From: plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com
Newsgroups: sci.math
Date: Sat, 2 Dec 2017 16:05:59 -0800 (PST)
Subject: PAGE10, 1-10, Evidence proving Atom Totality, Solid Body Rotation
PLUTONIUM-ATOM-TOTALITY-UNIVERSE, 8th ed. 2017
From: Archimedes Plutonium
Injection-Date: Sun, 03 Dec 2017 00:05:59 +0000
PAGE10, 1-10, Evidence proving Atom Totality, Solid Body Rotation
PLUTONIUM-ATOM-TOTALITY-UNIVERSE, 8th ed. 2017
Now I delve into the fact that Solid Body Rotation exists only from EM theory
where we have Velocity proportional to radius for magnetic-monopoles=current,
making a circuit in the Faraday/Lenz law. Currently, Big Bang, General
Relativity BBEGR is trying
to explain solid body rotation with a silly "dark matter" dark mass, dark
energy, when all you really need to know is that the forces of physics are all
unified as a EM force which has a range of force strength from r, to 1/r, to
1/r^2 (which, in final
analysis is a Logarithmic force not an inverse square). There, problem solved.
That motion in a Observable Universe which is an electron dot cloud of an Atom
Totality would be motion of the EM theory which allows for motion as V= r,
solid-body, and V
proportional to a constant 1/r, and V proportional to 1/r^2.
There has been a uproar of worry over solid body rotation found in spiral
galaxies for about 5 decades now, that many spiral galaxies have solid body
rotation of their stars close in to the nucleus of the galaxy. But there has
been much too much neglect
of assessing our own solar system for the Saturn Rings are likely to be Solid
Body Rotation in part, or full. So, not only is there solid body motion in
spiral galaxies but likely here in our own solar system.
Now Solid Body Rotation is probably the best observable evidence the Universe
is a single Cosmic Atom because we see so much Solid Body Rotation, that a
structureless BBEGR cannot even start to explain other than hypothesize dark
matter, dark energy
which clearly none has ever been seen. When physics gets a "big observation
in" such as solid-body rotation, the physicists would immediately tack on some
ad hoc nonsense of dark matter and dark energy, rather than do the logical
thing-- look in EM
theory for solidbody rotation motion.
Now let me define Solid Body Rotation as that in which any 2 points in the
plane figure have the same distance apart from one another while being
rotated. Their rotation or revolving as if they are a solid body. If we paint
2 dots on a music record and
then place onto a turntable, those 2 dots will maintain the same figure as the
record is moving round and round.
And many people are surprised, very surprised to find out that our Solar
System has plenty of examples of Solid Body Rotation. The Rings of Saturn as
the finest single example, of rigid body rotation of SubRings of Saturn. Even
Maxwell in the 1860s did
some work on the Rings of Saturn, although Maxwell had primitive telescopes
back then. And the Meteor Belt is another example, although far less of a
percentage of rigid-body rotation than the Saturn subrings. The
lectromagnetism involved with the Rings
of Saturn since ice is a van der Waals force of attraction make them a higher
percentage of Solid Body Rotation than the Meteor Belt with its magnetic iron
rocks. So we have percentages of solid body rotation where the Saturn subrings
could be 75 to 90
percent solid body while the meteor belt be only 50%.
Harold Jeffreys in 1947 wrote a work "The effects of collisions on Saturn's
Rings". And in Jeffreys work he states " Maxwell showed that a set of
satellites moving in one circle about the planet would be stable, and that all
the other suggested types-of-
constitution, that he considered would be unstable." So, here we see that what
Maxwell proposed was that you can have solid-body rotation of small
particles-- ice globules in a thin SubRing of Saturn. Each SubRing is rigid
body rotation. Further on,
Jeffreys writes: "But a fluid ring could be arbitrarily thin if we abandon the
hypothesis of rigid-body rotation, which in itself would suggest a very high
viscosity." Here Jeffreys is wanting the Rings to be a fluid instead of ice
globules, but he
still has rigid-body-rotation of ice, not water.
In Electromagnetism theory with AP-Maxwell Equations (next chapter) we see at
least three varieties of motion described by V proportional to radius R and
known as solidbody motion, and with V proportional to 1/R as seen in
Capacitors, and finally the
well known force of V proportional to 1/R^2, which--only the last one of
these, the 1/R^2 is familiar as the Newton gravity or General Relativity force
strength, forgetting and leaving out the other two types, the R and 1/R.
So, how much of Saturn's Rings are solid-body rotation? Is it 75%. How much of
the asteroid belt is rigid body rotation? Is it 50%, and would explain why
some asteroids, as small as they are have moons such as Ida with Dactyl. It is
not because of
gravity as 1/R^2 but rather because gravity is EM force that can vary from R
to 1/R to 1/R^2, and so, because asteroids are very much magnetic with all
that iron the gravity involved is far more than 1/R^2. Same reasoning for
Saturn Rings in that ice is
a polar molecule of water which is more electromagnetic than other molecules
and so the gravity of Saturn Rings is more closer to R or 1/R than to 1/R^2.
Is there anything in our Solar System that is nearly 100% rigid body, or solid
body rotation? I believe many of the subrings of Saturn are rigid body
rotation. I do not mean all of the Rings collectively is solidbody, but each
individual subring is
solidbody. And in fact is the cause of gaps between subrings.
Now, we need no high flung mathematics such as what Maxwell tried to give us
an answer in 1860s. We can do this with elementary geometry in mind.
[continued in next message]
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)
|
