## Squares

General FreeBASIC programming questions.
Posts: 1144
Joined: May 24, 2007 22:10
Location: The Netherlands

### Re: Squares

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neutron_star
I'm currious how this will fit your theory.
albert
Posts: 4388
Joined: Sep 28, 2006 2:41
Location: California, USA

### Re: Squares

The core of a neutron star , would be the same , as for all other heavenly bodies..Solid ether core..

With stars you got a huge core size , and the heat generated by the core would probably prevent a liquid mantle ,
So for a star , you might have: solid core , particle soup outer core and then atmosphere.
I don't think a star would have a molecular liquid mantle. ( but i could be wrong..)

The ether spinning into the core , spawns off particle tornadoes. theres nothing in my theory that would prevent those particles from all being neutrons.
So a neutron star is possible.. But like all other stars , planets , moons , it would have a solid ether core.

They say a star is a neutron star if its emission spectra is the same as a neutron.
A single neutron has an emission spectra , in spite of the fact that it has no electron for quantum mechanics to work.
When you destroy a neutron , it releases a spectrum of color.. And they've found some stars that match that spectra.
albert
Posts: 4388
Joined: Sep 28, 2006 2:41
Location: California, USA

### Re: Squares

My "Ether Theory" the cores of the bodies are solid ether wound up..

So, you have a solid core
Then you got a particle soup outer core. ( quarks and gluons.) that the core spawns off.
Those quarks and gluons might form neutrons or protons.
It would seem almost impossible for it to only make neutrons. But i suppose it's possible , since they say there are neutron stars.

Then with planets : you have a liquid mantle , when the quarks and gluons have formed atoms. those real hot atoms float up to the crust.
So the planets make hydrogen and helium the most , heavier atoms less. The gassious atoms float up out of the mantel and crust into the atmosphere.
The heavier atoms mostly stay in the liquid mantel...Until they come out of a volcano..
Posts: 1144
Joined: May 24, 2007 22:10
Location: The Netherlands

### Re: Squares

Al nice, but If you cannot create concrete formula's and results from it that can be tested, you are doing philosophy and not science. And philosophy might keep the mind busy, but it is pretty useless, as Galileo Galilei showed 400 years ago.
albert
Posts: 4388
Joined: Sep 28, 2006 2:41
Location: California, USA

### Re: Squares

The cores spinning like a hurricane are always spawning off new , quarks , gluons and electrons that become the outer core.
Those particles in the outer core , form into atoms and then molecules and then float up into the the liquid mantle.

The lighter gas-atoms are the most likely to be produced.
Heavier atoms are less likely..Maybe theres a formula to predict the probability of a certain heavier atom forming in the outer core??

Philosophy is the science of thinking about and around a subject , till you have come to a concrete conclusion ( answer ).
People writing software are always using Philosophy , to try to make the programs faster and faster and solve problems.
Philosophy , is always asking , what if this , what if that. How does this or that , solve the problem.

My theory is heavy on philosophy and short on formula.
Scientists won't buy it , till i come up with formulas , to prove the philosophy.
I'm not schooled in the Calculus , so i might not be able to originate any formulas..

https://www.space.com/58-the-sun-format ... stics.html
albert
Posts: 4388
Joined: Sep 28, 2006 2:41
Location: California, USA

### Re: Squares

It might be , that while constantly spawning new gluons , quarks , electrons ; the outer core is also spawning anti-particles.

The outer core is just as likely to make anti-particles as it is to make particles.

Those particles and anti-particles come together en mass and create a huge explosion ( solar flare. )
albert
Posts: 4388
Joined: Sep 28, 2006 2:41
Location: California, USA

### Re: Squares

Just the fact that you can't orbit backwards should be proof of an ether..
You have to orbit going to the east. you can't orbit going to the west..( unless you power through the entire orbit.)

Same way with the sun, you have to orbit the way the planets all orbit..
Richard
Posts: 2867
Joined: Jan 15, 2007 20:44
Location: Australia

### Re: Squares

Albert wrote:Just the fact that you can't orbit backwards should be proof of an ether.
You have to orbit going to the east. you can't orbit going to the west..( unless you power through the entire orbit.)
Same way with the sun, you have to orbit the way the planets all orbit.
Now you are just being silly.
Even without the ether it is still cheaper to launch towards the East as you get a 1000 mph advantage due to Earth rotation. If you launch West you do not get the first 1000 mph for free, you have to buy fuel for that extra 1000 mph, then you must buy another 1000 mph to get to the orbital speed you would have with an Easterly launch. That makes a launch to the West 2000 mph more expensive than a launch to the East. You still orbit the Earth at the same speed relative to the Sun and Stars, but the satellite appears to travel much faster when viewed from the rotating Earth's surface, and so it is more difficult to track, just when you need tracking most, because;

Satellites usually follow other satellites in the same orbit at the same speed, so the chance of a collision is very small, as it is for cars that drive on the correct side of the road. If you launch West you must face the onslaught of all the cheaply launched satellites orbiting towards the East. You may, like them, be in a 90 minute orbit, but because you are driving in the wrong direction around the roundabout, you will meet each and every satellite head-on, every 45 minutes, with a difference in speed of about 14 km per second. I doubt the extra cost of the Western launch will be worth that many catastrophic contraflow collisions.

The same holds true for Solar orbits. It is much cheaper to launch in the direction the Earth orbits the Sun than against it. If you want a retrograde solar orbit then you can use a slingshot off the moon or another planet to accelerate and change direction.

If you are in Earth orbit you would have to fly a figure 8, low around the moon to return into a retrograde Earth orbit, where you will run out of fuel avoiding all those continuous contraflow collisions.

Next thing Albert, you will be ignoring the Earth's rotation and claiming a polar orbit is impossible because the satellite would fall out of the sky. Even Chicken Little knows it is not the orbiting satellite that falls, but the sky that rises ahead of the satellite.
caseih
Posts: 1311
Joined: Feb 26, 2007 5:32

### Re: Squares

albert wrote:Just the fact that you can't orbit backwards should be proof of an ether..
You have to orbit going to the east. you can't orbit going to the west..( unless you power through the entire orbit.)

Same way with the sun, you have to orbit the way the planets all orbit..

Most planets and bodies in this solar system orbit in roughly the same direction, and roughly on the same plane, because of how the solar system was formed (a spinning accretion disk of matter), not because of some ether or law that says a body must only orbit in one direction. There's absolutely no physical law that says a body can't orbit another body in any direction.

Besides that, what is "east" and what is "west?" There are constellations of satellites including GPS around this earth that orbit in all manner of directions, so as to cover the entire surface of the earth with signal. What makes you think everything orbits in some specific direction? What about polar orbits? Besides that, the earth is constantly revolving, so something in orbit, regardless of it's orbital direction, is going to appear from the surface of the earth to be progressing from west to east, even if relative to the sun it's completely different. Note that an object in orbit cares nothing about what direction the other body it's orbiting is rotating. The only relationship between a body's rotation and another body's orbit around it is how it was formed in the first place. If the moon broke off of the earth, then of course it will orbit in the same direction (roughly) as the Earth's rotation, because that's where it got it's orbital energy from in the first place.
albert
Posts: 4388
Joined: Sep 28, 2006 2:41
Location: California, USA

### Re: Squares

You can't do a polar orbit... The closest to polar you can get , is like 4+ degrees from polar.. It's called "Near Polar"

https://marine.rutgers.edu/cool/educati ... bits2.html

The way the ether is pulling in , prohibits 90 degree polar orbits.
Richard
Posts: 2867
Joined: Jan 15, 2007 20:44
Location: Australia

### Re: Squares

Albert wrote:The way the ether is pulling in , prohibits 90 degree polar orbits.
Simple traffic management requires satellites in near polar orbits pass at the poles without colliding. For that reason they cannot use perfect polar orbits which would require stop : start traffic lights at the poles, but instead incline the orbits slightly to use the poles as roundabouts. Because satellites have an initial cost advantage with an Easterly launch, they retain some of that easterly momentum. The orbits go straight through the roundabout, but keep a few degrees to the right hand side of the North pole, so they appear to pass the North pole with anticlockwise traffic flow. That same orbit passes to the Left of the South pole, so they appear to pass the South pole clockwise, viewed from below. That explains why we drive on the left hand side of the road in Australia and South Africa.

Funny isn't it, how advanced Orbital and Celestial Mechanics texts do not mention an æther.
dodicat
Posts: 5479
Joined: Jan 10, 2006 20:30
Location: Scotland

### Re: Squares

We drive on the left hand side here, and we are nearly antipodal to Australia and well skewered from South Africa.
We cannot see the North Pole from here, so if satellites are only a few degrees to the right of it or left of it, they remain invisible.
If celestial mechanics used ether, then they would have to guess the viscosity of the stuff, and no matter what it was, it would surely clutter up (or even mess up) their calculations.
Posts: 1144
Joined: May 24, 2007 22:10
Location: The Netherlands

### Re: Squares

Stuff in space: http://stuffin.space/ (warning, makes my laptop run hot).
albert
Posts: 4388
Joined: Sep 28, 2006 2:41
Location: California, USA

### Re: Squares

There is no accretion disk!!

The sun pulling in ether in spirals , causes the ether in those spirals to form planet cores.
When the cores reach a certain size , they get really , really hot , and they begin pulling ether in, and that ether spiraling in spawns gluons, quarks, and electrons.

When the core gets big enough , it spawns an outer core, which creates particle , and those particles formed in that outer core combine into atoms and create a mantle and crust.

Moons are created by planets the same way that planets are created by stars.
albert
Posts: 4388
Joined: Sep 28, 2006 2:41
Location: California, USA

### Re: Squares

There's a lady living in my apartment complex named Madelin , and she has a poodle she named Biscuit , so i came up with a rhyme.

A biscuit , a triscuit , pull em down and whisk it.

Gotta pull out the egg beater and whisk up some eggs..

Maybe it has something to do with ether???