MikeB wrote:

Quote:

Now why do you think the magnetic field weakens? I think the magnetic field between the sun and earth will again strenghten instead of weaken, once Tyche/Niburi has passed and is moving away from the sun. Magnetic field strenght should be a good indicator for determining if Tyche/Nibiru is moving away from the sun or towards the sun.

So to state it short, IMO the Sun's EMF isn't really weaker than normal. It is as good as constant. But if you put a bigger magnet than our planets somewhere nearby, this object will interact with the sun (more field lines bending towards this nearby object).

In my model Nibiru/Tyche will not hit earth. The orbit will be very similar as binary stars with a great difference in mass.



Nibiru will however stir things up when it passes (and repulsed objects which do not have a magnetosphere can pierce through earth's magnetosphere which forms a protective shield). There is a lot of evidence of objects slamming into the earth and moon in the past.

Based on the theory of universal gravity it's a wonder that the earth and moon did not slam into each other due to this (considering the then changed miracle momentum).

Last edited by MikeB on 09-May-2011 at 02:07 PM.

@MikeB

Quote:

It is orders of magnitude too strong, so it won't matter if the force is twice as strong or twice as weak, at least not with regard to orbit path.

Force is the capacity to do work and thus causes physical changes. A change in force results in a change to the object. Even common sense tells us this.

Quote:

I think the magnetic field between the sun and earth will again strenghten instead of weaken, once Tyche/Niburi has passed and is moving away from the sun. Magnetic field strenght should be a good indicator for determining if Tyche/Nibiru is moving away from the sun or towards the sun.

Okay so let's consider this hypothesis. The evidence is since 1900 the sun's magnetic field is 230x greater. It's fairly recently that the magnetic field halfed. If Nibiru has the claimed 3,600 year periodic orbit and will be here by 2011 or 2012 then Nibiru has been getting closer the entire time. Magnetic field strength appears to be have opposite effects, both strengthening and weakening, as Nibiru makes it's constantly closer approach. We don't know what's wrong here but with the data we have your hypothesis is unable to be validated. Your next step, if you want to support your guess, is to provide what is factually wrong here. Neither 'it could be' nor 'I think' statements need to apply.

@BrianK

Quote:

Force is the capacity to do work and thus causes physical changes. A change in force results in a change to the object. Even common sense tells us this.

Imagine the spirals we talked about earlier with regard to attraction and repulsion. If one such spiral in attraction/repulsion balance is enough to keep the earth in place (a theoretical example) would this change if there are two of such spirals? You holding a ball spinning with one hand holding it or two hands will not make much of a difference (unless of course you loose *grip*).

Think about it. Based on the theory of universal gravity there is this enormous attractive force (gravity) which keeps the earth orbitting around the sun. If this were true why doesn't the moon always have a more eliptic orbit towards the (huge gravity) sun?

@MikeB

Quote:

so it won't matter if the force is twice as strong or twice as weak, at least not with regard to orbit path. It does not matter if you hold a ball losely and rotate around or a bodybuilder holding such a ball very tightly while spinning around. The path of the ball remains the same.

I see now where the misunderstanding lies, and it is in your view of force as it connects two objects, regardless of whether this force is gravity, or magnetism.
You see this connection as an inflexible connection like a length of chain rather than something elastic, like a length of bungee cord.
If you connect a 200 g weight to a 2 metre length of chain and swing it around slowly, it will "orbit" at a distance of 2 metres. If you then repeat this experiment using a 400g weight it will still "orbit" at 2 metres. This is the point that you keep coming back to and this is where you keep making your mistake. Under changing conditions the effects of forces change. repeating this experiment using a bungee cord rather than a chain would see the 200g weight "orbit" at 2.5 metres, and the 400g weight "orbit" at 3.2 metres. Likewise if you weakened the magnetic fields in a motor by reducing the voltage, the motor would lose speed and efficiency under normal load, to the point that it would stop. No doubt you will leap on this to "prove" that Nibiru will change the Earths orbital velocity, or axial spin, however if this were true we would have already seen the result, since the magnetic field variations have not just occurred in the last couple of days.

Quote:

I opt for the first choice as the second one seems too far fetched to me.

There are a lot of thing in this world that are counter intuitive to what would be termed "common sense". Many electrical students, when asked if increasing the resistance of the rotor winding of a series wound motor will increase or decrease its speed answer "decrease" since more resistance = lower speed. Obvious really, but totally wrong. The greater the resistance the greater the speed, but with less torque. I could explain why, but I could quite easily bore everybody else to tears. This continues until you reach the paradoxical point when you have a motor that would spin like s### if it could only have the strength to actually move. Check for yourself, Google can be your friend and I will not try to lead you up an incorrect path by directing your research.

Your claim that "Nibiru is coming" was refuted by the fact that an object of this nature would have shown itself by gravitational effects. You have subsequently stood the evidence on its head, and rather than accept that Nibiru is not coming, you have claimed that since gravity cannot "see" Nibiru, gravity does not exist, and yet you offer NO evidence, and you ignore the fact that NASA uses gravity slingshot from the gas giants regularly and routinely to the extent that it is almost mundane. If the maths is so defective, how come they keep getting it right?

_________________
When in trouble, fear or doubt, run in circles, scream and shout.

@BrianK

Quote:

The evidence is since 1900 the sun's magnetic field is 230x greater.

Why not share this evidence and the conclusions?

Food for thought: What causes solar flares with the equal force of billions of one-megaton nuclear bombs? Answer the sudden snap of solar magnetic fields.

I don't think you understand the amount of force involved with regard to the sun's magnetic field. I think you have even compared it with a fridge in this thread.

@BrianK

From BrianK Quote:

The evidence is since 1900 the sun's magnetic field is 230x greater.

From MikeB Quote:

So to state it short, IMO the Sun's EMF isn't really weaker than normal.

Stop trying to confuse the debate by using evidence when opinions are obviously so much more relevant

Last edited by Nimrod on 09-May-2011 at 03:56 PM.

_________________
When in trouble, fear or doubt, run in circles, scream and shout.

@Nimrod

Quote:

You see this connection as an inflexible connection like a length of chain rather than something elastic

No spirals are flexible. But the spirals / field lines need to "snap" for things to dramatically change.

In my model if a big object with a magnetosphere approaches, the earth is repulsed out of the way, but will after the passage return to its former balance with the sun.

@MikeB

From Nimrod #924 Quote:

Avogadro's number = 6.0221415 × 10^23 6.0221415 × 10^23 atoms of aluminium has a mass of 26.98g, the same number of atoms of iron has a mass of 55.84g, while for lead it is 207.2g. The magnetic properties of Lead are more closely related to Aluminium than to iron. Using gravity formulae Lead should be heavier than iron, while your theory would have lead and aluminium being around the same weight on earth.

From MikeB #940 Quote:

Attraction and repulsion. "Mass" has a direct relation to both EM and gravity as in more mass is directly linear to having more atomic particles.

Do you actually read the posts that other people put up or are you just ranting?

Quote:

No spirals are flexible. But the spirals / field lines need to "snap" for things to dramatically change. In my model if a big object with a magnetosphere approaches, the earth is repulsed out of the way, but will after the passage return to its former balance with the sun. A

We are not looking at "dramatic" change small changes in field strength in an electromagnetic system will cause observable small changes in the operation of that system. likewise small changes in mass in a gravity driven system will cause small observable changes in the operation of that system. there have been observable electromagnetic changes in the solar system, without matching changes in the orbits of any of the planets or moons.
Decreasing the supply voltage to an induction motor will cause it to slow down under load. It does not suddenly stop. No "snap" is required.
Your "model" is irrelevant until it can be verified. the best way to verify a model is to prove it mathematically. Show me an equation that can correctly plot a slingshot path for a space probe using EM as its base instead of Newtonian gravity and I will start to think that you may have a point.

_________________
When in trouble, fear or doubt, run in circles, scream and shout.

@MikeB

Quote:

If one such spiral in attraction/repulsion balance is enough to keep the earth in place (a theoretical example) would this change if there are two of such spirals? You holding a ball spinning with one hand holding it or two hands will not make much of a difference (unless of course you loose *grip*).

When the sun changes force (doesn't matter the type) if that force is the primary driver there will be an impact to the system. You think the sun pushes the earth with EM force. Backing down on proof as you've failed time and gain to demonstrate anything mathetmatically. We'll keep your 'common sense' approach here. The blue line is not a line but a field. If you want to keep the imaginary magnetic field line in play let's do that and say there are an infinite amount of lines here. Doubling the magnetic force doesn't increase field lines (Infinity * 2 is not greater than Infinity) it changes how fast it pushes.

Compare -- 9.8 m/s/s is the force of g (small g gravity on earth) if you double the force the rate is now 18.6 m/s/s the result is objects travel faster. If the sun is pushing earth and causing spin via EM and that EM doubles the result will be some combination of faster travel or faster spin. (Again keeping common sense for you.)

Let's look at your squeezing hands example. Ball is spinning at X km/hr and it's force of hands is Y. Now the force is changed to 2*Y. The result is the ball will no longer be spinning at X it'll be something less, likely related to the rate of change from Y to 2Y and the increase of friction. You need to somehow prove, or demonstrate mathematically, that the doubling won't speed up the earth's orbit and won't speed up the earth's rotation. IMO Common Sense is failing the MikeB it's all EM but change of force imparts no change of the system.

Quote:

Based on the theory of universal gravity there is this enormous attractive force (gravity) which keeps the earth orbitting around the sun. If this were true why doesn't the moon always have a more eliptic orbit towards the (huge gravity) sun?

The question isn't what you make it. Science explains this already. It appears the problem is not science's inability but MikeB's lack of knowledge.

Quote:

Quote: The evidence is since 1900 the sun's magnetic field is 230x greater. Why not share this evidence and the conclusions?

Two related but different questions are at work here. The first is does the sun's magnetic strength change? And the answer is not your statement that it's as good as a constant is not supported.

The second is why is it changing? Your answer was that it was due to Tyche/Nibiru. The other statements about Nibiru was it was on a 3600 year orbit and is coming ever closer to the sun and will be at it's closest point in 2011 or 2012 (depending on which Nibiru believe one believes). Either way doesn't matter as Tyche has to be closer now than it was 20 years ago and closer then it was 100 years ago. We know the closer an object the stronger the reaction. Instead we don't see a stronger reaction we see an opposite reaction. Thus, we know there's a problem here.

What was demonstrated was your idea, Nibiruian claims, and reality don't jive. Now why I'm open to you solving the problem in your relationships here. (My personal bet is neither you nor the other Nibiru believers are correct and Nibiru won't be here in 2012.) But again bring the evidence and the formulas so we can reconsider your new improved version of reality.

Quote:

don't think you understand the amount of force involved with regard to the sun's magnetic field

I don't think you understand that when the force doubles the objects being impacted by force are impacted in some manner too. Every action has an equal and option reaction. Unlike laws in your country this is one law you cannot break.

Last edited by BrianK on 09-May-2011 at 04:56 PM.

@MikeB

Quote:

MikeB wrote: Think about it. Based on the theory of universal gravity there is this enormous attractive force (gravity) which keeps the earth orbitting around the sun. If this were true why doesn't the moon always have a more eliptic orbit towards the (huge gravity) sun?

Doh, the sun surely "creates" more gravity as earth, but ....

..... it's also far farther away from the earth (and moon) as earth is from moon and therefore the actual level of gravity is much much lower.

If it weren't earth would either travel on a much higher orbit (freezing cold) or years would be much shorter. Hmmm a new season every week ? Sounds like fun

_________________
- We don't need good ideas, we haven't run out on bad ones yet
- blame Canada

@Nimrod

Quote:

Do you actually read the posts that other people put up or are you just ranting?

I don't understand what you quoted goes against anything I wrote.

I wrote:

Quote:

Attraction and repulsion. "Mass" has a direct relation to both EM and gravity as in more mass is directly linear to having more atomic particles.

You counter with this?

Quote:

Avogadro's number = 6.0221415 × 10^23 6.0221415 × 10^23 atoms of aluminium has a mass of 26.98g, the same number of atoms of iron has a mass of 55.84g, while for lead it is 207.2g. The magnetic properties of Lead are more closely related to Aluminium than to iron. Using gravity formulae Lead should be heavier than iron, while your theory would have lead and aluminium being around the same weight on earth.

1 mol of molecules equals 6.022 x 10^23 molecules. This figure was picked because 1 mol of hydrogen equals 1 gram (a non scientific measure for "mass").

The mol mass of water is 18.016. Water (H20) contains 2 hydrogen atoms (mol mass~ 1 gram per mol for 1 proton) and 1 Oxygen atom containing 16 protons. 2 + 16 = 18 grams per mol. The extra 0.016 is due to some of the molecules contained an extra "neutron".

Not only this is of importance, also density is of importance. Ice can float on water as 1 mol of ice (solid water) is equally as heavy as 1 mol of liquid water, but solid water takes a larger volume.

I don't understand your claim based on what I wrote above. So please clarify.

Quote:

Decreasing the supply voltage to an induction motor will cause it to slow down under load. It does not suddenly stop.

Our solar system does not work at all like that.

@BrianK

Quote:

When the sun changes force (doesn't matter the type) if that force is the primary driver there will be an impact to the system.

The sun is pretty constant.

Quote:

IMO Common Sense is failing the MikeB it's all EM

I did not state that. However I did state that with great distance EM forces are dominant over what you call "gravity". That's different from what you state..

Quote:

The first is does the sun's magnetic strength change? And the answer is not your statement that it's as good as a constant is not supported.

The amount of magnetic field lines the earth and other planets connect to will vary. But the sun's magnetic field strength will remain the same.

As I stated before. IMO the sun's heliosphere is connected to the other stellar systems surrounding us. As we know these stars move as does the sun in relation to these stars it will have an effect on the magnetic field.

Quote:

The second is why is it changing? Your answer was that it was due to Tyche/Nibiru.

As pointed out above it's not that black & white. But a relatively sudden drop in magnetic field lines connecting the sun and earth, this to me seems the most likely reason.

Can you just answer the question, instead of dancing around asking me counter questions instead? (Which I find OK, if you just answer me as well).

Quote:

Every action has an equal and option reaction.

Quote:

Unlike laws in your country this is one law you cannot break.

It's not that black & white.

For example if I hit you softly I might expect a push back from you. But if I hit you hard, you stay lying on the floor.

@Kronos

It seems you didn't at all understand what I wrote.

Physicsworld:
"The Moon's orbit is fiendishly difficult to explain, moving as it does around a rotating Earth, which together form a "double-planet" system that orbits around the Sun. " (based on the theory of universal gravity of course)

Food for thought (wikipedia):
"The Sun's gravitational pull on the Moon is over twice as great as the Earth's pull on the Moon".

NaturalNews:

"A lot of people believe the world as we know it is going to end on December 23, 2012. Nonsense, I say. The far more honest answer is that the end of the world as we know it has already begun."

Learn more: http://www.naturalnews.com/032258_economic_collapse_2012.html#ixzz1LwWu0Qz4

Quote:

> 9/11 nearest point to the sun. > 27th of September, ELEnin will be in alignment with sun/earth. > 17th of October, ELEnin will be at its nearest point to earth and on earth's orbit. > 2nd of November, Earth will move through ELEnin's orbit at the location ELEnin passed through earth's orbit.

Professor Mensur Omerbashich also points out the final alignment (Elenin - Earth - Sun) will be around 21 December 2012 based on NASA's data.

Interestingly according to the Mayas we will soon after this enter a new era for the earth.

@MikeB

Quote:

The sun is pretty constant.

What do you mean by this? How are you measuring this?

I don't the evidence doesn't indicates this at all. We see the overall charge of the sun has increased over the last 100 years. We see the charge has dropped significantly in the last 20 years. We see the sun has an 11 year solar flare cycle. Solar flares themselvess push over 1500 Gauss so are therefore 1500x stronger than the 1 Gauss of the sun. 2009 solar flares were close to 0 which means this 1500x fields were not being ejected. Overall 2009's measure of strength much lower than say 2005 when the sun was at a flare maximum in the cycle. The Sun is anything but constant.

Quote:

The amount of magnetic field lines the earth and other planets connect to will vary. But the sun's magnetic field strength will remain the same.

Field lines are an abstraction to represent the location and direction of the field. They don't exist. You seem to be having difficulties grasping this.

And no the magnetic field strength doesn't remains the same. A gauss is a microtesla. A microtesla is N(C/m/s) it's the measure of the rate of a moving charge. The measure is a field density flux which is the rate of movement vs a frame of reference. Field strength does not remain the same. If it did it would measure the same.

Remember we're talking about Force and measuring Force. The measure is a strength of push or pull of the item we're discussing. If you have a 2 Tesla magnet and bring out a 4 Tesla magnet your new magnet has twice the force. It will push, or pull, objects farther.

Quote:

IMO the sun's heliosphere is connected to the other stellar systems surrounding us

Certainly it does at the rate of 1/d^2. Though that doesn't mean those other stellar systems have any significant amount of force on our solar system. Background radiation was around .0001 Gauss. Which would push us around, assuming no other greater forces exist in the system.

Quote:

For example if I hit you softly I might expect a push back from you. But if I hit you hard, you stay lying on the floor.

You and Lou seem to restore to violence when your guesses fail reality. Pathetic really.

But, let's take the example - both are opposite and equal reactions. A soft hit (1 Guass) is absorbed by the body and may not overcome the force of gravity and friction of the feet on the ground. Likewise a hard hit (1500 Gauss) is partially absorbed by the body and the remaining force once over comes friction causes a reaction in a different way. Your problem here is you've neglected the other forces in the system, mostly gravity.

I added gauss here to add the clarity to your idea. In the first case the force is 1 gauss. In the 2nd case the force is 1500 gauss. The 'field lines' are the same 1 arm and 1 fist.

Last edited by BrianK on 10-May-2011 at 12:26 PM.

@MikeB

You and Lou have claimed that "gravity" is merely our mindless and ignorant misunderstanding of the overriding importance of EM forces in the universe, in all aspects.

1 mol of ice is less dense than 1 mol of liquid water, however they both have the same weight. this is true regardless of whether gravity or EM is the dominant factor. They are the same quantity of matter.
1 mol of Aluminium weighs less than 1 mol of iron. They are the same quantity of matter however they have different levels of attraction to the Earth.

Your contention is that this proves that the iron is attracted to the earth more than the aluminium, due to its electromagnetic properties. Hence iron weighs more than aluminium.
1 mol of lead has the same quantity of matter, being the same number of atoms (plus or minus the occasional stray proton or two). the EM properties of lead are similar to those of aluminium, so in an overwhelmingly EM universe placing 1 mol of iron in one balance pan, and 1 mol of lead in the other balance pan on a set of scales, will cause the lead to be lifted by the iron, as the iron has the greater electromagnetic attraction. In a universe operating with Newtonian gravity as the main factor, the iron will be lifted by the lead, as the lead has the greater mass. I am not going to impose my opinion on you I am merely asking you to have an open mind, just as you have asked me to have an open mind, and try the experiment. Is lead lighter or heavier than iron?

Quote:

Think about it. Based on the theory of universal gravity there is this enormous attractive force (gravity) which keeps the earth orbitting around the sun. If this were true why doesn't the moon always have a more eliptic orbit towards the (huge gravity) sun?

The moon does have an elliptical orbit of the earth, and yes the suns gravitational influence on the moon is different when the moon is on the part of its earth orbit where it is closer to the sun. It is different by the amount proportional to the root of the ratio of distances from the sun during its earth orbit. If you are asking why the differences are not greater than this the answer is that if they were it would defy mathematics, and although you seem to have no use for maths, it is maths, rather than gravity or EM that permeates and dominates the universe.

Quote:

Quote: Decreasing the supply voltage to an induction motor will cause it to slow down under load. It does not suddenly stop. Our solar system does not work at all like that.

By George, I do believe he's got it!. Our solar system works on Newtonian gravity, not EM

_________________
When in trouble, fear or doubt, run in circles, scream and shout.

@BrianK
In the world of Physics
Quote:

Every action has an equal and opposite reaction.

In the world of the merely physical
Quote:

But if I hit you

Every action has a consequence.

Welcome to the world of intellectual debate

_________________
When in trouble, fear or doubt, run in circles, scream and shout.

Hey look!
Here's another nutjob that has jumped aboard the bandwagon.

@BrianK
You live a bit closer than I do so you might know better than me. Did Los Angeles fall into the Pacific last month?

_________________
When in trouble, fear or doubt, run in circles, scream and shout.

@ Nimrod

"October 21st, the world will be destroyed by fire"

http://www.ebiblefellowship.com/may21/

Oh and for the 21st of May these Christians are preparing for Rapture.

The October 21st event could be due to Nibiru if ELEnin is NASA's Tyche.

The May 21st event could be the Annunaki "saving" some of the "faithful" with their spaceships. In any case we know soon enough if they are onto something or not.

Last edited by MikeB on 10-May-2011 at 02:10 PM.