Recycling-

View previous topic View next topic Go down

Recycling-

Post by Ciaolo on Thu Jan 12, 2017 6:38 am

I opened this thread to talk about recycling. There has been some propositions, ideas, work in progress simulators etc.

I'm starting it with this idea:

All matter, planets and stars as well, recycle spinning photons up to a certain spin count, so they can possibly be recycling particles like electrons and protons as well as photons.

Ciaolo

Posts : 59
Join date : 2016-09-08

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Recycling-

Post by Jared Magneson on Thu Jan 12, 2017 12:36 pm

I'm very interested in the recycling process as well. Do the incoming photons only bounce off the proton's particle, or do they bounce around inside a few times? It seems like at the proton/electron level, there would be a lot more inter-photon hits since we're much smaller than say, the Earth or something.

But I'm struggling to accurately model this with any level of precision. I still have to "fake" a lot of the physics right now.

Jared Magneson

Posts : 203
Join date : 2016-10-11

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Recycling-

Post by Ciaolo on Thu Jan 12, 2017 12:59 pm

What's that? It looks like the Milky Way in Gamma Rays

Ciaolo

Posts : 59
Join date : 2016-09-08

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Recycling-

Post by Jared Magneson on Thu Jan 12, 2017 1:25 pm

That's just a higher-res rendering of my particles from the Proton Charge video I did awhile back, showing incoming photons & anti-photons in yellow and green, and outgoing charge in orange and blue.

Video here, if you haven't seen it:

And here's a "pic" of the Milky Way's gamma output, for comparison. Note that this is of course just (bad) CGI, much like my stuff so far:



The problem with my model is that it's an animation model (at this point), with three "fields" driving the simulation. Two Newton fields (gravity points, think of them as non-interacting masses) to pull the photons in, and a vortex field to give it all spin. In reality, we don't have any of those fields, just straight collisions (charge) and gravity. So I'm simulating it here by cheating in the same way NASA or the rest of those losers do it, basically, which is frustrating but I was trying to make a decent visualization.



But the real model should look more like Mathis's diagram:

Jared Magneson

Posts : 203
Join date : 2016-10-11

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Recycling-

Post by Ciaolo on Thu Jan 12, 2017 1:35 pm

I see what you mean, anyway I was talking about the original image:
https://apod.nasa.gov/apod/image/1011/bubble_fermi_big.jpg

In the image you posted they completely deleted the gamma ray cones and created these bubbles starting from x-rays which probably are going out at 30 degrees but don't form bubbles.

Ciaolo

Posts : 59
Join date : 2016-09-08

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Recycling-

Post by Jared Magneson on Thu Jan 12, 2017 2:03 pm

Yes, that image was heavily fictional for sure. It's troubling, but most of the images of the Earth and our galaxy are straight fictions or CGI, which is hard for me since that's what I do for a living, and of course I struggle for accuracy so others don't discount my stuff in the same way.

But back to recycling. I'm still working on that proton charge animation, only discarding all the fake fields and trying for just collisions and spins. Nevyn's work on spins is very helpful here. But my issue is getting enough photons into my software to make it a valid simulation, you know? After a few billion, things start to bog down even on my wicked computers. So it's a bit of a struggle.

I'll post up the new video once it's done, maybe it'll give us some insight into what's happening inside the proton. But my guess is that the emissions curve because of incoming ambient charge potentials AND because of relativity and gravity (to a lesser extent). That is to say, the photons aren't forming curved paths on their own. It's a result of the motion of the main body and gravity, is what I'm getting at.

Jared Magneson

Posts : 203
Join date : 2016-10-11

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Recycling-

Post by Jared Magneson on Thu Jan 12, 2017 2:57 pm

Ciaolo wrote:All matter, planets and stars as well, recycle spinning photons up to a certain spin count, so they can possibly be recycling particles like electrons and protons as well as photons.

Are you suggesting that protons and electrons are pushing through (for example) the Earth in a similar fashion, or that perhaps photons are spinning-up into these larger particles on their way through a large body? Increasing its density and mass along the way?

Jared Magneson

Posts : 203
Join date : 2016-10-11

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Recycling-

Post by Ciaolo on Fri Jan 13, 2017 2:20 pm

I was suggesting the former.

Photons increasing their spins while inside a larger particle would probably disrupt that particle and the inside photon as well, so I don't think is possible, not when the size difference is too low.

Ciaolo

Posts : 59
Join date : 2016-09-08

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Recycling-

Post by LongtimeAirman on Fri Jan 13, 2017 8:41 pm

.


I’ll paraphrase (for practice).

All matter recycles charge. Charge is photons. Matter is charged particles - spun-up b-photons. The charge particle is shown here in green, it can be an electron, proton or the Earth. Charge can enter or exit a charge particle most anywhere, but we can still diagram the main tendencies; as in, charge tends to enter at the poles and is mostly emitted at the equator, well actually +/- 30deg for the Earth. The angular velocity difference between the pole and equator is the main reason why; the faster the particle spins, the closer the emissions will approach the equator.

The recycling diagram also shows photons entering the south pole (dark blue), and anti-photons entering the north pole (red). The charge intersecting within the charge particle tend to collide against each other and cause the angular change between entry and exit. In the case of the Earth we must also remember that every charged particle - electron and proton - on or within the planet also constantly recycles charge.

Jarred wrote. That is to say, the photons aren't forming curved paths on their own. It's a result of the motion of the main body and gravity, is what I'm getting at.

Airman. Please elaborate. How does gravity apply? I can see curves forming within the charged particle (due to collisions). What causes the circles to close outside the charged particle? The red and blue circles are actually three dimensional intersecting torroids. If we take the charged particle to be a galaxy, then I would agree that the matter distribution throughout space about a galaxy may be disposed to cause photons to return to the galactic center; but how can this diagram possibly apply to the electron, proton or even the Earth?

As I’ve indicated before, I just don’t see how light-speed particles could form external curved paths. The only answer I see is that there must be sub-light charge matter encompassing the visible matter. I’d be happy to see otherwise.

Ciaolo wrote:All matter, planets and stars as well, recycle spinning photons up to a certain spin count, so they can possibly be recycling particles like electrons and protons as well as photons.

Airman. Stars eject electrons and protons all the time. So does the Earth. Is that recycling? At the Earth’s scale, as you say, I would tend to agree that it is.

...

Recently I said I believe that recycling is equivalent to collisions. Anyone care to discuss?
.

LongtimeAirman
Admin

Posts : 583
Join date : 2014-08-10

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Recycling-

Post by Jared Magneson on Fri Jan 13, 2017 10:06 pm

LongtimeAirman wrote:As I’ve indicated before, I just don’t see how light-speed particles could form external curved paths. The only answer I see is that there must be sub-light charge matter encompassing the visible matter. I’d be happy to see otherwise.

(...)

Recently I said I believe that recycling is equivalent to collisions. Anyone care to discuss?  
.

I believe you've answered the curved paths in a sense, with your last paragraph. I don't think the path of any given photon has any actual curvature, as in two motion vectors forming an acceleration (as any curve in motion must be), but rather the curvature is given to potentials of motion in the same way that the charge photons "enter at the poles". I think that they're being diverted, that some of them anyway are being redirected as they meet opposing or other fields.

To study the motions I drew up a quick diagram, showing how the Earth's charge field might interact with the sun's and the Jovian's, as well as the incoming galactic (ambient) charge field. Consider: there's enough incoming charge to power everything locally, so galactic charge isn't exactly sparse. It may not trump the solar wind or the Jovian incoming charge, but it must also be much denser than space or we wouldn't have so much charge at the sun.



(click for full size) http://i.imgur.com/4PX21VK.jpg

So as the Earth emits charge at 30° N and S primarily, that charge encounters
- insolation
- Jovian incoming charge
- galactic incoming charge
in that order. Might this be enough to cause the looping redirection we see in Mathis's papers and in many other diagrams and even photos? Surely not all charge will be recursive, but some could be? Not to say it need enter the Earth again, it's not a circuit or else we wouldn't repel the Moon or Venus or any other body, but could this explain the motions a bit?

Another component I didn't diagram here very well is that incoming Jovian radiation gets denser relative to outgoing solar radiation, the closer you get to the sun - and the same would be true of Earth's radiation. So on the sun-side, the Earth's charge is far more likely to collide with solar radiation (since on the dark side, it's blocked by the Earth itself to some extent. So my guess is there's a lopsidedness to this effect, with the far side being blasted out further. And we see this effect in many diagrams as well, though they just call it "magnetic field lines" instead of what it actually is: collisions.


Jared Magneson

Posts : 203
Join date : 2016-10-11

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Recycling-

Post by Ciaolo on Sat Jan 14, 2017 5:42 am

If we take collisions as the reason for recycling, we would expect to have areas where a certain % of photons are travelling in a given direction.

Big objects have the poles as areas where the photon wind can enter easily, so are aligned by bombardment to a position where they receive at the poles charge from areas where the % of photons going in the right directions is higher.

Then the charge is disrupted inside the object; the photons are scattered and are ejected from all the surface, but the majority from 30° N and S.

Outgoing charge collides with that charge that is going in the initial direction, so it will collide and mix and the general directions will change, in a way very different than a recycling object.

This is why I'm not sure about a closed cycle, not short at least.

Anyway, collisions will also let us think about different particles having different probable areas of ejection from the recycling object, because they have different speeds and sizes.

Ciaolo

Posts : 59
Join date : 2016-09-08

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Recycling-

Post by Jared Magneson on Sat Jan 14, 2017 3:32 pm

Ciaolo wrote:This is why I'm not sure about a closed cycle, not short at least.

Yeah, I see no closed cycle in actuality. Certainly not a circuit in the way the EU people think. The recursion in the diagrams above is (I believe) a tendency of shape, not of circuitry, as in we get that double-torus shape in profile but I don't think the photons actually flow back into the emitter in a loop. I could very well be wrong, but if an emissive body somehow "pulled" back in those photons, it would diminish its charge strength dramatically. That is to say, in this example, the Earth wouldn't be repelling the moon or other bodies as much if we took some of its charge strength out of the system.

Jared Magneson

Posts : 203
Join date : 2016-10-11

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Recycling-

Post by LongtimeAirman on Sat Jan 14, 2017 9:35 pm

.
Jared Wrote. I don't think the path of any given photon has any actual curvature, as in two motion vectors forming an acceleration (as any curve in motion must be), but rather the curvature is given to potentials of motion in the same way that the charge photons "enter at the poles". I think that they're being diverted, that some of them anyway are being redirected as they meet opposing or other fields.

Airman. I think you’ve got all the factors identified in your quick diagram. A good start to a planetary charge channel discussion. I need to give more consideration to the magnetic components.

The curves represent "potentials of motion" - Ok, agreed. With respect to the magnetosphere diagram, I don’t see it as “potentials of motion” but as “equal charge potential” surfaces. Inside the surface the Earth’s emissions are greater. Outside, the solar emissions have the higher density. We can have a series of surfaces, like an onion's layers, corresponding to different charge quanta, where we might find specific ions. They are caught in energy wells, balanced by the Earth’s and Sun’s charge emissions. That matter forms part of the Earth’s recycling continuum. I hadn’t associated it with the red or dark blue circles; nevertheless, some of that matter may join accumulations that are funneled back to the poles, or more likely drift “behind (or beyond) the Earth”, part of a long tail of matter that I believed - up until now - would feed the asteroids, Mars, or the Jovians.

Miles usually shows only half the recycling diagram – say between the earth and sun. The other half – beyond Earth – may be as extended and distorted as the magnetosphere. Is that why you haven’t included it in your quick diagram Jared? Maybe that “tail of matter” isn’t necessarily lost. It is certainly “exposed”, hanging out in the solar wind. Should we expect that much of it routinely cycles back to the Earth? This whole train of thought seems to support my sublight matter distribution belief – very diffuse bands of matter that aid in directionalizing the photon flows around particles.

C1. If we take collisions as the reason for recycling, we would expect to have areas where a certain % of photons are travelling in a given direction.
A1. I don’t see “collisions as the reason for recycling” so much as all collisions are the recycling event. It doesn’t make sense that a collision includes a curved path feedback loop. I agree that photons are channelized during collisions/internal recycling.
C2. Big objects have the poles as areas where the photon wind can enter easily, so are aligned by bombardment to a position where they receive at the poles charge from areas where the % of photons going in the right directions is higher.
A2. Agreed. I think atomic charge flows match what you describe best. The Earth/Sun system is additionally complicated by tilt, annual orbits, distance variations and the ratio of matter to antimatter, other planets.
C3. Then the charge is disrupted inside the object; the photons are scattered and are ejected from all the surface, but the majority from 30° N and S.
A3. Agreed.
C4. Outgoing charge collides with that charge that is going in the initial direction, so it will collide and mix and the general directions will change, in a way very different than a recycling object. This is why I'm not sure about a closed cycle, not short at least.
A4. The feedback loop may be a generalization. The diagram shows just the main trends. There are variations, such as internal pole to pole channel traffic.
C5. Anyway, collisions will also let us think about different particles having different probable areas of ejection from the recycling object, because they have different speeds and sizes.
A5. Agreed. A natural distribution that I referred to above “like an onion”, with different energy quanta levels.

Please consider high photon concentrations - vorticies. Here’s a quote from Miles recent new paper , The Wilkes Land Anomaly and the Charge Field. http://milesmathis.com/wilkes.pdf.
Miles wrote:Therefore, we have a strong incoming vortex of photons at both poles. This is what we are seeing in the GRACE and GOCE data, not craters or buried objects.
Vortices imply rotary motion. How is that possible with photons alone? How does one arrive at a vortex shaped “potential of motion” without the actual curved motion?
.

LongtimeAirman
Admin

Posts : 583
Join date : 2014-08-10

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Recycling-

Post by Ciaolo on Sun Jan 15, 2017 6:53 am

Is it a vortex, or an incoming wind deviated by the atmosphere and the rotating planet, so that the observed local phenomenon behaves like a vortex?

Ciaolo

Posts : 59
Join date : 2016-09-08

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Recycling-

Post by LongtimeAirman on Sun Jan 15, 2017 3:26 pm

.
Ciaolo wrote. Is it a vortex, or an incoming wind deviated by the atmosphere and the rotating planet, so that the observed local phenomenon behaves like a vortex?
Airman. I believe the atmosphere above the pole is observed to form a vortex.

Here’s some additional info that we can review and interpret from a Mathis perspective.  

Saturn’s Strange Hot Spot Explained
Posted on February 5, 2005 by Wal Thornhill
http://www.holoscience.com/wp/saturns-strange-hot-spot-explained

The posting contains these two images:

.

The Saturn image is much richer than then our recycling diagram. The hottest areas seem to be emission, making the hottest point the direct pole-to-pole through charge flow. I'm not at all certain. The "gravity anomaly" Miles describes in http://milesmathis.com/wilkes.pdf talks only about incoming charge. The Venus pole image shows the yin/yang rotational symmetry associated with the vortex motion. Wal’s posting also includes:

The following excerpt is from the Keck Observatory News:
http://www2.keck.hawaii.edu/news/science/saturn/index.html
MAUNA KEA (February 4, 2005) Astronomers using the Keck I telescope in Hawaii are learning much more about a strange, thermal “hot spot” on Saturn that is located at the tip of the planet’s south pole. In what the team is calling the sharpest thermal views of Saturn ever taken from the ground, the new set of infrared images suggest a warm polar vortex at Saturn’s south pole — the first to ever be discovered in the solar system. This warm polar cap is home to a distinct compact hot spot, believed to contain the highest measured temperatures on Saturn. A paper announcing the results appears in the Feb. 4th issue of “Science.”

A “polar vortex” is a persistent, large-scale weather pattern, likened to a jet stream on Earth that occurs in the upper atmosphere. On Earth, the Arctic Polar Vortex is typically located over eastern North America in Canada and plunges cold artic air to the Northern Plains in the United States. Earth’s Antarctic Polar Vortex, centered over Antarctica, is responsible for trapping air and creating unusual chemistry, such as the effects that create the “ozone hole.” Polar vortices are found on Earth, Jupiter, Mars and Venus, and are colder than their surroundings. But new images from the W. M. Keck Observatory show the first evidence of a polar vortex at much warmer temperatures. And the warmer, compact region at the pole itself is quite unusual.

“There is nothing like this compact warm cap in the Earth’s atmosphere,” said Dr. Glenn S. Orton, of the Jet Propulsion Laboratory in Pasadena and lead author of the paper describing the results. “Meteorologists have detected sudden warming of the pole, but on Earth this effect is very short-term. This phenomenon on Saturn is longer-lived because we’ve been seeing hints of it in our data for at least two years.”

The puzzle isn’t that Saturn’s south pole is warm; after all, it has been exposed to 15 years of continuous sunlight, having just reached its summer Solstice in late 2002. But both the distinct boundary of a warm polar vortex some 30 degrees latitude from the southern pole and a very hot “tip” right at the pole were completely unexpected.

‘If the increased southern temperatures are solely the result of seasonality, then the temperature should increase gradually with increasing latitude, but it doesn’t,’ added Dr. Orton. ‘We see that the temperature increases abruptly by several degrees near 70 degrees south and again at 87 degrees south.’

The abrupt temperature changes may be caused by a concentration of sunlight-absorbing particulates in the upper atmosphere which trap in heat at the stratosphere. This theory explains why the hot spot appears dark in visible light and contains the highest measured temperatures on the planet. However, this alone does not explain why the particles themselves are constrained to the general southern part of Saturn and particularly to a compact area near the tip of Saturn’s south pole. Forced downwelling of relatively dry air would explain this effect, which is consistent with other observations taken of the tropospheric clouds, but more observations are needed.

More details may be forthcoming from an infrared spectrometer on the joint NASA/ESA Cassini mission which is currently orbiting Saturn. The Composite Infrared Spectrometer (CIRS) measures continuous spectral information spanning the same wavelengths as the Keck observations, but the two experiments are expected to complement each other. Between March and May in 2005, the CIRS instrument on Cassini will be able to look at the south polar region in detail for the first time. The discovery of the hot spot at Saturn’s south pole has prompted the CIRS science team, one of whom is Dr. Orton, to spend more time looking at this area.

“One of the obvious questions is whether Saturn’s north pole is anomalously cold and whether a cold polar vortex has been established there,” added Dr. Orton. “This is a question that can only be answered by the Cassini’s CIRS experiment in the near term, as this region can not be seen from Earth using ground-based instruments.”
.

LongtimeAirman
Admin

Posts : 583
Join date : 2014-08-10

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Recycling-

Post by LongtimeAirman on Sun Jan 15, 2017 4:47 pm

.
I should include the third illustration from Wal's posting as well.

I'm tempted to tinker with the recycling diagram too, and it seems like a good start.
.

LongtimeAirman
Admin

Posts : 583
Join date : 2014-08-10

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Recycling and Saturn's Rings

Post by LongtimeAirman on Thu Jan 19, 2017 7:42 pm

.

I’ve been giving the subject plenty of thought, including spin.

Progress! I now see the recycling diagram’s external loops as equipotential field lines for our particle’s charge field. Emitted photons do tend to divert external photons along those lines by both direct and spin collision components.

I also see how diffuse matter at low velocities can be bound or limited by these surfaces. Captured by the equal resistance of the particle’s charge field and gravity. Diffuse matter on equipotential surfaces greater than +/-30deg should recycle back into the Earth’s poles. Matter would appear to collect, and form a sort of equatorial band or halo when it is caught less than +/-30deg and beyond the intersecting loops.

Saturn's biggest halo revealed
'If the ring were visible from Earth, it would be twice the size of the full moon', says researcher
https://www.theguardian.com/science/2009/oct/07/saturn-ring-space-exploration

I also added additional emissions at +/-70deg trying to match Saturn, but then I saw a wonder.


Saturn’s rings appear to be an accumulation of matter caught inside the intersecting loops.

What do you think?
.


Last edited by LongtimeAirman on Thu Jan 19, 2017 8:00 pm; edited 1 time in total (Reason for editing : Changed "dominant charge field" to gravity.)

LongtimeAirman
Admin

Posts : 583
Join date : 2014-08-10

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Recycling-

Post by Nevyn on Thu Jan 19, 2017 10:00 pm

LongtimeAirman wrote:.


I now see the recycling diagram’s external loops as equipotential field lines for our particle’s charge field.

Are you applying that diagram to a particle? It is meant to be applied to large entities like planets, stars and galaxies, not small things like electrons and protons. I wouldn't even apply it to an atom or molecule because the volume is too small for the speed of the charge. The earth has about 12,000km (6,000 in the radius and another 6,000 to reach the Van Allen belt) to turn that charge around but a proton doesn't. At the size of a proton, the charge field is not dense enough to do that and if it was then the proton would be strangled (i.e. no room for its own motion).
avatar
Nevyn
Admin

Posts : 795
Join date : 2014-09-11

View user profile http://www.nevyns-lab.com

Back to top Go down

Re: Recycling-

Post by LongtimeAirman on Thu Jan 19, 2017 10:20 pm

Nevyn, You're correct. Call it the general case, it applies to the scale of Saturn and not to the small.

LongtimeAirman
Admin

Posts : 583
Join date : 2014-08-10

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Recycling-

Post by LloydK on Sun Jan 22, 2017 12:48 am

I still think the energy of the Sun and planets is mostly stored. If you take the Sun out of the picture, look how few photons we would detect. Almost none. Most would be IR from the Earth. So the Sun can't be receiving nearly as many photons as it's sending out. What it's sending out is mostly what it has stored.

LloydK

Posts : 402
Join date : 2014-08-10

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Recycling-

Post by Nevyn on Sun Jan 22, 2017 6:22 pm

Matter stores charge so anything made of matter will store charge too. This is a very temporary storage mechanism though. If you suddenly took away the Sun, then the Planets would keep radiating charge for a little bit of time but will run out soon enough. Their output would also be severely reduced. Probably not enough for the Earth to keep the Moon away (it would definitely move closer but I assume it would strike the Earth eventually, probably well before the Earth stopped radiating charge).

The Sun does store charge so it can survive (and we can survive) having less charge input for a certain amount of time (which could be decades, maybe centuries, maybe millennia) but it can't survive indefinitely. Miles does discuss this in one of his papers, I think it is the paper about ice-ages and/or the solar cycles.

Your blanket statement "So the Sun can't be receiving nearly as many photons as it's sending out. What it's sending out is mostly what it has stored." does not hold. You have to change it to say that the Sun can send out more charge than it is receiving for a certain amount of time. However, you must remember that the Sun must have previously been in a state where it was receiving more charge than it was radiating. Otherwise, where did all that stored charge come from?

My guess is that the Sun, and stars in general, have a certain level of radiation that they want to emit, based on their size and density. They will try to maintain that output level even when receiving more or less charge input. There will be limits to both though. A star can not maintain the same output if the input keeps dropping. It will run out of stored charge. On the other side, it can not maintain the same output if the input keeps growing. It can only store so much charge and it must grow in size or emit more charge to accommodate.
avatar
Nevyn
Admin

Posts : 795
Join date : 2014-09-11

View user profile http://www.nevyns-lab.com

Back to top Go down

Re: Recycling-

Post by Jared Magneson on Mon Jan 23, 2017 5:56 pm

LongtimeAirman wrote:
I also added additional emissions at +/-70deg trying to match Saturn, but then I saw a wonder.


Saturn’s rings appear to be an accumulation of matter caught inside the intersecting loops.

What do you think?
.

I think that to really determine if the charge recycling is causing or confining the rings, we'd need a scale model of Saturn relative to its rings, and also a scaled charge field as well. It took me a bit to find actual numbers on the radius of the rings, but:

Locations of rings (in Saturn radii).
D ring 1.110 - 1.236
C ring 1.239 - 1.527
B ring 1.527 - 1.951
A ring 2.027 - 2.269
F ring 2.326
G ring 2.82 - 2.90
E ring 3 - 8

So plugging these numbers into the scale model (using Saturn's radius as 1), I came up with this scale model:



Does that seem right? Or should I be doubling the radius of each ring, to account for diameter? The inner rings seem absurdly close to the planet, unless I double the radii.

I'm not sure what part charge plays in the locations of the rings, though we do know that Saturn's charge emission balances out (as best it can) its moons' orbits and sorts them in that way. Is the recycling "squeezing" the rings into place as well?

Jared Magneson

Posts : 203
Join date : 2016-10-11

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Recycling-

Post by LongtimeAirman on Tue Jan 24, 2017 1:31 am

.
Jared, Thanks for your interest. Quick feedback. I took your numbers and overlayed my non-projective top-view mapping onto yours. They don't seem to agree except along the horizontal line I've included.

Your d ring inner edge seems to start at radius 1, instead of 1.11. Otherwise, we are close.

I suspect each ring will involve different emissions. I'll speculate later.

Here's planetary source data Nevyn showed me a couple of years ago.
Saturn Homepage
http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/planetary/planets/saturnpage.html
Saturnian Satellite Fact Sheet
http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/planetary/factsheet/saturniansatfact.html
Saturnian Rings Fact Sheet
http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/planetary/factsheet/satringfact.html
Index of Planetary Fact Sheets - More detailed fact sheets for each planet
http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/planetary/planetfact.html
.

LongtimeAirman
Admin

Posts : 583
Join date : 2014-08-10

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Recycling-

Post by Jared Magneson on Tue Jan 24, 2017 4:54 am

Perhaps the materials are "sorted" by charge to a lesser extent, and by their orbital... progenitors, I suppose? If they were caused by collisions amongst moons, for example, that would give us the local densities. And maybe the charge field sorts and spreads them out later?

From what I've read, the rings of Saturn are very thin vertically, relative to Saturn's Y-axis (rotation). Maybe charge compresses them this way, since most of the progenitors wouldn't necessarily have been along that axis?


In my previous sketch-scene, the D-ring torus is located at radius 1.173, with inner bounds at 1.11 and outer bounds at 1.236. As you can see, that's obscenely close to the planet. I'm pretty sure my diagram isn't correct, and the radius needs to be doubled. Sometimes the math bogs me down and I can't tell where I went wrong, as opposed to Mathis who seems to figure these things out intuitively.

Jared Magneson

Posts : 203
Join date : 2016-10-11

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Recycling-

Post by Jared Magneson on Tue Jan 24, 2017 8:24 pm

So I loaded up Universe Sandbox² to check out Saturn, per the mainstream standard-model layout and indeed, the rings are terribly close. Only 6,000K above the "surface" of Saturn, which is about 64 times closer than our moon is to the Earth's surface.

At first it looked like we didn't have many possible progenitors, considering how wide and wild Saturn's moons orbit the planet and how far most of them are away from the rings.



But zooming in a bit showed multiple moons inside the rings, which we knew already but it was kinda cool to look at their positions.



http://imgur.com/a/taSwS
(Full-size pics)

If anyone hasn't heard of it yet or tried it, Universe Sandbox² is pretty much the best astrological/astronomical program out there. You can simulate anything - every moon in the solar system orbiting the Earth, for example, and the resultant collisions. Or just view "how things work" now, although as we all know here their math is highly flawed when not outright wrong. But it supports GPU processing and is really good-looking, too.

I imagine we'll see "NASA photos" in Google searches which are actually just Universe Sandbox² screenshots, sooner or later. Hilarious. At this point I'm not sure how many of our space photos are actually real anyway.

Jared Magneson

Posts : 203
Join date : 2016-10-11

View user profile

Back to top Go down

View previous topic View next topic Back to top


 
Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum