|
return to homepage
return to updates
The Third Wave
A Redefinition of Gravity
Part IV
Interlude
By now it is clear that my theory is a variation of expansion theory. Many will have no doubt already dismissed it prejudicially, without further consideration. They will have lumped me in with flat earthers and geocentrists and expanding earth theorists like Hilgenberg. But this is a very great mistake, since my theory comes from a completely different set of assumptions than any previous expansion theory. I have shown that my theory is much less extreme than even McCutcheon's theory, and McCutcheon himself is in a completely different category than Hilgenberg and the rest. Beyond that, my theory is not a form of push gravity (like LeSage)—as I show in my paper on Allais—and it is not equivalent to Majorana's theory, either, as I show in the same place.
In fact, my theory is not as far from the mainstream as it might first appear. I will offer several examples in support of this. One, the current cosmological model is called Lambda CDM, named for the cosmological constant and "Cold Dark Matter." Lambda [Λ] is Einstein's own cosmological constant. Einstein wasn't convinced of it, but current theory has found it necessary to have a small positive value for Lambda, as Einstein first hypothesized. What Lambda tells us—as its main theoretical addition to General Relativity—is that space is expanding. That looks very much to me like an expansion theory. Now, what does the expansion apply to, precisely? It applies to the fabric of space. What is space? According to current theory the answer is either "nothing" or "I don't know." So current theory assigns expansion either to nothing or to "I don't know." Why does it do this? Does it at least have a good reason? It has the same reason that Einstein had: to make the math work out. You see, in Lambda CDM it is the math that is primary. This is the way physics now operates. First you create a mathematics to express a lot of disparate data and then you try to come up with a theory afterwards to slide under the math. It is sort of like building the walls and ceiling of a house first and then trying to slide the foundation in at the end. Either with houses or with physics, it can be a headache.
Einstein needed Lambda because he wanted the universe to be in a state of equilibrium. Then it was discovered by Hubble that the universe appeared to be expanding. So Einstein jettisoned Lambda with a red face. However, a thousand discoveries and mathematical manipulations later, the latest physicists have decided they need Lambda, and what is more, they need a tiny Lambda like Einstein first gave them. They say, "Lovely and double lovely, since we can now save our math and keep Einstein to browbeat our enemies with at the same time."
One thing that Einstein didn't see and that no one appears to have noticed since is that Hubble's expansion and Einstein's expansion are two totally different concepts. The expansion of the cosmological constant is given to space itself. The expansion of Hubble is an expansion of the universe. The universe can easily expand without space expanding. If material objects move apart generally, then the universe is expanding, since the universe is defined as the sum of the material objects. But space expanding is a much different, and much more revolutionary, proposal. If space is expanding, then objects can move apart without moving locally. They can have no local velocity and the universe will expand simply because all objects are connected to space.*
So the discovery of Hubble need not have concerned Einstein at all. True, it contradicted the end product of his math. But it did not necessarily contradict the cosmological constant. Space expanding and matter moving away from matter are two entirely different concepts.
Since there was no evidence for space itself expanding, the logical thing to do once Einstein accepted the findings of Hubble would have been to ditch both the cosmological constant and all the math that led up to it. The reason Einstein proposed the constant in the first place is that the body of his math showed that the universe should be shrinking. If he accepted the findings of Hubble, then he could not accept the findings of his math. Instead he just got rid of the constant and kept the rest.
Since then theorists have tinkered with the math and the axioms until they achieved, at long last, an implied expansion to match Hubble. But there is still disagreement between quantum theorists and Relativity specialists on exactly which tensors and fields are correct. The basic answer, as of this time in history, is that no one knows. It is a huge mess. Lambda CDM is the current model, but no one would be surprised if it were overthrown tomorrow by a modified Riemann field of some sort. There are almost as many models as there are theoretical physicists.
So now we have both an expanding space and an expanding universe. As far as space expanding goes, no one seems to have a problem with giving a motion to nothing, since the theory came with a lot of impressive math. It takes years to learn all the math, and this must mean that it is right. Anyone who takes the time to learn such a math is not going to be stopped by any little logical contradiction like assigning motion to the void. Assigning expansion to matter is seen as ludicrous, especially when it doesn't come decorated with any new maths. But assigning motion to the void is fine. You could get the physics world to accept that God made the universe out of used golfballs and chocolate pudding if you could prove it with Riemannian tensors and other big-named variables and fields.
All this goes to say that currently accepted theory contains an expansion theory. In fact, it contains two expansion theories: 1) the universe is expanding, 2) space is expanding. These two expansions are not equivalent. They are two separate concepts.
It is also interesting to note that the expansion of space creates a pressure on matter. Lambda CDM gives the void not only motion but pressure. To exert this pressure, the theory invents any number of scenarios, all of which give material characteristics to space. Of course this begs several questions. One: if the void is made up of particles or strings or any other "things", then it is no longer the void, right? In which case we are not assigning expansion to the void, we are assigning it to as yet unknown forms of matter. Two: to allow for motion we must still have some void left among all these new strings and ghost particles. Otherwise we beg the paradox of Parmenides, where we have a block universe frozen in place. Since the new theories go beyond Einstein in proposing new "things" in the void, do these theories propose that expansion be given to the new things or to the void that is left? If to the void, then we are in an infinite regress: assigning characteristics to the void makes it material, and we must propose even more evanescent particles or strings. If the expansion is given to the new things, then we have a double standard. Outsiders assigning expansion to matter are kooks; insiders assigning expansion to matter are brilliant theorists.
Another question is begged: If we are going to assign expansion to matter (as it appears that current theory must admit that it does) then wouldn't it be far simpler and more elegant to assign it to matter that we already know exists? We don't need to make up new matter to assign expansion to. We already have matter that we can assign expansion to. All we have to do is assign it in a consistent way.
This is made clear by the whole idea of space pressure. Instead of proposing that space causes a pressure in on matter, wouldn't it be more tidy to propose that matter causes a pressure out on space? It could do this simply by expanding. Then you don't need expanding space and new undetectable matter; you only need the matter we have and an expansion that we can already assign to gravity. One stone begins to kill so many birds it is embarrassing. Pressure in and pressure out are empirically equivalent. Why not choose the simpler theory?
[In a new paper I show that the cosmological constant is just a fudge factor used to fill an "instability" in the field equations. This instability is the same instability I show in the orbit, in the equations of Kepler.]
To give another example of how few switches you have to throw to turn the absurdities of current theory into the beauties of my theory, consider that it is not only Einstein and General Relativity that parallel expansion theory, it is also QED. Paul Dirac famously proposed that the Gravitational Constant [G] (not to be confused with the cosmological constant) was changing over time. This would mean that matter and space were changing relative to eachother. Dirac was not afraid of making proposals of this sort, and neither was Richard Feynman, another quantum physicist who toyed with the ideas of expansion. Both men recognized that the problems of gravity implied strange relationships, and when gravity met QED, these problems were intensified. Neither man proposed firm theories of expansion of any kind, since the math they had come to accept could not be resolved within a new theory of this sort. Both were tied very strongly to a set of equations, equations they had helped to create and fine-tune. Besides, despite being considered two of the towering geniuses of the 20th century, neither was mainly a theoretical physicist. They were mathematical physicists, much better with equations than with concepts.
In the 20th century, expansion was never a joke or an idea looked at only by crackpots and cranks. In various forms it was a viable alternative, an alternative that has now been accepted as Lambda, the cosmological constant. Current theory assigns expansion to space, which is not void but is made of things. Therefore current theory assigns expansion to matter. The main difference between my theory and current theory is that current theory assigns expansion to mythical animals like unicorn-strings and dragontail-loops, whereas my theory assigns expansion to protons and trees and stars.
After reading volumes of expansion theories, old and new, I must caution my reader once more that my theory gives no characteristics to space. Quantum space may be full to bursting with virtual elfs and sprites and rocs, but in my theory space is that thing that is not full of anything. Space is quite literally space, so that filling it would be a logical contradiction. It doesn't move, expand, exert a force, supply a pressure, or make toast. It is an empty static grid that I create quite freely to house my ideal, linear, deterministic little spheres, and that is all it is.
Retrograde Orbits
Now to answer some real questions. The first question I will answer here concerns retrograde orbits. In part 2 of this series I showed how the orbit could be explained with a combination of expansion and the E/M field. I have been asked how I explain retrograde orbits, which are orbits that go in the opposite direction of the spin of the primary (the central body). This is another empirical fact that proves my theory. For it is known that objects in retrograde orbits lose angular momentum and tend to decay. Triton and Phoebe are the two most famous retrograde orbits in the solar system, and both are thought to be in slow decay. Both are also thought to be captured moons rather than moons that formed along with their planets.
Current gravitational theory cannot explain how a torque is applied to a body in retrograde orbit to make it lose energy. But you can see that my theory assigns the creation of this torque to the combined E/M fields of both bodies. In expansion theory, only the centripetal acceleration is assigned to "gravitational" acceleration. All tangential torques are assigned to other fields, the main one being the E/M field.
New plasma field research has shown us that the E/M field (and not just its magnetic component, either) is much more active and pervasive than we had previously thought. Even planets that are not strongly magnetic, like Venus and Mars, have very active E/M fields. Just as an example, it has been found that the magnetosphere of Venus acts much the same way as that of other planets—in regard to excluding the solar wind, for instance—despite the fact that Venus is hardly magnetic at all.
[Update, 2012: To see mainstream data in conspicuous agreement with my analysis here, you may go to Wikipedia and type in "Heliospheric Current Sheet". It is clear that the E/M field is a powerful influence in the Solar System, and here we even have a diagram of it, complete with torques. The field equations must be updated to include this unified field.]
Retrograde orbits are much more of a problem for current theory than for me. Current orbital theory describes the effect mathematically but cannot mechanically explain the effect. I can.
Some will say my theory implies that an orbit cannot decay, since an electromagnetic exclusion must pertain whether the orbiting object has any angular momentum at all. In my theory the orbiting body doesn't appear to even require a velocity. At a first read, I seem to be saying that the Moon would sit at its present distance even without a shred of tangential velocity. Not only does my theory seem to fail to explain the Moon, it fails to explain the fact that meteorites penetrate the E/M field of the Earth all the time. If the E/M field can exclude the Moon, why can it not exclude much smaller objects?
The meteorite question is much easier to answer, so I will hit it first. It is well known that the E/M field of the Earth does exclude a lot of meteorites that don't have enough velocity to overcome it. It is not just the atmosphere of the Earth that resists entry of small bodies. These small bodies are either bounced out of the field altogether or the E/M field joins with friction from the atmosphere in heating them and reducing them and slowing them after they penetrate the field. But of course the exclusionary force on these smaller bodies is proportionally smaller, due to the nature of an E/M field. That is to say, E/M fields will naturally repel larger objects more strongly than smaller objects. A smaller object with a great enough velocity toward the earth would be expected to penetrate the E/M field, since the E/M field can resist it only so much over any given width.
On the other hand, the Moon encounters a much larger piece of the E/M field, simply due to its radius. It also has an exclusionary field of its own, and the total exclusionary force is dependent on both fields. A meteor obviously will have a very small field of its own—one that is negligible in any calculation. The Moon's own E/M field is not negligible, however, since it must contribute about 1/81 of the total exclusionary force.
Which brings us to the first question of this section. That question can be rephrased as, "Can the orbit of a large body decay past a certain point?" We have always assumed that it could, but we have no evidence that it can. We have no evidence of solar system collisions caused by the decayed orbits of major satellites. We do have evidence of major collisions, but all of these could have been—and seem to have been—caused by the direct intrusion of foreign bodies. Meaning that all the major collisions in the history of the solar system seem to have been caused by objects that were never in orbit. These collisions appear to have been made by objects that impacted the primary in the same way that meteorites now impact the Earth, except on a much larger scale. That is to say, all impacts may have been caused by initial trajectories that simply intersected. An object coming in at a steep enough angle with enough velocity and mass will pierce any E/M field, no matter how strong.
So let us first look at an orbit like that of Triton from the point of view of current theory. The current model believes that some satellites, like Triton and Phoebe, are captured satellites. Captured satellites must have been captured in the way I showed in my paper on Celestial Mechanics—by decelerating into orbit. How was this possibly achieved, given the current list of forces and causes of forces? A large body like Triton enters the field of Neptune and decelerates? What, exactly, caused Triton to settle into its current orbit? A balancing of instantaneous velocities cannot explain it, since even if Triton happened to intersect its future orbit at exactly the right distance and at a precise 90o angle, many other factors would also be involved. Neither Triton nor Neptune is an ideal body. They both would have had some spin. Just as an example, it is believed that all bodies apply torques to all other bodies (although it is not explained how in current theory). Therefore Neptune must have a rather complex field at all orbits, not just a simple centripetal acceleration. Scientists use this complex field to explain the motions of Neptune's other moons. If you add this complexity to the real field of Neptune, you see that the odds of Triton arriving with all the perfect counter-speeds and counter-torques, at just the right angle and distance are precisely zero. The field of Neptune must have some ability to resist small deviations and to correct them. Otherwise no body could ever be captured in the first place.
It is true that the orbit of Triton is decaying, so that the orbit is not in fact completely stable. But this is not the question. No field is infinitely forgivable, but orbits show a degree of float that is not in line with current theory. There appear to be constraints on decay and escape far beyond what would be logically expected. A decaying orbit like Triton's would be expected to fail exponentially. As Triton lost energy it would fall into a lower orbit. At this lower orbit the acceleration toward Neptune is even faster. To be in a stable orbit at a smaller radius, Triton would have needed to gain energy, or speed up. It has lost energy and gone lower, therefore we would expect a multiplied affect. Instead we see a long slow decay. Once again, empirical evidence directly contradicts the given theory of gravity and orbit.
According to the postulates of current theory, a decaying orbit would be expected to fail exponentially, and therefore very quickly. A decaying orbit would not last a thousand years, much less millions or billions of years. But that is not what we see.
Now let's return to my theory. There are two possibilities, neither of which is contradicted by data. I will offer the first one as the more likely. Let us say that the torque from Neptune works preferentially on the spin of Triton and not the velocity. In this case it would never appreciably affect the orbital momentum of Triton since Triton is so large. It might only affect the angular momentum, which decreases the energy of Triton's E/M field relative to Neptune's E/M field. In this way Triton loses energy but does not lose speed or radius. If this is the case, then we only have to look at the spin of Triton. Once the spin of Triton is stopped by Neptune, it must begin to reverse, since the torque from Neptune is constant. Eventually Triton will gain enough energy to create its own torque against the field of Neptune. At some point this torque will be sufficient to create a slight addition to orbital velocity, at which time Triton will bump itself into a higher orbit. The affect will become additive and eventually Triton will escape.
You may ask how a more energetic Triton turns that energy into orbital velocity. It does so with that resisting E/M field torque. That torque will have a component that is parallel to the orbit of Triton, and this must increase the orbital velocity. Even if we give the torque preferentially to the spin, there must be some point at which this preferential treatment breaks down. That is, once Triton gains some given amount of angular momentum, the torque can no longer be given to spin, preference or no. At that point the tangential component of the torque will begin affecting the velocity.
This would explain why major satellites do not impact their primaries. It would also explain why Triton's orbit decays so slowly.
The second possibility is a bit more revolutionary, but once again I believe it is capable of explaining more than current theory. Scientists know that Triton's retrograde orbit is decaying. They extrapolate from this to the assumption that it will eventually collide with Neptune. This, however, is a baseless assumption. It is true that Triton's orbit is decaying and that this decay is due to the fact that the orbit is losing energy. But there may be a limit to this decay. It is just possible that Triton's orbital velocity and spin will someday stop altogether, but that it will remain in orbit nonetheless, held at bay momentarily at its minimum orbital distance by the E/M field of Neptune. The field will keep applying a tangential torque to Triton—the same torque that made it lose energy—and it will begin gaining energy again. It will turn around and start orbiting in the opposite direction. It will move out into higher orbits until it reaches some kind of equilibrium with the E/M field of Neptune, at which time it will be a normal satellite in prograde, stable orbit.
This seems counterintuitive at first, since we have never used the E/M field to explain anything in regard to orbits. It is therefore hard to remember that the E/M field works in the opposite way to the gravitational field as regards centripetal forces (whether the gravitational field is created by a force or by motion). The gravity fields increases with the inverse square law, but the E/M field increases with the inverse quad, so an object closer to a body will feel a greater attraction with gravity and a greater repulsion with E/M. Therefore, as Triton gets closer to Neptune, it will tend to accelerate faster and faster toward it, if it has no tangential velocity. But, like a magnet, Neptune will also repel Triton more and more the closer it gets. These two contradicting forces imply a minimum orbit for a large satellite, provided it approaches that minimum orbit very gradually. To the first approximation, this distance can be calculated like this:
QE/MT = GMT/r2
Where Q is the total charge of the bodies, E is the total electric field, and MT is the mass of Triton.
r = MT√(G/QE)
The relationship of charge to mass in large bodies is difficult to calculate. I cannot do it and don't know if it is possible using current equations. But if this equation could be solved, it might explain why we don't see more retrograde orbits and why we don't see primaries with large satellites melded into them. With current theory there is no explanation for why a satellite in a decaying orbit should not continue on down to the surface of the primary.
[I have made some progress in this regard in the years since this paper was written. See my paper on the orbit of Mercury and my paper on Bode's law, for example. My paper on the Unified Field also makes some progress on developing the unified presence of a large body.]
There is much evidence that supports this, as any scientists who considers the possibility for a moment will see. If major satellites like Triton could decay into their primaries, then we would likely see some evidence of past collisions like this. What would such a collision look like, covered over by millions or billions of years? If Triton decayed into Neptune, its impact would be much less than that of a direct collision. The angle of intersection would be very tiny, and Triton would actually collide in a sort of landing pattern. Probably it would just roll along the surface of Neptune, or bounce messily along uneven terrain. It might not even leave a crater at all. This would leave Neptune a very odd shape, with a very large unimpacted satellite just stuck to it. Erosion would have a very big job to do to turn Neptune back into a sphere. In fact, it is doubtful that such a twin sphere could be smoothed over during the age of the solar system. The odds are very good that we would see a very undifferentiated primary or two somewhere in the solar system. But we don't. We see steep angle impacts that, when they don't disintegate the primary, merge the two balls immediately, greatly facilitating absorption and erosion and all the forces that bring natural objects back into round.
You will say that a planet with a large satellite unimpacted on its surface would create a major field perturbation that would very soon send it on some system-exiting trajectory. But this assumption is ungrounded. If the Earth+Moon system does not create a fatal wobble, then why would an unimpacted satellite? The Earth+Moon system, taken as a single entity, should spin very unevenly in relation to its surroundings. And yet it is stable. A moon sitting on the surface of a planet would have a much smaller wobble than that. It is true that Neptune+Triton would force its other satellites to adjust or be ejected, and it would probably affect Pluto+Charon very positively. But I don't see that current theory disallows a primary with an obvious crashed satellite somewhere on its crust. Obviously, my theory makes this scenario impossible.
It also explains why so many objects are in prograde orbits. The laws of chance, given current theory, would provide us with many more retrograde orbits than we actually see. We know from Triton and Phoebe and Pasiphae that satellites can be captured, and we must assume that they can be captured in prograde or retrograde. Even if we imagine that inner satellites formed with the planets, we should still see about equal numbers of outer or captured planets that are prograde and retrograde. But we don't. We see only a couple of retrograde orbits. Why?
It can't be explained with current theory, but it is easy to explain with my theory. Over the age of the solar system, most retrograde orbits have been turned into prograde orbits. The orbits of Triton and Phoebe are just very young orbits that haven't had time to turn.
Another thing my theory explains is the Moon's small increase in orbit. The Moon is currently moving away from the Earth at 3.7cm/yr. Now, we know that the Moon is a very old satellite. According to my theory, young or captured satellites would have slowly decaying orbits inward, as the torque from the primary slowed their retrograde momentum or velocity. Eventually they would become prograde and the torque would begin to force the orbit to decay outward. Our Moon has already gone through it period of decay inwards and its relative stability. Now it is in its latter stage, which is a period of slow outward decay. This would mean that no orbit is ever completely stable. All orbits are in some slow transition, either gaining momentum or losing it.
If this theory is true, shouldn't we see orbits that that are too slow to maintain themselves by current theory? Shouldn't we see satellites just sitting there with no orbital velocity; or, admitting that this situation would not last long, shouldn't we see planets going too slow to account for their orbits?
It is very unlikely we would see this, given the age of the solar system and given that we have only a few satellites in retrograde orbit. As we can see from Triton and Phoebe, the first thing satellites do in decay is lose angular momentum. Only after that would the torque cause them to actually lose orbital velocity. On a galactic time scale, the time for a satellite to be turned would be quite small. Unless we caught Triton or Phoebe during that time, we would be out of luck. But there is one other possibility. We might catch a planet in prograde orbit traveling too slowly if it had been turned recently. Outer satellites like Neptune's Nereid would be a perfect candidate for this. You will say, we don't know a mass for Nereid, therefore we can't do the math. But that is the beautiful thing about orbits, either with current theory or my theory. The mass of the orbiter has nothing to do with the orbital velocity. You only need a semi-major axis and a speed, both measured independently. We can analyze any satellites we have this information for. We should look at outer satellites that have very little angular momentum, since they are more likely to have been turned recently. The only other thing we have to take into account is eccentricity. Triton is a very easy beginning, since it and all the inner satellites have no eccentricity.
Triton, Phoebe, Pasiphae and all other candidates like Neried, should be checked closely. The numbers I have from various appendices don't allow me to verify this hypothesis, since I suspect they have already been corrected against eachother. Meaning that I doubt that the semi-major axes and periods were measured separately. It is more likely that the axes were calculated from the directly measured periods.
The Sun's Angular Momentum
Now on to the next point. In my paper on Celestial Mechanics I showed that the Sun has much less angular momentum than the planets. No one contests this. It has long been known and it has long been a source of embarrassment to current theory. The lack of angular momentum in the Sun could not be explained. Very complex and ever-changing theories have been proposed to explain it, but none of them do the job. Current textbooks admit this, for the most part. Theories of the recent past have been called "spectacularly wrong". The Encyclopedia of the Solar System [JPL, 1999] says this: "The majority of theories that were proposed in the last two centuries can be dubbed catastrophic." Current theory is mainly a compendium of all recent theories that haven't yet been trashed. But no one pretends to be satisfied with it.
My theory explains it all at once. The planets have more angular momentum because they have been gaining it all the time, simply from being in orbit. The E/M field of the Sun gives a constant torque to every planet in the system, and those planets give torques to their satellites. It is precisely this torque that causes the orbital velocity of the orbiter, as well as its spin.
Then why don't all satellites also have great angular momentum? The Moon, for example, has almost none [moment of inertia = .391]. It is showing its same face to us all the time. Other satellites are also in this type of orbit. Why is this so? If primaries are always applying torques, then satellites would all be expected to be spinning very fast, right?
Well, no. Here again there is an easy answer, but you have to know something about the particular orbit and the bodies involved. In the case of the Moon, most of the torque from the Earth has gone into velocity rather than spin. The angular momentum of Earth+Moon is very high, and this is not due to the size of the Moon alone. The orbital speed of the Moon is also very great, given its size and the size of the Earth. But why does the Moon resist spinning? Simple again, since the Moon is not evenly weighted. That is, its center of mass is offset appreciably from its center of figure. As would be expected from my theory, this center of mass has positioned itself as close as possible to the Earth. I say my theory, since it is not clear how GR can explain things like this. An orbiting object in a curved trajectory that was feeling no forces could hardly re-center itself in regard to a distant object.
Classical theory could explain it as an unequal attractive force, and this would bring the center of mass toward the Earth. But classical theory could not explain anything beyond that, including any torques, and therefore could not explain why an uncentered mass would resist spin in this situation. GR can explain even less, offering us tensors that express the uneven force but do nothing to explain its genesis. My theory explains it once again as a joint effort of real acceleration from the center of the orbit and torques caused by the E/M field. The Moon also has increased density toward its center, and a relatively low overall density [3.3g/cm3], both of which make it resistant to a spin-inducing torque in this situation. Over time, the Moon has found it more efficient—for a number of complex reasons that require a close analysis of the intersecting E/M fields, as well as the field of the Sun—to channel the torque into orbital velocity rather than spin. In a nutshell, several mechanical and physical factors resist spin and these same factors do not resist velocity. This is proved by the Moon's increasing orbit: the torque is pushing the Moon into a higher orbit rather than giving the Moon more prograde spin.
There are different factors limiting the spin of the Earth. The Earth is better balanced than the Moon, and therefore it spins quite quickly. It would spin even more quickly, due to a strong torque from the Sun, if it did not dissipate much of its angular momentum into the Moon's orbital velocity, via the torques we have been talking about. If the Earth had all the angular momentum that the Earth+Moon now has, it would spin once every 4 hours. So you can see that much depends on the structure of the bodies in question. But in general, the planets with their satellites have much more angular momentum than the Sun simply because the Sun is constantly applying a torque to them.
Current theory provides many dissipative forces to explain the loss of angular momentum in the Sun, including non-magnetic turbulent friction, magnetic coupling, and other desperate ad hoc theories. But the fact is that no dissipation is necessary if the Sun is never assumed to have had the high angular momentum that the planets now have. Current theory simply made the wrong first assumption. It assumed that the Sun must have originally had the same angular momentum as the planets. I have shown that this is upside down. The planets, if formed by the nebula and disc, would have originally had the same low angular momentum as the Sun. But they have gained momentum and the Sun has not.
*Actually, there is a third possibility that I will not get into here. Space could expand around matter, leaving matter unaffected. This would be because matter is not really connected to space, but is adrift in it.
Click here to go to Part V of the Third Wave
If this paper was useful to you in any way, please consider donating a dollar (or more) to the SAVE THE ARTISTS FOUNDATION. This will allow me to continue writing these "unpublishable" things. Don't be confused by paying Melisa Smith--that is just one of my many noms de plume. If you are a Paypal user, there is no fee; so it might be worth your while to become one. Otherwise they will rob us 33 cents for each transaction.
|