOrg scientific forums are totally dedicated to science, physics, and technology. Besides topical forums such as nanotechnology, quantum physics, silicon and III-V technology, applied physics, materials, space and others, you can also join our news and publications discussions. We also provide an off-topic forum category. If you need specific help on a scientific problem or have a question related to physics or technology, visit the PhysOrg Forums. Here you’ll find experts from various fields online every day.
To quit out of "lo-fi" mode and return to the regular forums, please click here.