The Figure-8 Orbital Pattern and What It Reveals
Known Orbital Shapes
Orbits of bodies in the cosmos are known to exist in various shapes.
Circular Orbit
An orbit can be circular, where an orbiting body's distance of separation from the body it orbits is generally constant.
Earth is in close to a circular orbit about the sun. At its greatest separation from the sun, it is about 152 million km away from the sun while at its least separation it is about 146 million km away from the sun.
Elliptical Orbit
Another known orbit is an elliptical orbit, where an orbiting body's distance of separation from the body it orbits varies through a single revolution in the orbit.
A good example of this would be the orbit of Pluto. It ranges from about 29 AU to about 48 AU. [Source]
Elongated Elliptical Orbit
Another type of orbit that can exist is an elongated elliptical orbit, where the distance of separation greatly varies throughout each revolution.
A good example of this would be Haley's Comet.
With Haley's Comet, its minimum distance from the sun is 0.586 AU while its greatest distance from the sun is 35 AU, providing a highly elliptical orbit.
There is one specific orbital shape that has not yet been recognized to exist.
The Unrecognized Orbital Pattern
The Figure-8 Orbit
In each instance above, the mass of the two systems is somewhat close. At least when compared to even larger differences.
When the mass of a body is so drastically different from the mass of the body it orbits, it can be pulled directly towards its center of gravity regardless of its direction of travel.
When the body is large enough relative to the mass pulling on it, it will physically collide with the other body if it travels in this way. However, if the orbiting body is small enough, it can pass physically through the body it orbits, like a neutrino passing through the Earth.
From my book, The Simple Reality, pdf
Then it will come out the other side of the body it orbits, where gravity is then behind it. It then bends back around until it is pointed directly at the center of gravity once more. Again it passes through the body it orbits and comes out the other side, time and time again.
This arises in a Figure-8 Orbital pattern.
From my book, The Simple Reality, pdf
Not just one body orbits in this way, but rather an entire system of bodies orbit a given body in this Figure-8 orbital pattern.
This, then, by the force of gravity, produces what is known as an electromagnetic field.
Gravity Causes Electromagnetism
Presently, electromagnetism is considered to be a fundamental force, meaning it is causeless. However, this demonstrates that gravity causes electromagnetic fields. Therefore, gravity causes electromagnetism. It is as simple as that.
This is how a force that only pulls is able to produce the effects of both a "push" and a "pull".
When particles traveling in a Figure-8 orbit come out of the body, and collide with particles coming out of a second body, then this produces the observation of magnetic repulsion. When the flows are in line with one another, coming out of one body and into another, this produces the observation of magnetic attraction. This is a result of gravity, not a fundamental force.
Gravity Causes All Observations
By recognizing how gravity causes electromagnetism, it is clear that gravity causes all observations. It is just a matter of understanding how. For more information on how this is so, see my other posts on Steemit, such as The Big Bang's Big Assumption: How gravity causes all distant redshifted galaxies observations (not motion), or visit my website: CascadingUniverse.Org.
Congratulations! This post has been upvoted from the communal account, @minnowsupport, by nitesh9 from the Minnow Support Project. It's a witness project run by aggroed, ausbitbank, teamsteem, theprophet0, and someguy123. The goal is to help Steemit grow by supporting Minnows and creating a social network. Please find us in the Peace, Abundance, and Liberty Network (PALnet) Discord Channel. It's a completely public and open space to all members of the Steemit community who voluntarily choose to be there.
If you like what we're doing please upvote this comment so we can continue to build the community account that's supporting all members.
Amazing article and a nice theory. Now your article looks good after required formatting and images.
But I have some doubt. You said that gravity causes electromagnetism, then everything on Earth like a book, a wooden chair or a football, should show electromagnetic properties, as gravity depends on mass and thus everything has gravity.
But this does not happen, magnetism is shown only by magnetic materials.
I have read that the cause of Earth's magnetic field is the presence of magnetic materials and ions inside mantle and core.
How will you explain this @stevescully? :D
Good question; this is where motion comes into play.
Electromagnetism is known to also be closely related to the actual rotation of the body. For example, the planet Venus does not rotate and so it does not have an electromagnetic field. It is also the most spherical planet:
This is really the key. When a particle passes through the center of a non-rotating body, like Venus, it has a balanced force of gravity behind it due to its spherical shape. This means that it continues to travel in a direct path away and then it escapes the force of gravity of that body so that it ultimately does not get bent back inward.
When a particle passes through the center of a rotating body, like Earth, there is an imbalance in the force of gravity behind it because of the bulge at the equator and the disc structure of mass produced by this spin (in Earth's case, the Inner and Outer Van Allen Belts). This causes the particle's path to be bent inward towards the disc structure/bulge of the body its orbiting. When this happens, then the force of gravity of the body is able to tug on the side of the particle as it travels, relative to the direction its going, which then pulls the orbiting body back directly towards the center of gravity.
So when a particle is not spinning, because it is much more balanced in mass as a spherical shape rather than an "egg" shape, it does not arise in an electromagnetic field. This is why everything is not electromagnetic.
Additionally, everything is magnetic to a degree. It is just that some things are so magnetic that we see them as magnets. Not everything has this degree of magnetism because this requires a high enough rate of spin to produce such a strong field around the body so as to be able to strongly influence surroundings. But just as how the temperature of Absolute Zero is unattainable, so too is absolute zero magnetism. Rather, things can be just so low in magnetism that they are essentially zero and we then call them "non-magnetic".
The universe is infinite, meaning there are always smaller particles. Somewhere down the line of this infinite structure, everything is able to produce Figure-8 orbitals around it. But it is a matter of what the mass of the particles having this occur is to determine how strong the field is.
The higher the spin, the more influential it is on higher mass particles within the infinite lower layers of the universe. Even when the spin is low, it can cause this Figure-8 orbit to arise but it does so with the relatively smallest of particles. With a higher spin, it causes larger particles to be able to be bent by this mechanism and pulled back and thereby become part of its electromagnetic field. Larger particles as part of the electromagnetic field produce a stronger electromagnetic field because they consist of more mass which is more influential on their environment.
Thank you for asking, sometime today or tomorrow I will make a follow-up post on this with figures to help explain the importance of the gravitational imbalance, caused by spin, behind the particle as it passes the center of gravity to producing the Figure-8 orbital and thereby the electromagnetic field.
If we spin a body of mass can it gain magnetism?
Like if we spin a ball of concrete, will it gain strong magnetic field?
Is this experiment ever done?
Magnets and ferromagnetic materials are magnetic even in motionless condition.
Sorry for bothering you with my noobish questions. I am not a great scientific person but want to learn more.
In a magnet's case, the spin is not of the bulk material but rather of the nucleus of the atoms. As a whole, they then influence the surroundings so as to produce a large-scale observable outcome of a magnet being a magnet.
I don't know if we could spin a bulk material such as concrete to produce a magnetic field--likely it would require a very high spin rate to be detectable. Maybe--I don't know if there are any experiments testing this. Likely it has not been considered, especially to the point of someone actually running such an experiment. Or it would just require an extremely high spin rate. I can't find anything from a quick google search.
But what we can and do do is to put a current through a wire. Another way to think of a current is a motion of mass. This isn't quite spinning, but it shows the connection of motion to electromagnetism.
This induces an electromagnetic field, which demonstrates the connectedness between motion and its influence on the surrounding infinitesimal particles. Particularly, when a current flows through a wire, the particles around the wire are not just atoms, but also infinitely smaller and smaller particles. When the flow of mass passes, it induces a specific response of these particles due to the gravitational influence of the passing current's particles so that this motion then arises in an induced electromagnetic field. When the flow stops, the particles are no longer influenced and the field immediately stops being formed. On such a small scale, this is only detectable when the rate of motion and current is high enough, but it shows the connection between motion of a mass and gravity's influence of that moving mass on its surroundings. Albeit not in this instance spin as the motion, but it is the best example I can point to to show there is a known connection between motion and inducing an electromagnetic field.
You aren't bothering me at all--I really appreciate your consideration and help. In my experience, the more people have studied science to a degree where they think they know what they are talking about, the less open they are to thinking about it from different angles.
Likely I will not be heard by scientists until genuinely curious people looking for answers like yourself see the merit in my arguments.
Honestly, I am always learning of new concepts and applying it to this model--I love questions that stem from actual consideration of what I am saying. I only don't like it when people tell me why I'm wrong while distinctly demonstrating to me that they didn't even think about it. I get lots of blanket-statement responses that basically are just people regurgitating what others think, because they have invested a lot of time in learning those things. They don't realize I have already considered those arguments and found them unpersuasive which is why I look at things as I do, but sometimes people just want to listen enough to say why something is wrong, even if its not.
I am new to many things as well, and people ask me a lot of questions about things that I sometimes have not even been aware of. It is through this process that I have become more and more aware of observations so as to provide a more and more complete explanation for why gravity is the root cause of all observations in an infinite universe. I may have exposed myself to a lot while looking at it through this specific lens, which not many people have thought about things from this angle, but I am still constantly reminded how little I know myself.
All I know is that I know enough to hold firm in my belief that gravity causes all observations and it is just a matter of figuring out how to further understand it, not because I absolutely know but because it is just too logical, especially in comparison to any other model I've seen, to think otherwise. I've gotten far enough in the thought process that I can quickly say "yes this is how this process is happening" for some things, but others concepts are still beyond my understanding. Some of which are so simple that I feel there is some nuance I have yet to understand fully. But because I base my approach in a foundation of logical pattern deduction, I just set things aside and think about them here and there when I don't understand them rather than looking at them as some form of proof that the current mainstream outlook on physics is more accurate than one with a foundation of logic. It was from this process that after I-don't-know-how-many years of thinking about how gravity could produce all distant redshifted galaxies, I came to actually have an answer that I feel is tangible and real. Because I held onto "it is logical" even when I did not have an explanation for how it could be occurring.
Yeah, learning never ends. Thanks for clearing my doubts.
Your ideas are amazing. Maybe gravity is the ultimate law which scientists are in search of since years unknown.
I always believed that the whole universe is based on a basic law and all other properties are just outcome of that. Just like our brain which works on some most basic principle but can do amazing works. :D
Maybe Gravity is that basic law on which the whole universe is based.
I think the unforgettable movie "Interstellar" is based on your theory.
I wish your ideas reach to more and more physicists. And you refine theories and make them more concrete. Do share your ideas also in physics forums.
And one query, yes we have read that electricity is produced by movement of electrons, but they have a negative charge which produces the a current of flowing charge and thus electricity. So I think charge is also responsible for electromagnetism.
Is gravity behind the charge of electrons and protons?
Thank you, I do believe that this usage of gravity to explain electromagnetism provides a very strong argument that gravity is the most basic fundamental of physics. The same process can be done with strong and weak interaction but they are less direct--this is done by comparing different types of supernovas (which are known to be the result of gravity) to radioactive decay and nuclear fusion.
Specifically, Supernova Type 1A where two masses combine always release the same amount of radiation which is why they are used as "standard candles" to measure their distance away. Nuclear fusion, where two masses combine, always release the same amount of radiation--because the two processes are one and the same.
When an upper limit mass star--one that has such high mass as a star that it quickly supernovas--supernovas, its luminosity is measured as a function of the radioactive decay of the atoms of the star. This is because it is radioactive decay of the star, just as how an upper limit mass atom quickly radioactive decays. These parallels demonstrate how gravity also causes weak and strong interaction.
Amusingly, I have shared my ideas on physics forums and literally every one of them has banned me. Moderators on those types of websites have a certain power trip issue and tend to think they know best so they just ban people that they think of as "crackpots" because they are saying things that are not just the current beliefs. That is why I have found Steemit so nice, because I am not banned for saying things. On physics forums, my posts are simply removed before anyone can read them and consider them, and I am banned so I can't post again, effectively preventing my ideas from even being considered by people who would have actually earnestly given them thought. It is ridiculous borderline nazism. Likely, they take their moderator position very seriously and just get rid of all things that are outside of their own beliefs.
It's quite frustrating, as it means I just can't use those forums to reach people because of the ignorance of those in control of them. I need to find a backdoor way in, outside of the scientific community (on top of the failure of physics forums to allow the free-flow of ideas, I have emailed hundreds of physicists my ideas and none respond). The odds of a person emailing them the actual answers they are seeking is so low that they likely just off-handedly dismiss such emails. maybe they are jaded from receiving a lot of them and seeing person after person who has incoherent nonsensical arguments, so I just get lumped into it all and have an extremely difficult time being listened to. That is why I need some form of alternative attention through a grassroot following such as on steem/youtube and/or media attention so that people can't stop me from sharing my ideas. It's quite the struggle to be heard since my ideas are very unknown and I am dismissed almost immediately by the vast majority of people who I interact with. I understand that all it will take is enough attention to force these people who ignore me to think about it, and then it will be taken very seriously as a legitimate argument very quickly.
As far as electrons and protons, I don't know. I suspect that protons are more so a misunderstanding of masses, alike to how planets and stars are one individual mass having different masses, nuclei of atoms are the same way. Instead, these are just steady-states where systems tend to form within certain stable regions.
Outside of those regions, they are not stable which brings them to change into the closest steady-state over time. We then see these as some indication of the nucleus being composed of various distinct masses which I think is just not true, based on everything else directly observable being single "particles" in the cosmos. So too is the nucleus of an atom likely one "particle", having different steady-states that then function in specific ways that leads to chemistry.
Electrons would be comparable to the planets of a solar system; they are its electrons. What I don't really understand is the "negative" and "positive" charges of things and how this arises from gravity. There's an answer within gravity, but I have not deciphered it, is how I look at it. Maybe it is as simple as looking to their electromagnetic fields in some capacity, which are the results of gravity, but I don't know the specifics.
Thanks for the nice explanation.
Felt really bad about your experience on physics forums. Yeah people tend to stick to their beliefs, like when Copernicus said that earth revolves round the Sun but none accepted his view and he was sentenced death.
World is like that only. You just keep doing your research, one day you will definitely get recognition. :)
Thank you! Appreciate your time and attention and words!
The problem is a general lack of awareness, we change but still do the same things as before. I aim to raise awareness to such things as well as the science, as I believe it stems from actual lack of awareness--"we used to do that, but not any more!" kind of thought pattern. I am constantly reminded to look inward at my own thoughts and actions when faced with this as I am not exempt from these things and I aim to catch myself as best as I can in the act and stop it. In a way, we are only human and we all make mistakes, but with enough attention we can overcome that and transform ourselves to a new steady-state that does not have the same inconsistencies. After all, time and pressure bear diamonds. :)
Thanks I agree, sooner or later it will get some attention. I've been at it for over 3 years and used essentially all of my savings from my job that I quit when this all started, so am I getting more and more desperate--I want to be able to invest my time and energy as I see fit as I think it is important for what I am doing and don't want to have to spend a lot of my time doing something just to survive in the meantime. I believe that the internet is powerful enough of a tool that it stands to prevent me from having to wait too long, but that's how I felt 3 years ago when I had what seemed like more than enough money to make it until I was able to make an income from this and begin to manifest things I can only dream about now.