From: <sorincosofret@elkadot.com>Date: Mon, Apr 18, 2016 at 5:06 PMSubject: Electrostatic (Van der Graaf device) and periodic motion in universe (II)
Electrostatic (Van der Graaf device) and periodic motion in universe (II)
It was my intention to tackle with Hubble law and dark energy in this newsletter, but due to the great number of comments received to the previous one, I considered it is necessary to come back with some detailed explanations. It seems that even top astronomy university professors and/or emeritus professors have had a difficult time digesting the consequences of a simple mathematical formula. I am a little bit amazed that a simple arithmetic formula has created so many struggles and in the end some people even unsubscribed from receiving further newsletters. In some of the received emails, people argued that for pulsars a lot of corrections are made, including the Römer component, but I am not aware of them and I should read more texts in the field!
Really? I thank them for this tip, but I suppose they will see the situation with another eye after this follow-up!
It is also my fault that I started presenting the general frame of periodic motion in universe making reference to all known periodic phenomenon (exoplanets, binary stars, pulsars, etc) as a whole, although there are some particularities for each of them.
As usual, I will start the newsletter with simple facts, i.e. electrostatic, which can be easily verified even in improvised conditions.
Van de Graaff (VDG) device is a common component, used on large scale in laboratories and even in particles accelerators, therefore I have chosen it to be analyzed here as a prototype for all electrostatic devices. The accepted explanation of VDG can be found in any low level or advanced physic book. A VDG generator is a device designed to create static electricity and make it available for experimentation. There are two variants of VDG, with or without potential applied on second brush and both models are analyzed.
It is accepted that Van de Graaff generator works simply on the principle of triboelectricity. When two materials are rubbed or come into contact together, an ,,exchange of electrons” can take place depending on their triboelectric properties. When such transfer occurs, the material which has lost electrons will become positively charged and the one which gained electrons becomes negatively charged.
Triboelectricity is a material characteristic, this means each time when two material are rubbed or come into contact together, one of them will become ,,positive” and another ,,negative”. There are no technical possibilities to change the characteristics of a material and for example a nylon material rubbed over the same Teflon material to become positively charged today and negatively charged tomorrow. It is a law of nature (and not explained yet!) that each time when these two materials come into contact, each time the same type of ,,charges” appear on one material and opposite ,,charges “ on the other material.
If this is the conceptual framework, in case of a VDG device, it is completely impossible for a simple nylon belt to become positively charged in contact with one Teflon roller and negatively charged in contact with the second Teflon roller. Either triboelectric knowledge either actual explanation for Van der Graaf device is a nonsense.
The actual explanation of Van der Graaff device contradicts blatantly what is known about contact or induction electrification too. It is a common sense rule, that in case of influence or direct bodies contact, it is impossible to transfer a same type of charge from a body carrying a smaller charge to another body carrying a greater charge. Of course this rule can be demonstrated based on general analytical principle from physics.
According to this ,,common sense” principle of electrostatic, the sphere of VDG device should arrive in a ,,happy end” case to a maximum charge equal as value with charge produced by friction between two surface. The amount of ,,charges” produced as result of friction depend on the contact surface and material type, but in any case this charge is small, on the order of nano coulombs scale.
As consequence, after few second of VDG working, the spheres should arrive, admitting a 100% transfer of charge (by induction or contact), to the same charge as the effective charge produced in friction between belt and roller. After that, even the belt continue to rotate, due to equality of charges, no transfer or no induction can take place, because it is impossible to mount a small charge over another greater charge….
Further on, if the basic principle behind the VDG generator with charge injection is related to a simple transport of charge injected on the belt, the same simple problem must be solved: How is possible to charge the sphere to a potential greater than injection potential?
For actual theoreticians a simple cut off experiment can be performed: Instead of spraying the charge on the belt, and after that collecting the charge again from the belt and moving it on a sphere, a greater yield and a higher potential could be achieved if charges are sprayed directly on the sphere …..
In the new theory, an entire class of physics experiments (triboelectricty, electrostatic, etc) is provided with a new, simple and consistent explanation.
The link:
http://elkadot.com/index.php/en/books/electromagnetism/van-de-graaff-device
The second part of the newsletter is related to periodic motion of exoplanets and pulsars.
Observation: we should make a distinction between the real period of an exoplanet and the apparent period of an exoplanet measured by an Earth observer. The example explain how the apparent period of an exoplanet (difference between 2 eclipses ) should modify if the special theory of relativity is correct.
No astronomer provided me some data for exoplanets and their hosting stars, therefore the exemplification will be made taking into consideration the first planet discovered around Pegasi 51, i.e. Dimidium, with data found here -
conservapedia.com/51_Pegasi -
So, the star Pegasi 51 is receding from us (Solar System) with a speed of 33,7 km/s, previously measured from Doppler shift of absorption lines. The period of hot Jupiter planet – Dimidium, discovered and measured in 1995, orbiting Pegasi 51 was estimated at 4.230785 ± 0.000036 days (101.5388 h); the error in period determination is only 3,11 seconds (0.000036 days converted in seconds).
What should be the period of Dimidium in autumn 1996, after one year from its discovery?
In a terrestrial year, the Star Pegasi 51 gets farther away from Earth with a distance:
D = v×t =33,7×31557600 km =1063491120 km
1 year = 365.25 days = (365.25 days/year) × (24 hours/day) × (3600 seconds/hour) = 31557600 seconds
If light speed is constant as actual relativity supposes (300 000 km/s), than after a terrestrial year, the period of Dimidium should be increased with an amount of time necessary for light to travel the supplementary distance:
t=D/c= 1063491120/300000 = 3545 seconds, i.e. approximately one hour
By no means this expected variation can be covered by systematic error of measurement which is only 3,11 seconds or by other processes.
Not only this, but there is a pile up of the amounts during each year so in a decade the change is more than significant. Now, in 2016, the period of Dimidium should be increased with more than 20 hours and consequently all data in catalogs should be periodically adjusted. I suppose someone at the International Astronomical Union (IAU) should take care of this problem …. and I am really curios why none has observed this incongruence.
This is only the beginning of a nightmare for actual theoreticians. Let us plot this variation and see what the period of this planet few centuries ago was ……
| Time (years) | Period (days) |
| 1995 | 4.230785 |
| 1996 | 4.271815 |
| 2006 | 4.641086 |
| 2016 | 5.051387 |
| 2026 | 5.461688 |
If we go back in time and for each year we diminish the period of the planet, few centuries ago the period of the planet Dimidium was close to zero, and a little bit earlier it was negative….
This is an undergraduate student task to draw a regression line and extend it a bit, and I suppose there is no need to insist on commenting the consequences…
A simple concept is unclear to me: what does it mean for a theoretician mind a negative period for a planet?
Probably we need another mathematical acrobatics to solve this singularity and a new theory has to be proposed…
Or maybe it will better if someone will propose a pop up of planets from dark matter in the right orbit, at the right moment, in order to fit in the observations….
Going farther, there will be an entire newsletter dedicated to pulsars, therefore here only some simple facts are discussed.
Actual theoreticians should answer to a simple question: If the period of a pulsar is up to few seconds, what was the period few hours or a day ago?
If we assume for pulsars a receding velocity of few decades of km/s, the period diminishes to zero in less then few hours and after that becomes negatives too…..
If the pulsar is approaching us … the situation is the same, only the question should be reformulated...
If someone finds an answer, than we have to analyze again the <<procedure of folding>> used in pulsar data processing. For those who are not in the field, I will give some hints here: An individual pulse from a pulsar is usually weak and may not rise far enough above the noise. But if the data are ,,folded” at a pulsar’s period, the noise starts to cancel itself out, while the pulses add constructively and pop out more noticeably.
In simple words, folding means to split the received data in chunks of an certain length (let us say a second as in fig. 2) and than these chunks are lined up and added together, so that the strength of the signal at 0.1 seconds is added to the strength of the signal at 1.1 seconds, and that is added to the strength at 2.1 seconds, and so on….
These added pulses are called the “average pulse profile.”
Fig.2. Pulsar folding procedure
To the desperation of theoreticians, the folding procedure cannot be performed if the pulsar recedes from us, because in this case the signal from 1,1 second will not align perfectly with previous signal from 0,1 second, nor with the signal from 2,1 seconds and so on. Instead of a perfect overlap, after each period, the signal from pulsar will shift toward right if pulsar recedes us…..
I do not want to answer again to a large number of emails, therefore in absence of some reliable data for a specific pulsar, I will provide a simple generic example. Let us consider a pulsar with period of 1 s, having a receding velocity of 50 km/s and the procedure of folding is made over a period of half hour in chunks of 1 s.
In half hour the distance between observer and pulsar has increased with an additional distance equal with:
D=50 ×1800= 90000 km
The signal from pulsar needs a supplementary time to travel this distance so the apparent period is modified with an amount equal with:
t= D/c =90000/300000=0,3 seconds.
Let us say that in the first chunk the pulsar signal is present at 0,1 second from the thick mark. With each subsequent period, the registered pulsar signal shifts toward right, and after half hour, for the last chunk the signal is present at 0,1+0,3=0,4 seconds from the thick mark.
How could someone line up, add these signals and measure for this pulsar a stable period with eight or nine decimals from a second?
As consequence, if the folding procedure works, either pulsar are stationary relative to Earth or someone has cooked the books here too; but do not worry, this will be the smallest error in science and besides…. who cares !?
The updated link is:
http://elkadot.com/index.php/en/books/astrophysics/periodic-motion-in-universe
As far science has become very commercial these days, I will be very curios which professor or researcher will present in a talk show or a movie the next striking discovery in the field of exoplanets or pulsars….
The ,,common sense” will come back in science, although some scientists want not this to happen; for them, their career and gained academic rank are more important than scientific truth. Few people would ever believe that a single individual, with so scarce resources could change the foundation of entire exact sciences. It is regrettable that for more than 20 years, the entire scientific elite (individuals and/or organizations) have been making all the possible to keep this new theory ,,safe and aside from public eyes”, in a dusted shelf of history …..
Soon, it will come the time to write the history of this theory and the benefits of living and writing in a,,dark era of science”.
People who haven’t learned from past errors will repeat the same errors over and over again. History of science hardly reminds that in the same time with Copernicus book publishing, educated people all over Europe were celebrating with glitter and pomposity the latest updated edition of Ptolemy’s Almagest, the most important work of astronomy for nearly 1500 years. Even after that, for at least another century, the official science was continuing with appraisals, work and celebrations of some epicycles (i.e. dead horses) to the same theory. What has remained from those books and appraisals?
Of course, at that time, science was merely a collateral activity, with no or little social, technological or economic consequences. I suppose it is not worth to lose time and describe what science represents for modern society and you can estimate by yourself how many resources are spent today for a replica of a well known epicycles theory. Each of you has to understand that any currency unit spent for an absurd theory make the true theory more valuable. If I have been waiting for more than 20 years, I have time to wait for other decades; and with every month I consolidate and expand this theory to new particular cases.
I thank to those few people, who volunteered by their own will, and started to help promoting this new theory of science; it is not easy and for the moment I cannot compensate this work but as soon as possible in a way or another this will be done. I have been doing even unqualified jobs in order to gain some money which was invested in a direct or indirect way in this theory so it is understandable that I am short of money. There are more than 20 new experiments in my waiting list and they are top priority for any income of money.
Thank you for those - especially dissident scientists, who sent me their papers with experiments or concepts which found no place in the official science of our times. For the moment I cannot integrate these things (the valid ones of course!) in the new theory because I do not have the time to process so much information. Starting with next newsletter there will be a new section about administrative tasks and we will discuss how to organize this activity. If someone is interested, I am looking especially for volunteers who could translate the content of the site in other languages (especially Spanish, Portuguese, French, German, Chinese, Japanese, Arabian, Russian, Hindu, etc). Even a single article translation is a step forward and it will serve to your community. The existent translations published on site are made with Google translator and they were made because some servers’ networks were blocking the access to English version of elkadot site.
As far the newsletter is sent to more than 90 000 scientists, please understand if the answer to your feedback was or it will be a bit late. I cannot keep the pace with all this collateral activity, but I have tried to answer at least to the scientific objections raised by some of you.
Keep in touch until the next text is ready for publishing….
Dr. Chem. Sorin Cosofret
