Cosmology of the Electric Universe

[Native]

OK, then explain how 'atmospheric pressure' makes things fall on Earth.

OK.

In detail.
So, given an object and a value for the atmospheric pressure (and whatever other information you want), predict how fast something will fall *using nothing dependent on gravity*.
For example, if the pressure changes, how does that affect how fast things fall? If there is a low pressure front in the region, do things fall differently? or not? By how much?
If I build a vacuum chamber, so there is no 'atmospheric pressure' inside of it, how does that affect how things fall?
Don't do vague hand waving. Give detailed answers, providing specific examples if required.

It´s not up to you to set the rules for mine explanations, and as I´m focusing on the present conditions for Newton´s assumptions of his "two body gravity", I´m not using or accepting any artificiel experiments in order to explain myself.

The main causes for the Earth´s Atmospheric Pressure are:
1) The Earth orbital velocity around the Sun which makes the main pressure.
2) This orbital pressure affects both the Earth´s magnetic field and the gaseous weight of the Earth´s atmosphere, pressing everything down on the Earth´s surface.
3) As the Earth revolve, this pressure have both a direct effect from the orbital direction as well as a shading slipstrean effect on the opposite lee side of the Earth.

This is all you need in the first place in order to comprehend the philosophical idea and also in order to make your logical ponderings between the Atmospheric Law and Newton´s occult assumption of his "g-force".

When you´ve had your serious pondering, you should be able to differ between assumed and observed scientific forces, which can be explained logically

AFTER you´ve had such serious pondering, we can elaborate more on other earthly implications.

 

[Native]

You're not playing fair man!
You are asking for evidence in support of the claims!
You are not supposed to do that!

I can do all I wish in my own OP. Follow it, ignore it or just leave.

 

[Polymath257]

OK.

It´s not up to you to set the rules for mine explanations, and as I´m focusing on the present conditions for Newton´s assumptions of his "two body gravity", I´m not using or accepting any artificiel experiments in order to explain myself.

Those requests *are not* artificial experiments and have NOTHING to do with Newtonian assumptions. I am simply asking you what *your* theory says would happen in those cases. At the very least, these answers would clarify the link between atmospheric pressure and how things fall.

YOU are the one claiming there is a link. How is it artificial to test that linkage in a variety of situations? If anything, these are natural and obvious questions to ask about your proposal. if you cannot answer simple questions like these, why should I think your theory can answer other questions of interest?

The main causes for the Earth´s Atmospheric Pressure are:
1) The Earth orbital velocity around the Sun which makes the main pressure.
2) This orbital pressure affects both the Earth´s magnetic field and the gaseous weight of the Earth´s atmosphere, pressing everything down on the Earth´s surface.
3) As the Earth revolve, this pressure have both a direct effect from the orbital direction as well as a shading effect on the opposite lee side of the Earth.

So, does this mean that things will fall faster or slower on the lee side?

Exactly how does the Earth's atmosphere 'press down'? Is there any sort of 'pressing up' involved?

What 'orbital pressure' are you claiming exists? What is producing the pressure?

How can we measure this 'orbital pressure'?

How is it related to the orbital velocity? How would it be different, for example, with Venus, which is both closer to the sun and has a larger orbital velocity? Or with Mercury, which is even closer and a higher velocity? How would it affect Jupiter that is farther from the sun and a slower velocity?

This is all you need in the first place in order to comprehend the philosophical idea and also in order to make your logical ponderings between the Atmospheric Law and Newton´s occult assumption of his "g-force".

I'm not discussing 'g force' or Newton's assumptions at all. I am simply asking for clarification of your ideas about atmospheric pressure. Are you claiming the pressure is more or less on the 'lee side'? Do you have measurements to verify this? How is it affected as the Earth rotates? is it different in different places in the orbit? Remember that the Earth's distance from the sun changes as it orbits.

How does this 'orbital pressure' affect the moon? How are things able to stay on the Moon if it has no atmosphere?

When you´ve had your serious pondering, you should be able to differ between assumed and observed scientific forces, which can be explained logically

I am still trying to understand your claims.

AFTER you´ve had such serious pondering, we can elaborate more on other earthly implications.

 

[Native]

Those requests *are not* artificial experiments and have NOTHING to do with Newtonian assumptions.

Precisely , so leave them out for now.

So, does this mean that things will fall faster or slower on the lee side?

They move according to the actual Earth atmospheric pressure.

Exactly how does the Earth's atmosphere 'press down'? I

I´ve already told you. The prime reason is the orbital velocity pressure on the Earth, the weigth of the gaseous atmosphere and the actual and changes of high- and low weather pressures.

EDIT
Newton´s "g" also varies as the atmospheric pressure.
(The precise strength of Earth's gravity varies depending on location. The nominal "average" value at Earth's surface, known as standard gravity is, by definition, 9.80665 m/s2.[4] This quantity is denoted variously as gn, ge (though this sometimes means the normal equatorial value on Earth, 9.78033 m/s2), g0, gee, or simply g (which is also used for the variable local value).

How can we measure this 'orbital pressure'?

Local Barometer measuring and these informations - Atmospheric pressure

Is there any sort of 'pressing up' involved?

Yes, the Earth rotational centrifugal force; the Earth inner crust motions and tectonic plates collisions and annual temperature changings.

Are you claiming the pressure is more or less on the 'lee side'?

Lesser

How is it related to the orbital velocity? How would it be different, for example, with Venus, which is both closer to the sun and has a larger orbital velocity? Or with Mercury, which is even closer and a higher velocity? How would it affect Jupiter that is farther from the sun and a slower velocity?

I´m not finish discussing Newtons "g" and, besides for the Moon, I´m not discussing other planetary conditions for now.

I'm not discussing 'g force' or Newton's assumptions at all.

Well, I indirectly and certainly am indeed.

Is it different in different places in the orbit?

Yes, depending of the Earth´s actual elliptic location, ref.: Seasonal gravity changes -
Seasonal gravity changes estimated from GRACE data - ScienceDirect -) And of the actual orbital location of the Moon.

Earth's gravity measured by NASA GRACE mission, showing deviations from the theoretical gravity of an idealized, smooth Earth, the so-called Earth ellipsoid. Red shows the areas where gravity is stronger than the smooth, standard value, and blue reveals areas where gravity is weaker. (Animated version.)[1]

These anomalies are not "anomalies" when explained by PRESSURE.

EDIT These gravitational anomalies clearly indicates that Newton´s "g" is just an unjustified assumption and that such variables fits more logical to changes of orbital and atmospheric pressures.

(EDIT: These seasonal changes is connected to the formation of the Earth from the Sun and also connected to the Milky Way formation of the Solar System and it´s actual location.)

Read also - Gravity Anomalies - Gravity Anomaly - an overview | ScienceDirect Topics

How does this 'orbital pressure' affect the moon?

The Earth´s orbital motions affects the Moon when the Moon is on the lee side of the orbital direction of the Earth and the Moon affects the Earth when being positioned in front of the Earth´s orbital motion. EDIT thus causing a higher tidal vawe.

How are things able to stay on the Moon if it has no atmosphere?

Because of the lunar orbital velocity pressure on the Moon.

I said:
When you´ve had your serious pondering, you should be able to differ between assumed and observed scientific forces, which can be explained logically

I am still trying to understand your claims.

I appreciate your serious attempts to understand - and thanks for "forcing" me to learn expressing my points of views.

 

[Native]

Subject: Editions in my post #164

 

[Polymath257]

Precisely , so leave them out for now.

They move according to the actual Earth atmospheric pressure.

OK, so if the barometric pressure is higher, is the acceleration of things that fall larger or smaller?

And, just to be clear, this should be a consistent relationship between the pressure and the rate of fall *everywhere* and at all times?

I´ve already told you. The prime reason is the orbital velocity pressure on the Earth, the weigth of the gaseous atmosphere and the actual and changes of high- and low weather pressures.

EDIT
Newton´s "g" also varies as the atmospheric pressure.
(The precise strength of Earth's gravity varies depending on location. The nominal "average" value at Earth's surface, known as standard gravity is, by definition, 9.80665 m/s2.[4] This quantity is denoted variously as gn, ge (though this sometimes means the normal equatorial value on Earth, 9.78033 m/s2), g0, gee, or simply g (which is also used for the variable local value).

But, to be clear, your prediction is that these differences will be correlated with the barometric pressure, so will also change over time as the weather changes, right?

Local Barometer measuring and these informations - Atmospheric pressure

OK, that works for the surface of the Earth. Can we also measure this at the 'shock wave' in your picture, which is hundreds of miles above the Earth? Do you predict the pressure there will be more or less than at the surface?

Yes, the Earth rotational centrifugal force; the Earth inner crust motions and tectonic plates collisions and annual temperature changings.

But, for example, on a ball that is falling, there is also air pressure pushing up from below? Or not?

Lesser

So are you predicting that things will fall slower on the lee side than on the opposite side?

I´m not finish discussing Newtons "g" and, besides for the Moon, I´m not discussing other planetary conditions for now.

OK, we can come back to them.

Well, I indirectly and certainly am indeed.

Yes, depending of the Earth´s actual elliptic location, ref.: Seasonal gravity changes -
Seasonal gravity changes estimated from GRACE data - ScienceDirect -) And of the actual orbital location of the Moon.

Earth's gravity measured by NASA GRACE mission, showing deviations from the theoretical gravity of an idealized, smooth Earth, the so-called Earth ellipsoid. Red shows the areas where gravity is stronger than the smooth, standard value, and blue reveals areas where gravity is weaker. (Animated version.)[1]

Notice that this does NOT change as the Earth rotates: it is only dependent on position. In particular, it is not dependent on the local weather or on whether a location is on the lee side at that time or not. Doesn't this show there is no link with barometric pressure?

These anomalies are not "anomalies" when explained by PRESSURE.

Are you sure? Are you claiming that the barometric pressure should follow the same patterns as the 'anomalies'? Do you have data showing this? In particular, that the barometric pressure is the same at those locations at all times, only changing from place to place?

EDIT These gravitational anomalies clearly indicates that Newton´s "g" is just an unjustified assumption and that such variables fits more logical to changes of orbital and atmospheric pressures.

We're not talking about Newtonian gravity right now. We are only considering the correlation between the observed values of g and the barometric pressure. You have established that g changes from place to place. Now, does the barometric pressure change in the same way?

(EDIT: These seasonal changes is connected to the formation of the Earth from the Sun and also connected to the Milky Way formation of the Solar System and it´s actual location.)

Read also - Gravity Anomalies - Gravity Anomaly - an overview | ScienceDirect Topics

That doesn't support your claim. It shows a correlation between the changes in g and the local density of the rocks. That is NOT a correlation between g and the barometric pressure.

The Earth´s orbital motions affects the Moon when the Moon is on the lee side of the orbital direction of the Earth and the Moon affects the Earth when being positioned in front of the Earth´s orbital motion. EDIT thus causing a higher tidal vawe.

So, we should be able to measure a pressure difference when on the moon, right?

Next, is the lee direction the direction away from the sun OR is it the direction opposite the direction of movement? So, is the moon on the lee side when it is full or when it is a half moon?

Because of the lunar orbital velocity pressure on the Moon.

What is producing that pressure? Remember, pressure is produced by some sort of gas or fluid. What gas or fluid are you claiming in on the moon? If we did a barometric pressure reading on the moon, what should we find?

I said:
When you´ve had your serious pondering, you should be able to differ between assumed and observed scientific forces, which can be explained logically

I appreciate your serious attempts to understand - and thanks for "forcing" me to learn expressing my points of views.

It seems to me that you still have a lot of work to do. You have shown that g varies from place to place, but you need to show it varies *because* of barometric pressure. Since the barometric pressure changes over time, but those variations in g do not, that seems to be a difficulty.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

I can do all I wish in my own OP. Follow it, ignore it or just leave.

Sure you can.

And when the things you do involves attempts at shifting the burden of proof, dodging the burden of proof, making bare assertions and being plain incorrect - we get to point it out.

If however your goal is to actually convince us of your ideas.... then I can only inform you that shifting the burden of proof, dodging the burden of proof, not answering questions and being intellectually dishonest throughout the conversation, is NOT a pathway towards that goal.

Instead, it's only a pathway to being dismissed at face value.

Because what is asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence.

(counting down till the post where you take that last statement and use it once again try and bash rivalling ideas as if that scores points in favor of the bare assertions you try to push)

 

[night912]

(counting down till the post where you take that last statement and use it once again try and bash rivalling ideas as if that scores points in favor of the bare assertions you try to push)

I predict that the bashing will be directed at gravity. What do others think

 

[Native]

It seems to me that you still have a lot of work to do. You have shown that g varies from place to place, but you need to show it varies *because* of barometric pressure. Since the barometric pressure changes over time, but those variations in g do not, that seems to be a difficulty.

Yes still lots of things to do.

Preliminary summary:
1) The constant oribital velocity pressure on the Earth and all planets.
2) As the Earth revolve, this constant pressure daily afffect all areas on the Earth and creates the daily tidal waves.
3) Different stronger weather systems affect the local atmospheric/"gravitational" forces.

The constant orbital velocity pressure on the Earth

Evidences of orbital pressures

Earth magnetic Field.

Cometary Tail. Not much of a solar attraction is it?

Planet Venus Tail
------------

Newton´s "g" also varies as the atmospheric pressure.
(The precise strength of Earth's gravity varies depending on location. The nominal "average" value at Earth's surface, known as standard gravity is, by definition, 9.80665 m/s2.[4] This quantity is denoted variously as gn, ge (though this sometimes means the normal equatorial value on Earth, 9.78033 m/s2), g0, gee, or simply g (which is also used for the variable local value).

But, to be clear, your prediction is that these differences will be correlated with the barometric pressure, so will also change over time as the weather changes, right?

Not quite. The Earth orbital pressure is *constant* on the revolving Earth, but strong weather pressures affect locally.

I said:
Local Barometer measuring and these informations - Atmospheric pressure

OK, that works for the surface of the Earth.

Not just for the surface but all up to the top of the Earth´s atmophere.

Can we also measure this at the 'shock wave' in your picture, which is hundreds of miles above the Earth? Do you predict the pressure there will be more or less than at the surface?

The shokwave indicates the orbital pressure as well as the "Solar Wind". This assembled pressure goes all through to the surface on the Earth.

But, for example, on a ball that is falling, there is also air pressure pushing up from below? Or not?

The main pressure is down to Earth.

So are you predicting that things will fall slower on the lee side than on the opposite side?

I´m saying that the orbital velocity pressure on a planet is stongest in the orbital direction and lesser on the planetary lee side and if the Moon is positioned in front of Earth´s orbital direction, this creates a momentary lesser pressure on the Earth.

I said:
EDIT These gravitational anomalies clearly indicates that Newton´s "g" is just an unjustified assumption and that such variables fits more logical to changes of orbital and atmospheric pressures.

We're not talking about Newtonian gravity right now. We are only considering the correlation between the observed values of g and the barometric pressure.

Which is the very same with the same estimated and average weigth and follows the same scientific equations - with the difference that the orbital and atmospheric pressure can be measured directly and be explained scientifially compared to Newtons occult/superstitious invention.

I replied:
Because of the lunar orbital velocity pressure on the Moon.

What is producing that pressure? Remember, pressure is produced by some sort of gas or fluid. What gas or fluid are you claiming in on the moon?

We´re not talking of an empty space, you know. (It´s only in artificial experiments such stages can be made )

You have shown that g varies from place to place, but you need to show it varies *because* of barometric pressure. Since the barometric pressure changes over time, but those variations in g do not, that seems to be a difficulty.

I´ve never differed between the Newtons assumed g (escape velocity) and the orbital velocity pressure on the Earth, as I take it to be the very same - and I´m only pointing out that local stronger weather systems momentarily and evidently has further pressure or lifting affects over the Earth´s surface.

Hurricane Storm Surge | Ocean Today

 

[Native]

And when the things you do involves attempts at shifting the burden of proof, dodging the burden of proof, making bare assertions and being plain incorrect - we get to point it out.

If you´ve followed my arguments seriously, you would have understood my discussion points.

If however your goal is to actually convince us of your ideas.... then I can only inform you that shifting the burden of proof, dodging the burden of proof, not answering questions and being intellectually dishonest throughout the conversation, is NOT a pathway towards that goal.

Nonsense.

 

[Native]

TagliatelliMonster said: ↑
(counting down till the post where you take that last statement and use it once again try and bash rivalling ideas as if that scores points in favor of the bare assertions you try to push)

I predict that the bashing will be directed at gravity. What do others think

Could you please save your childish and personal mud casting predictions and attempt to make a collective bullying committee on the RF to Facebook or other unsientific media?

 

[Native]

Subject: Attractive and repulsive motions in galaxies.

An momentarily addition to the former discussion of "pressure".

It is known to most persons that the issue of "dark matter" derives from the observation of the galactic rotation curve where scientists thought that such a rotation would "cause stars to fly away from galaxies".

The contradicted Newtonian "Universal Laws of Celestial Motion", based on his gravitational "two body attraction ideas" on the Earth and subsequently in the Solar System, led to the invention of "dark matter".

Galactic formative motions

When notising the logical motion in this barred galaxy, it should be obvious that there is something wrong if a central "gravity force" should be at play.

This barred galaxy is revolving clockwise from our sight, and it is impossible for "gravity" to pull at the arms and make a sudden abrupt 90 degree turn into the galactic bars and further into the galactic center.

There is NOTHING pulling in this galactic scenario, but it´s the other way around.

Just like a rotation two arm garden sprinkler spread the water droplets on the lawn and all droplets moves with the similar orbital pattern and velocity motion, the formative powers in barred galaxies is located in the rotating galactic center from where stars are formed, sent (pressured) out in the bars and further out in the galactic arms.

This is the ONLY logical explanation as this motion obeys and follows the observed galactic rotation pattern. There is no "dark matter needed" at all. It´s the contradicted gravitational assumptions which needs to be discarded everywhere.
--------------
Apropos:

------------

In other spiral galaxies without bars, it is obvious that the formative motion goes towards the galactic center as this is more luminous compared to the barred galaxy centers.

Hence there are both and attractive and pepulsive formational processes in galaxies and it´s ONLY the fundamental EM force which can make both attractive and repulsive motions.

This outwards/expansive/repulsive/pressing going formative motion in barred galaxies, as our own Milky Way, has also affected the very formation of our Solar System as the entire Solar System moves away from the galactic center and the Earth moves away from the Sun and even the Moon moves away from the Earth, all once pressed away from the galactic center and all over the places in our galaxy.

As a curiosity, this expansive motion is IMO also the cause of the Mercury changing elliptic orbital plane.

This was/is just a momentarily galactic extension discussion of the "pressure" subject.

 

[Polymath257]

Yes still lots of things to do.

Preliminary summary:
1) The constant oribital velocity pressure on the Earth and all planets.
2) As the Earth revolve, this constant pressure daily afffect all areas on the Earth and creates the daily tidal waves.
3) Different stronger weather systems affect the local atmospheric/"gravitational" forces.

View attachment 48264
The constant orbital velocity pressure on the Earth

Evidences of orbital pressures
View attachment 48265
Earth magnetic Field.

Which is NOT an atmospheric pressure.

View attachment 48266
Cometary Tail. Not much of a solar attraction is it?

Given that the comet stays in orbit, this slight pressure from the solar wind has little effect on the motion.

View attachment 48267
Planet Venus Tail
------------

Again, mistaking this for atmospheric pressure.

Newton´s "g" also varies as the atmospheric pressure.

(The precise strength of Earth's gravity varies depending on location. The nominal "average" value at Earth's surface, known as standard gravity is, by definition, 9.80665 m/s2.[4] This quantity is denoted variously as gn, ge (though this sometimes means the normal equatorial value on Earth, 9.78033 m/s2), g0, gee, or simply g (which is also used for the variable local value).

This shows that g varies by location. It does NOT show it varies based on barometric pressure. In fact, it directly contradicts that claim.

Also, this effect is on the order of 2 cm/s^2 between the poles and the equator. The anomalies in your picture are much smaller than that, with the largest being around .05 cm/s^2 (50 milligals).

Now, exactly how do you explain those anomalies? Remember that the barometric pressure changes over time and is NOT constant. But these anomalies do NOT change with time. Can you explain this discrepancy?

Not quite. The Earth orbital pressure is *constant* on the revolving Earth, but strong weather pressures affect locally.

And how does that affect falling objects?

I said:
Local Barometer measuring and these informations - Atmospheric pressure

Not just for the surface but all up to the top of the Earth´s atmophere.

The shokwave indicates the orbital pressure as well as the "Solar Wind". This assembled pressure goes all through to the surface on the Earth.

And how much pressure do you think is being exerted? How would it compare, for example, to the pressure of the air at sea level?

The main pressure is down to Earth.

I´m saying that the orbital velocity pressure on a planet is stongest in the orbital direction and lesser on the planetary lee side and if the Moon is positioned in front of Earth´s orbital direction, this creates a momentary lesser pressure on the Earth.

And do you have data showing this? That should be easy to check with a barometer, right? How large of an effect do you think this is?

I said:
EDIT These gravitational anomalies clearly indicates that Newton´s "g" is just an unjustified assumption and that such variables fits more logical to changes of orbital and atmospheric pressures.

Let's be clear on the size of these anomalies. They are smaller than 1 cm/s^2 in a total acceleration of around 980 cm/s^2. In other words, much less than a 1% effect.

Furthermore, that 1% effect is easy explained by differences in altitude (being farther away from the center of the Earth means the gravitational force is less) and differences in the composition of the rocks (more dense rocks produce a stronger gravitational effect).

These anomalies, however, *directly* contradict that claim that it is barometric pressure that is relevant. The barometric pressure changes over time as well as from place to place. But the anomalies do NOT change over time. In other words, there is no correlation between the anomalies and atmospheric pressure.

Your theory is disproved by your own links.

Which is the very same with the same estimated and average weigth and follows the same scientific equations - with the difference that the orbital and atmospheric pressure can be measured directly and be explained scientifially compared to Newtons occult/superstitious invention.

Why would it be the same? Barometric pressure changes over time and place and that would lead to *very* different effects than what are actually observed.

I replied:
Because of the lunar orbital velocity pressure on the Moon.

We´re not talking of an empty space, you know. (It´s only in artificial experiments such stages can be made )

How much stuff do you think is there? What do you think the pressure is there compared to, say, atmospheric pressure at the surface of the Earth?

I´ve never differed between the Newtons assumed g (escape velocity) and the orbital velocity pressure on the Earth, as I take it to be the very same - and I´m only pointing out that local stronger weather systems momentarily and evidently has further pressure or lifting affects over the Earth´s surface.

Which would be very easy to check. Do you have any actual data showing this correlation?

Hurricane Storm Surge | Ocean Today

And how is the motion of falling objects affected in this surge? Not at all.

 

[Native]

Which is NOT an atmospheric pressure.

The orbital motion velocity of the Earth CREATES the pressure.

Given that the comet stays in orbit, this slight pressure from the solar wind has little effect on the motion.

This image was to illustrate "the assumed strong pull from the Sun" which even can´t pull an orbiting velocity cometary tail towards the Sun, let alone planets in the System.

View attachment 48267
Planet Venus Tail.

Again, mistaking this for atmospheric pressure.

NO. You have to connect the orbital velocity pressure (or "escape velocity" if you will) to ALL planets whether they have, what we call an atmosphere or not.

Throughout the rest of your reply, you´re taking a barometer to count for local changes only, and at the same time forgetting the general orbital velocity planetary pressure = newtons g.

My references to the "weight of the Eart´s atmosphere" is to point on these laws which works similar to Newton´s g - which IMO obviously is mistaken for the natural orbital velocity pressure on planets.

I replied:
I´ve never differed between the Newtons assumed g (escape velocity) and the orbital velocity pressure on the Earth, as I take it to be the very same - and I´m only pointing out that local stronger weather systems momentarily and evidently has further pressure or lifting affects over the Earth´s surface.

Which would be very easy to check. Do you have any actual data showing this correlation?

As said several times now: The general orbital velocity pressure on the Earth = the general atmospheric pressure = Newtons escape velocity.

Hurricane Storm Surge | Ocean Today

And how is the motion of falling objects affected in this surge? Not at all.

So how is the hundred thousands of tons of moist lifted up in the sky to fall on the Earth? By EM (EU) heated solar temperature and changing weather pressures. And how is the very water surge created then if not by LOCAL pressures wihich, also here as in the galactic realms, overrules Newton´s weak g?

 

[Polymath257]

The orbital motion velocity of the Earth CREATES the pressure.

How much pressure do you think there is? You realize the 8actual* pressure is far, far, far less than that of the atmosphere at the surface, right?

This image was to illustrate "the assumed strong pull from the Sun" which even can´t pull an orbiting velocity cometary tail towards the Sun, let alone planets in the System.

because it isn't gravity that is doing that. The solar wind is pushing *against* gravity. Do you realize that the actual amount of material being driven off the comet is incredibly small?

View attachment 48267
Planet Venus Tail.

NO. You have to connect the orbital velocity pressure (or "escape velocity" if you will) to ALL planets whether they have, what we call an atmosphere or not.

So you would expect that 'pressure' would be large for those planets moving faster and small for those moving slower. So why is it that Venus (which moves faster) has about the same effect as the Earth while Jupiter (which moves slower) has much more?

Throughout the rest of your reply, you´re taking a barometer to count for local changes only, and at the same time forgetting the general orbital velocity planetary pressure = newtons g.

Which would vary much, much more between the forward and the lee side than what we actually measure in the variations of g. Also, those variations, if your model is correct, should change over the course of a day (as the Earth rotates), but they, in fact, do not.

My references to the "weight of the Eart´s atmosphere" is to point on these laws which works similar to Newton´s g - which IMO obviously is mistaken for the natural orbital velocity pressure on planets.

I replied:
I´ve never differed between the Newtons assumed g (escape velocity) and the orbital velocity pressure on the Earth, as I take it to be the very same - and I´m only pointing out that local stronger weather systems momentarily and evidently has further pressure or lifting affects over the Earth´s surface.

As said several times now: The general orbital velocity pressure on the Earth = the general atmospheric pressure = Newtons escape velocity.

You are setting things equal which are not even comparable. Pressure and velocity, for example.

Then, you have to actually give data on 'orbital pressure'. What *amount* of pressure do you predict will exist in the picture you gave? Give a few representative values for the pressure that you would expect. Also, give reasons why you expect those values.

For example, suppose I am 150 kilometers above the surface of the Earth on the side in the direction of motion. What do you expect the pressure reading to be? Compare that to the pressure at the surface of the Earth. Do you expect the pressure at 150 kilometers to be higher or lower than that at the surface?

Hurricane Storm Surge | Ocean Today

So how is the hundred thousands of tons of moist lifted up in the sky to fall on the Earth? By EM (EU) heated solar temperature and changing weather pressures. And how is the very water surge created then if not by LOCAL pressures wihich, also here as in the galactic realms, overrules Newton´s weak g?

There *are* variations in air pressure and that affects the motion of small things (like water droplets) in the air. Temperature also has an effect, with cooler air being denser. The water surge *is* caused by a *lower* pressure in the hurricane.

But, again, that doesn't affect how fast things fall. In other words, it doesn't affect the g value.

 

[night912]

TagliatelliMonster said: ↑
(counting down till the post where you take that last statement and use it once again try and bash rivalling ideas as if that scores points in favor of the bare assertions you try to push)

Could you please save your childish and personal mud casting predictions and attempt to make a collective bullying committee on the RF to Facebook or other unsientific media?

I predicted correctly.

And I am posting in an unscientific topic, so I don't the problem.

Why is that, those who are ignorant of science accused others of bullying for pointing out their ridiculous pseudoscience ideas?

 

[Native]

Native said: ↑
The orbital motion velocity of the Earth CREATES the pressure.

How much pressure do you think there is? You realize the *actual* pressure is far, far, far less than that of the atmosphere at the surface, right?

In my hypothesis, the orbital velocity pressure goes right down to the surface of the Earth and the weigth of "the air" adds to the total surface pressure.

I argued:
This image was to illustrate "the assumed strong pull from the Sun" which even can´t pull an orbiting velocity cometary tail towards the Sun, let alone planets in the System.

because it isn't gravity that is doing that. The solar wind is pushing *against* gravity. Do you realize that the actual amount of material being driven off the comet is incredibly small?

Then I conclude the Solar Wind to be stronger than the assumed solar attraction.

So you would expect that 'pressure' would be large for those planets moving faster and small for those moving slower. So why is it that Venus (which moves faster) has about the same effect as the Earth while Jupiter (which moves slower) has much more?

The orbital pressures depends on both the velocity and the sizes of planets.

Also, those variations, if your model is correct, should change over the course of a day (as the Earth rotates), but they, in fact, do not.

In fact it does over the long run - Day length fluctuations - but NOT for the Newtonian "frame dragging" g-reasons but because of the expanding motion in the Solar System right from the galactic formation to the natural increasing distances between the Sun and Earth and Moon and Earth.

I said:
I replied:
I´ve never differed between the Newtons assumed g (escape velocity) and the orbital velocity pressure on the Earth, as I take it to be the very same - and I´m only pointing out that local stronger weather systems momentarily and evidently has further pressure or lifting affects over the Earth´s surface.

As said several times now: The general orbital velocity pressure on the Earth = the general atmospheric pressure = Newtons escape velocity.

You are setting things equal which are not even comparable. Pressure and velocity, for example.

I´m just combing the natural causes and motions without using Newton´s *occult agency*. Forget that and make the natural connections.

Then, you have to actually give data on 'orbital pressure'. What *amount* of pressure do you predict will exist in the picture you gave? Give a few representative values for the pressure that you would expect. Also, give reasons why you expect those values.

Take for instants the Earth average diameter of 12.742 km and the average orbital velocity of 107,208 km/h around the Sun and you´ll get a value of the orbital velocity pressure of 8.413 for the Earth. (Admitted, I don´t know how to describe this value in scientific terms)

EDIT: Informations of space media which influences the orbital pressures:

Read also - Interplanetary medium
And
Outer space

I said:
Hurricane Storm Surge | Ocean Today

So how is the hundred thousands of tons of moist lifted up in the sky to fall on the Earth? By EM (EU) heated solar temperature and changing weather pressures. And how is the very water surge created then if not by LOCAL pressures wihich, also here as in the galactic realms, overrules Newton´s weak g?

There *are* variations in air pressure and that affects the motion of small things (like water droplets) in the air. Temperature also has an effect, with cooler air being denser. The water surge *is* caused by a *lower* pressure in the hurricane.

Correct and this local lower pressure overcomes Newtons g (and the orbital pressure) - by causing water surges.

But, again, that doesn't affect how fast things fall. In other words, it doesn't affect the g value.

It of course also don´t affect the orbital velocity pressure on the Earth, which Newton thought was his *occult agency* g.

 

[Native]

Why is that, those who are ignorant of science accused others of bullying for pointing out their ridiculous pseudoscience ideas?

Well I gues it is because the bullies can´t think independently for themselves and take new scientific ponderings outside the squared black autoritative boxes, as "things they don´t understand", hence calling new toughts for "pseudoscience" and even add the "ridiculous" term to their lacking skill of providing factual arguments.

Just leave the thread if the content is too difficult for you to grasp. You´re derailing the thread with your personal nonsens.

 

[Native]

Subject: More precise definitions in a developing proces.

Regarding:

"Orbital Velocity Pressure and Shading Pressures verses Newton`s assumed g (and G)

1) The orbital velocity pressure (OVP) on planets depends on their velocity and sizes.

2) Pressures in front of the orbital direction and drag lift on the lee side.

3) Closer celestial objects shade the OVP when positioned in front of another orbital object.

4) OVP affects planetary atmospheres and planetary surfaces as the planet rotate.

5) OVP creates hemispheric Coriolis winds on rotating planets.

6) OVP creates the daily tidal waves on the counterclockwise revolving Earth, thus pressing the oceans up from east to west against continents and other land masses.

7) The Earth OVP is periodically shaded by the Moon when this is positioned in front of the Earth orbital direction, causing an extra lifting effect on the oceans – combined with the Earth centrifugal force.

8) When launching space crafts, these must overcome the OVP and the weight of the air on the earth, and when making planetary slingshots, the spacecraft gains energy from passing closely in the lee side of an orbiting planet.

9) The gained slingshot energy depends on the orbital velocity and the size of a planet. (Not on the weight/mass of a planet)

(Even migrating birds flying in formation uses this “slingshot energy” instinctively ).

 

[Polymath257]

Native said: ↑
The orbital motion velocity of the Earth CREATES the pressure.

In my hypothesis, the orbital velocity pressure goes right down to the surface of the Earth and the weigth of "the air" adds to the total surface pressure.

But you would still expect that total to be less on the 'lee' side and more opposite that, right? may I ask by how much?

Now, once again to be clear, the lee side is the opposite side to the direction of travel, right? NOT the opposite to the direction of the sun?

So, in your picture of the magnetosphere, you expect the 'shock wave' part to be in the direction of motion, NOT in the direction of the sun, right?

I argued:
This image was to illustrate "the assumed strong pull from the Sun" which even can´t pull an orbiting velocity cometary tail towards the Sun, let alone planets in the System.

Then I conclude the Solar Wind to be stronger than the assumed solar attraction.

You can blow a piece of paper upwards, but don't expect to do so with an iron ball.

The orbital pressures depends on both the velocity and the sizes of planets.

In what way?

In fact it does over the long run - Day length fluctuations - but NOT for the Newtonian "frame dragging" g-reasons but because of the expanding motion in the Solar System right from the galactic formation to the natural increasing distances between the Sun and Earth and Moon and Earth.

I said:
I replied:
I´ve never differed between the Newtons assumed g (escape velocity) and the orbital velocity pressure on the Earth, as I take it to be the very same - and I´m only pointing out that local stronger weather systems momentarily and evidently has further pressure or lifting affects over the Earth´s surface.

And, is ANYONE denying that atmospheric pressure exists and affects water levels? Do you see this as being the same as the tides?

As said several times now: The general orbital velocity pressure on the Earth = the general atmospheric pressure = Newtons escape velocity.

I´m just combing the natural causes and motions without using Newton´s *occult agency*. Forget that and make the natural connections.

Pressure and velocity are not comparable concepts. So equating atmospheric pressure to velocity makes no sense.

Take for instants the Earth average diameter of 12.742 km and the average orbital velocity of 107,208 km/h around the Sun and you´ll get a value of the orbital velocity pressure of 8.413 for the Earth. (Admitted, I don´t know how to describe this value in scientific terms)

You realize that simply dividing these things doesn't give a pressure, right?

A pressure is a force per unit area: you divide a force by an area. In this, you are dividing a velocity by a distance. All that tells you is what fraction of an hour it takes to move the diameter of the Earth.

That isn't a 'pressure' at all.