The Magnetic Nature of the Solar System

The Magnetic Nature of the Solar System By Fenton J. Doolan Brisbane , Australia 23/5/17 Fenton.Doolan@glasshouse.qld.edu.au For the past four years I have been researching into the magnetic nature of our solar system. I thought my research maybe of some interest to you. During the September school holidays in 2013 I spent a lot of time on the internet researching Einstein's theory of General Relativity in particular his ideas about space-time. Whilst researching I came across the following Youtube clips which explain an unusual magnetic phenomena. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LyvfDzRLsiU ( 3 mins ) www.youtube.com/watch?v=bRDKOcfrI-Y ( 7 mins – especially around 2min mark) Graph 1: Graphical representation of magnet behaviour Attraction and repulsion fall off as 1/r2 Imagine a 1 dimensional system where r is the only variable. A magnet of strength 20 is placed at r=0, and a magnet of strength 3 is placed at r=2 (all arbitrary units). Another magnet that is attracted to the larger magnet, and repelled by the smaller approaches from r=∞. The attractive force = /r2 and the repulsive force = 3/(r–2)2 therefore the net attractive force = 20/r2 –3/(r–2)2 this function has a zero around 3.26, so if the approaching magnet is further than 3.26 it is attracted, and closer than 3.26 it is repelled (unless it actually somehow gets to a value below 2 [between the repelling and attracting magnets] when it falls into the central magnet. When I saw the first clip I became aware of a possible mechanism which may explain why the moon orbits the earth. Using this mechanism I have built up a model for the Earth and the Sun based on my observations regarding the magnets. I have developed the following hypotheses from these observations. The reason the moon orbits the Earth is not due to a gravitational attraction between the two and no it's not due to a curvature in space-time. HYPOTHESIS 1: The moon orbits the Earth due to a magnetic attraction. I believe the Earth is acting like an inverter magnet. The movement of molten rock/iron/nickel inside the Earth and its solid iron core act like the large central magnet. These movements of molten metals create electrical currents inside the Earth which induce the Earth s magnetic field. Fig 1 A typical representation of the Earth s magnetic field. In Fig 1 The centre of the Earth is presented as acting like a bar magnet. No allowance has been given to the magnetic material (magnetite) in the Earth s continental crust or the ocean floors (oceanic crust). Deposits of iron oxide (magnetite) under the Earth's surface (fig 2) continental crust and on the world s seafloors (fig 3) due to seafloor spreading from midocean ridges are acting like the small satellite magnets in the clip. Fig 2: Location of large deposits of iron oxide on the continents of Earth. ( Image Credits Fig 1/2/3 : Google Images ) Fig 3: Mid Ocean ridge- magnetic nature due to magnetite. I believe the magnetic field lines of the sun and planets should produce a shape very similar to concentric circles or ellipses. These magnetic field lines produce the pushing force which we call gravity . On Earth gravity I believe is created by the Earth s magnetic field pushing on our atmosphere. Objects accelerate towards the surface of the earth due to this pushing force produced by the Earth s magnetic field on the atmosphere. HYPOTHESIS 2: The strength of the Earth s magnetic field increases significantly outside the Earth s atmosphere. The Earth s magnetic field reaches a maximum at the distance of the moon. Its strength then decreases with the square of the distance from the moon. Near the surface of the Earth the Earth s magnetic field is relatively weak due to its interaction with the air of Earth s atmosphere. The virtual photons which create Earth s magnetic field are absorbed by the gas molecules making up the Earth s atmosphere. I predict the Earth s magnetic field increases significantly outside the Earth s atmosphere where virtual photon absorption is non-existent. As the Earth rotates on its axis it produces a rotating magnetic field. The moon is kept a distance from the earth due to this inverter magnet effect. The Earth s Earth iron/nickel core creates a magnetic push on the moon whereas the Earth s deposits of iron ore create a magnetic pull towards Earth. There exists an equilibrium between these two magnetic forces of repulsion and attraction which has created a stabilized orbit of the moon around the Earth. HYPOTHESIS 3: The Earth s magnetic field (magnetosphere) and the moon s magnetosphere couple as explained in the Youtube clip. From my research I realize the moon does not (anymore) have a global magnetic field but does have a magnetosphere on its far side. Fig 4: Moon s magnetic far side ( Credit: Google images ) I believe that the moon has essentially clipped onto the Earth s magnetic field. The reason why on Earth we only see one side of the moon is not because it rotates on its axis in synchrony with its orbit around the Earth. We only see one side of the moon due to this coupling effect as shown in the Youtube clip. My hypothesis would predict that the moon does not spin on its polar axis as it is locked in place due this coupling / inverter magnet effect. This explains why the rotational period of the moon appears to exactly match its orbital period around the Earth. From a sidereal view the moon would appear to rotate on its axis but I believe this to be an illusion. Similarly this explains why the moons of the other planets, predominantly show only one face to their respective planet. Synchronous rotation and Tidal locking are erroneous explanations for this observable phenomena. It would be more accurate to say that the moon rotates on the Earth s axis. (Some would say barycenter but I believe this idea to be erroneous as it purports a gravitational model.) The astronomer Johannes Von Gumpach in the 85 s in his book A popular inquiry into the moon s rotation on her axis analysed the moon s motion in detail and came to the same conclusion that the moon has zero polar rotation ( zero rotatory motion ) about its axis. https://books.google.com.au/books?id=CItaAAAAcAAJ&pg=PA5&lpg=PA5&dq=rotation+of+the+m oon+questioned&source=bl&ots=1eQN_UcTUh&sig=xARp5xGPbXHAmNrIzrMzRyQdvRU&hl=en &sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjin8GHorXSAhXrjlQKHbSEDcUQ6AEITDAI#v=onepage&q=rotation%20of %20the%20moon%20questioned&f=false Nikola Tesla s 1919 articles in the Electrical Experimenter magazine also suggests that Earth s moon does not spin on its polar axis. http://www.teslauniverse.com/nikola-tesla/articles/famous-scientific- illusions http://www.teslauniverse.com/nikola-tesla/articles/moons-rotation-0 Simple demonstration which shows that the moon does not need to rotate on its polar axis for only one side to be visible from Earth: (Tape a ping pong ball to the inside of a hula hoop. Rotate the hola hoop, since the ping pong ball is attached by tape to the hola hoop it can not rotate spin on its own polar axis. A person standing in the centre of the hola hoop will only see one side of the ping pong ball. The ping pong ball has zero polar axial rotation.) Comment by Stephen Crothers: I agree that synchronous rotation and tidal locking are not why the Moon maintains the same face towards Earth. The scientists have offered no rational means by which such a situation could arise and be maintained. It's just another of their many nebulous explanations for things they don't understand. That the Moon moves in the manner of the locked magnet in the film clip is very interesting. Your ideas are promising. ( Stephen Crothers ) Comment by Miles Mathis I agree with you. It is a sort of tidal lock, but the lock is caused by the charge field, not the gravity field. But since the tides are also a charge effect, it isn't strictly wrong to continue to use the tidal lock term. But I can understand why you prefer to drop it. ( Miles Mathis ) I read on the NASA website that the Earth's magnetic field has been weakening since 1850. The strength of Earth's magnetic field varies as well; it has been decreasing slightly ever since around 1850. ( NASA Internet Article ) I have also read that the moon is actually moving away from Earth at a rate of 3.8 cm per year over the past 40 years. I wonder if that is due to mining of iron ore over the last 166 years which is causing the Earth s magnetic field to decrease in strength ? HYPOTHESIS 4: Also suggests that the sun acts like a gigantic inverter magnet as well, which the planets are magnetically attracted to. The sun s sunspots are acting like the satellite magnets in the clip. Fig 5 Sunspot in photosphere satellite magnets in clip. Fig 6 The suns internal magnet- inner magnet in clip. Recent article suggesting that stars have strong internal magnetic fields http://www.astronomy.com/news/2016/01/strong-magnetic-fields-prevalent-in-stars Maunder s Butterfly Diagram Graph 2: Maunder s Butterfly Diagram One noteworthy observation is the absence of sunspots above 40 degrees in either hemisphere. However, the most important piece of information is that at a beginning of a cycle the sunspots are mostly in the 20 to 40 degree ranges in both hemispheres. As the cycle comes to an end the sunspots mainly occur close to the sun's equator. This means that over time there is a plasma flow going on beneath the sun's surface from the outer portions of both hemispheres towards the equator. This is a very important point in understanding the flow and magnetic activity of the Convective Zone. All solar events are strongly influenced by the solar magnetic cycle, since the magnetic cycle serves as the "energy engine" for all solar activities. The sun's dynamic magnetic field defines the Photosphere's features, the Chromosphere, the Corona, Solar Prominences and CMEs, the Solar Wind and eventually the shape of the Heliosphere. It is noteworthy that the sun's magnetic field and cycle effects our whole solar system. (Reference:http://www.solarsystemcentral.com/sunspot_cycles_page.html) Inclination of the Planets to the Sun s equator Name Terrestrials Gas giants Mercury Venus Earth Mars Jupiter Saturn Uranus Neptune Inclination to Sun's equator 3.38° 3.86° 7.155° 5.65° 6.09° 5.51° 6.48° 6.43° Table 1: Inclination of planets to the Sun s Equator ( Credit: Wikipedia ) There seems to be a relationship between the location of sunspots and the inclination of the planets to the sun s equator. I believe that the sun s magnetic field permeates throughout our solar system with a sombrero like (or torus) effect emanating from the proximity of its equator. Fig 7: The Sun s magnetic torus Credit: Googles Images Fig 8: 23 high-definition observations of our nearest star have been compiled into a single solar portrait - See more at: http://www.space.com/31976-fierce-sun-12-months-activity-image.html#sthash.W15XE84g.dpuf Credit: NASA'S Goddard Space Flight Center/SDO/S. Wiessinger HYPOTHESIS 5: The sun consists of condensed matter, it is not a ball of gas undergoing nuclear fusion reactions. Comment by Stephen Crothers: Observational evidence indicates that the Sun is actually condensed matter, not a ball of gas. Here is a definitive example - the line shape of the solar emission spectrum: Schematic representation of the visible spectrum of the Sun. To a first approximation, the solar spectrum is very nearly identical to that of a blackbody with a temperature of 5,800 K (dashed line). Note that the solar spectrum is continuous. Only condensed matter can produce a continuous emission spectrum. Gases emit only in narrow bands. Thus, the Sun is not a ball of gas. Despite this, solar scientists cling to their gaseous model. Although the temperature of the photosphere is reported by solar scientists at ~5,800 K, this is not the true temperature at all. The reason is that the solar scientists use Planck's equation for thermal spectra and Kirchhoff's Law of Thermal Emission, which however, are incorrect. Kirchhoff's Law of Thermal Emission is false, and so Planck's equation is not universal – it applies only to a truly black material, such as soot, at thermal equilibrium inside a cavity. Consequently, the temperature assigned to the photosphere by means of the solar emission spectrum is only an apparent temperature. Solar scientists similarly incorrectly assign temperatures to the chromosphere and corona. Consequently they also assign incorrect densities. The demise of Kirchhoff's Law of Thermal Emission alone is cause for a reassessment of just about all of astronomy. It also has deep ramifications for quantum mechanics and heat radiation; in fact, anywhere Planck's quantum of action appears. Here is another definitive example; the eruption of a solar flare. Note the radial transverse waves emanating from the origin of the solar flare. Gases cannot carry transverse waves. Only condensed matter can do this, just like the circular transverse waves in a pond when a stone is thrown into it. Doppler image of a solar flare and the associated disturbance on the solar surface acquired by the NASA ESA SOHO satellite. Courtesy of SOHO [Michelson Doppler Imager] consortium. SOHO is a project of international cooperation between ESA and NASA. P.-M. Robitaille has published a comprehensive study of the observational evidence that indicates that the Sun is condensed matter. Robitaille P.-M. Forty Lines of Evidence for Condensed Matter — The Sun on Trial: Liquid Metallic Hydrogen as a Solar Building Block, Progress in Physics, v.4, pp.90-142, 2013, http://www.ptep-online.com/index_files/2013/PP-35-16.PDF In this LMH condensed matter model of the Sun the photosphere has a graphitelike structure; sunspots and faculae have a more metallic structure; the corona has a diffuse nature composed of plasma and condensed matter. LMH has a hexagonal planar structure. The solar sunspot cycle is due to a build-up of intercalate gases and terminates with solar degassing. (Stephen Crothers) Planet Densities The planets are ordered by density. It helps show that mass is not the interaction that is involved in planetary motion. Planet Density ( g/cm3) Mercury Venus Earth Mars Jupiter Saturn Uranus Neptune Pluto (dwarf) 5.427 5.204 5.515 3.934 1.326 0.687 1.27 1.638 1.88 Table 2: Density of planets in our solar system The densities of the planets show order. There are 3 main categories of the order. Solids Gas Ice ( Reference Aaron Guerami: Aaron s Reality ) I believe that the planets, all the moons of the solar system and the materials of the rings of Saturn all orbit their associated planet/sun due to two factors 1. inverter magnet effect 2. rotating magnetic fields These masses are all following the rotating magnetic field lines produced. Venus has no moons as it does not generate a large magnetic field of its own, thus has been unable to capture any matter. Venus may have an induced magnetism from the sun. Thus Venus still follows a magnetic field line produced by the sun. The literature states that Mars does not have global magnetic field but does have a remnant magnetic field ( or clusters of small magnetospheres). I believe these small magnetospheres on Mars do create a very weak global magnetic field surrounding Mars. Hence Mars has two very small moons orbiting it. The following article seems to support this idea about how global magnetic fields are formed. http://phys.org/news/2015-11-physicists-clue-formation-magnetic-fields.html HYPOTHESIS 6: I believe our solar system operates on a magnetic basis or alternatively an electro-magnetic basis. The sun s rotation on its axis generates a rotating magnetic field (Parker Spiral) that results in planetary motion around the sun. Fig 8: Parker Spiral ( Credit: Google images ) Fig 9: Combined radio/optical image of galaxy IC 342, using data from both the VLA and the Effelsberg telescope. Lines indicate the orientation of magnetic fields in the galaxy. (Credit: R.Beck- Magnetic Fields in Spiral galaxies) My hypotheses do not require the existence of a cosmological constant as suggested by Einstein to counteract the effects of gravity. HYPOTHESIS 7: The unaccounted variation of 43 arc seconds per century for the Precession of Perihelion of Mercury is caused by random variations in sunspot activity over the century. Fig 9: Mercury s Precession of Perihelion ( Credit: Google images ) From my research, it seems that Einstein knew that the unaccounted variation of the Precession of Perihelion of Mercury was 43 arc seconds per century. So he was able to adjust his value of pi. Comment by Stephen Crothers on pi: If you go to Einstein's book, 'Relativity: The Special and the General Theory', to Section III, the part titled 'The Possibility of a"Finite" and yet "Unbounded" Universe, Einstein argues that pi is not even a constant. His argument betrays that he did not even understand elementary geometry. He gives the following equation to make pi variable: pi = [sin(r/R)]/(r/R) where R he says is the radius of the world sphere and r the radius in a spherical surface. He talks of flat beings confined to the spherical surface in order to get his expression above. Einstein is talking drivel. A spherical surface does not have a (world) radius because it is a surface. Einstein's r is merely a segment of a geodesic in the surface. His expression for pi is consequently patently false. Einstein didn't even know the meaning of pi. He might just as well try to claim that Euler's number is also variable. It isn't. ( Stephen Crothers ) In essence my hypotheses do not require the force of gravity. Gravity I believe is a fictitious force which has for centuries dominated our collective psyches, created to allay humanities unconscious fears of the unexplainable effects of magnetism and its associated historical links to the occult. HYPOTHESIS 8: The phenomena known as Gravitational lensing should be actually termed Magnetic lensing. In the paper referenced below - Manipulating Light with a Magnetic Field, Bart A. van Tiggelen and Geert L. J. A. Rikken show that light is bent through a very small angle in a strong magnetic field inside a non-scattering, homogeneous media. http://lpmmc.grenoble.cnrs.fr/UserFiles/... HYPOTHESIS 9: Cosmological and Gravitational red-shift is due to an inherent nature of stars as proposed by Halton Arp. This inherent nature is related to the strength of the stars magnetic field and its age. HYPOTHESIS 10: Einstein s space-time fabric may actually be the magnetic field virtual photon field produced by the sun that permeates like an ether throughout our solar system. I predict that the planets bend the magnetic field emanating from the sun and consequently partially couple their magnetic fields with the sun s magnetic field. HYPOTHESIS 11: Pluto s moon Charon is acting like an inverter magnet. Fig 11: Pluto and Charon ( Credit: Google images ) Planetary scientists are trying to work out why the area on Pluto called Sputnik Planitia aligns its tidal axis in such an orientation with Charon. The article below states " Sputnik Planitia aligns very well with Pluto's tidal axis with its largest moon Charon". In another article one of the PhD students working with the team stated : "If you were to draw a line connecting the centre of Charon through the centre of Pluto it would come out the far side of Pluto and it would go right through the centre of Sputnik Planitia". From my research it seems like Pluto does not have a global magnetic field. ( New Horizons didn't have a magnetometer to determine whether or not Pluto has a magnetic field ) I have applied my inverter magnet 'theory' to these observations. I would suggest that Charon has a global magnetic field and is acting like an inverter magnet. I predict that Pluto must have a magnetosphere emanating from the area of Sputnik Planitia due to the suggested impact from a comet with a high magnetite composition. Pluto has effectively 'clipped' onto Charon's global magnetic field. This would suggest the Charon is acting as the Primary planet which Pluto and the other moons orbit. Pluto due to its large mass in comparison to the strength of Charon's rotating magnetic field it is kept geostationary over Charon. Alternatively, Pluto-Charon act as a type of binary system 'double planet' which generates the magnetic field that has captured the binary system's other moons. http://www.space.com/34737-pluto-wandering-heart-subsurface-ocean.html In another article scientists have measured an unusually high level of X-rays being released from Pluto. This may be explained by the interaction of the high energy solar wind particles colliding with the highly metallic Sputnik Planitia region of Pluto. http://uk.blastingnews.com/science/2016/05/solar-storm-produces-x-rayauroras-on-jupiter-00926301.html Pluto s four smaller moons are not tidally locked as they do not have any significant magnetospheres. Orbit of Pluto s moons Animation created from New Horizons data http://www.space.com/31071-plutos-moons-orbit-pandemonium-new-horizons.html Comment by Stephen Crothers Charon and the other moons are interesting. If a magnetic field is detected for Charon then your theory would be significantly reinforced. Certainly Einstein's General Theory of Relativity is incapable of accounting for such motions. It cannot account, in principle, for the very existence of N > 1 bodies, and so it is meaningless. (Stephen Crothers) HYPOTHESIS 12: Black holes don t exist. (As proven by Stephen Crothers) When a super massive star explodes producing a supernova it does not form a singularity which creates a black hole, rather the dense core that remains forms a type of magnetic well . HYPOTHESIS 13: I predict that the internal structure (composition) of the planets and stars (suns) are responsible for the magnetic or alternatively electro-magnetic force of attraction between these heavenly bodies. As such I believe the Einstein s Strong Equivalence Principle will be invalidated by the ongoing study of the ternary system of a pulsar with two stars orbiting it. My ideas I believe would be consistent with the Quantum Mechanical Model. As such I would suggest that this magnetic model can also be applied at a Quantum level. I would also suggest that in our universe there exists only 3 dimensions. Comment by Stephen Crothers I agree that only three spatial dimensions exist. The claim by Minkowski, and subsequently Einstein and his followers, that time is on the same footing as the three spatial dimensions, forming thereby a 4-dimensional space-time continuum, is false. This is perhaps most easily seen in the fact that the spatial dimensions are measured in units of distance, such as metres, whereas time is measure in altogether different units of duration, such as seconds. In order to make time appear to be on the same footing as the three spatial dimensions, Minkowski et. al. multiplied time by a speed, the speed of light c thus, d = ct. Then by setting c = 1, the so-called 'relativistic unit', in pro-numerals d = t. This now looks like time and space are combined. However, simple dimensional analysis on the symbols gives [d] = L, [t] = T. If the coefficient of t is taken into account then [ct] = (L/T)T = L. If the unit coefficient c = 1 is taken into account, [c] = [1] = L/T. Thus, c = 1 is a speed of 1 unit of L per unit time T, the unit of distance being the distance that light travels in 1 unit of time. The 4-dimensional space-time continuum is farce. ( Stephen Crothers ) Einstein would not have known that our moon has a magnetic nature as he died in 1955. When moon rocks were bought back by the Apollo 11 mission in 1969 and analyzed, it is my understanding that scientists were shocked to find out they all were magnetic. Comment by Dr Jamal Shrair PhD ( Author of The Helical Universe ) Science is controlled by money and political power. I have no doubt that the model you proposed for solar system is 100% correct. So called gravity is a long range and weak magnetic force. It is one of the manifestations of the magnetic force. But, friend, the scientific truth is no longer the aim in science research. They ignored even the experimental work of Dayton Miller that was conducted for decades. Comment by Wal Thornhill (Electric Universe) I’m pleased to see you thinking seriously about gravity and magnetism. They are very similar dipole phenomena, which means that gravity doesn’t merely attract but can produce a balanced system. ( Wal Thornhill ) Comment by Dr Eugene Bagashov (Joint Institute of Power and Nuclear Research, Minsk Belarus) That the sun is acting like a gigantic inverter magnet is a pretty interesting idea in itself. There are people here and there talking about the energy entering the poles of the Sun and entering in the equatorial region (or vice versa). (Eugene Bagashov) Comment by Professor Vladimir Cherny (Director Modern Science Institute at SAIBR, Moscow) Thank you for your kind and very interesting letter. I'm thinking about the answer. ( Vladimir Cherny- Russian Astrophysicist ) Comment by Bishop Nicholas Sykes Thank you very much for sharing this - I found it very interesting and hope you will continue to work on the model. ( Bishop Nicholas Sykes ) I believe Einstein was correct when he stated: “Imagination is more important than knowledge. For knowledge is limited to all we now know and understand, while imagination embraces the entire world, and all there ever will be to know and understand.” ( Albert Einstein ) I know my hypotheses go against contemporary physics ideology but I think sometimes in Science we tend to ignore the obvious and invariable try to over complicate theories and ideas. Thank-you for reading, Fenton Doolan ( High School Science Teacher ) (Email: Fenton.Doolan@glasshouse.qld.edu.au)