return to homepage
by Miles Mathis
Abstract: In part 1 of this paper, I showed that axial tilt could be explained easily by charge field perturbations. In part 2, I will answer some unanswered questions of part 1 and extend my calculations to other bodies. I will also show that the charge field can show the variations in tilt, such as nutation.
I will start by answering the biggest question raised by part 1. That being, “How can your equations explain tilt by straight-line influence of the charge field, when the bodies are rarely lined up? If we take the perturbations of the Sun and Jupiter upon the Earth as an example, the perturbing bodies need to be on opposite sides of the Earth for the mechanics to work. But for large parts of their orbits, this is not the case. Jupiter is often on the other side of the Sun from the Earth. Your mechanics doesn't work!”
A mathematical description (set of equations) that represents nutation is called a "theory of nutation". In the theory, parameters are adjusted in a more or less ad hoc method to obtain the best fit to data. As can be seen from the IERS publication just cited, nowadays simple rigid-body mechanics do not give the best theory; one has to account for deformations of the solid Earth.*
Wiki admits that nutation is mainly ad hoc math, but “deformations of the solid Earth” are thought to be one cause. Can Wiki show us these deformations? No, of course not. This is just the old isostasy dodge, like with the “reverse Himilayas” that are supposed to exist under the real ones (see my UFT paper). Other causes are given to “tidal forces of the Sun and Moon,” but since I have already exploded that theory into tiny fragments, we can ignore that. Wiki also says,
Because the dynamics of the planets are so well known, nutation can be calculated within seconds of arc over periods of many decades. There is another disturbance of the Earth's rotation called polar motion that can be estimated only a few months ahead, because it is influenced by rapidly and unpredictably varying things such as ocean currents, wind systems, and motions in the Earth's core.
The first sentence is another misdirection. The real reason nutation can be calculated so well is that past nutation has been fed into a computer. We have good data. This has nothing to do with the dynamics of the planets, which, beyond the data and the math, we know very poorly. Data and math is not “dynamics.” Then Wiki gives us passing mention of those old explain-all's like ocean currents and motions in the Earth's core. The “dynamos” in the Earth's core, like “solid Earth deformations”, are starting to sound to me like “swamp gas.” As scientific explanations, they have about the same standing. The Earth's core is safely tucked away out of sight and experiment, so there is no possible falsification of the dynamo theory or the deformation theory or the isostasy theory, unless we split the Earth open like a walnut.
Unlike dynamos in the Earth, we know about the E/M field. In part 1, I showed that the charge field, which causes the E/M field, is easily capable of causing large effects on the Earth. We already knew that from the magnetosphere, the aurora, solar disturbances, and so on; and those who have read my tidal papers know that tides have been added that list. Since nutation is a variance in tilt, we must give it to my mechanism in part 1. This is fabulously easy to do, since I have already shown the mechanical and mathematical cause of the variance there. The variations in the perturbations from the Jovian planets must cause the bulk of the variation in the effect, since they cause the effect itself. The perturbation from Saturn causes the minimum, and the perturbation from Neptune causes the maximum. Other minima may be calculated from the largest time gaps between the perturbations.
This is not to say that the Moon does not affect the nutation. I have no problem accepting that the Moon plays some role in the total nutation cycle, via its charge field, not its gravity field. But the tilt itself, and at least one main cycle of variation, must be given to the Jovian planets. In a future paper I will prove this by tying the Jovian periods of Earth alignment to the nutation cycle. For now I will let it stand as a hypothesis, heavily weighted already by my findings in part 1.
Let us finish off this paper by doing the math for another planet. Jupiter, for good measure. Jupiter has a tilt of 3 degrees, which looks pretty promising. According to my theory, that tilt tells us that most of the charge field must be coming from one side, and Jupiter has Mars on one side of it and the three Jovians on the other side. Broad confirmation at a glance. This is why I could build the theory only by looking at my first table in part 1. A simple statistical glance told me the numbers couldn't be caused by accident or collision.
As with the Earth, the planets on the inside of Jupiter don't factor in the balance here. Not only because they are small, but because they are on the same side of the equation as the Sun. They are lost in the much greater charge field of the Sun, and can add nothing of importance to it. The inner planets will mainly balance with Pluto and the Kuiper belt, so we can ignore them in the first estimate. We only need to look at the three Jovians, finding each perturbation separately.
Saturn has a charge density of 1/7,175 that of the Sun and a distance from Jupiter that is 1.19 times smaller. So if the Sun's charge density at Jupiter is 9.2, Saturn's is .84. That's a variance of 82.8%, or an angle of 74.5o.
Uranus has a charge density of 1/25,415 that of the Sun and a distance from Jupiter that is 2.7 times larger. So if the Sun's charge density at Jupiter is 12.63, Uranus' is 2.7. That's a variance of 64.8%, or an angle of 58.3o.
Neptune has a charge density of 1/16,700 that of the Sun and a distance from Jupiter that is 4.78 times larger. So if the Sun's charge density at Jupiter is 11.37, Neptune's is 4.78. That's a variance of 40.8%, or an angle of 36.7o.
Those angles sum to over 90o, so we have a new problem. How do we express the summed variance of three perturbations in a situation like this? The three perturbations are from one side, so they should all push the tilt strongly toward zero. They can't push it all the way to zero, since the charge on the other side is nowhere near zero. And they can't push it past zero because the field doesn't allow it. Complete imbalance is defined as zero tilt, so we can't have negative tilt. So we need a more subtle math. As we did with the Earth, we simply express the second tilt as a fraction of the first. In other words, we find that Uranus's variance is 64.8% of the remaining angle, rather than 64.8% of 90o. That would make Uranus' contribution 64.8% of 15.5o, which is 10.04o. That leaves us 5.46o for the remaining angle, and we apply Neptune's variance to that. 40.8% of 5.46o is 2.23o. Subtracting 2.23o from 5.46o, gives us 3.23o.
We have estimated Jupiter's angle of tilt to be 3.23o, with very simple math. The number from data is 3o.
You will say, “But you are balancing these perturbations against the Sun's field, and then claiming there is a great imbalance. The Sun's field is denser in every equation, above. How can you claim a great imbalance?”
I am not balancing the Jovian perturbations against the Sun's perturbation, I am measuring the field against the Sun's field: totally different concept. The Sun doesn't even have a perturbation, per se. It just defines the ambient charge field, against which the other perturbations are measured. Even these aren't perturbations, in the classical sense. They are charge density fluctuations. And I am measuring them against the ambient field to determine their sizes and to scale them to one another.
To see more unified field calculations on the 10 planets, you may now visit my paper on Bode's Law, where I solve the variations from prediction completely, once again using the charge field.