 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Natural Science Forum / Physics / Acoustics / June 2004I cast myself into the "acoustical" lion's den
Hello, I recently submitted a paper which attempted to show a gravity/acoustical relationship. I really think there might be something to this. The physicists I have shown this to just look at me with a kind of a "you're nuts" expression on their faces (actually, one solar physicist agreed that the speed of sound calculation might be right, but he didn't see how a sound wave could propagate through solar winds of around 300 Km/s), while most of the engineers I've talked to think it's cool. I'm a realist and do not consider myself a kook. I won't argue over nor vehemently defend any of this. I don't claim that any of this is right, quite the contrary, I would like to see a more detailed calculation if someone out there is bored. I still haven't analyzed this using high powered mathematical derivations of spherical acoustical point sources. Anyway, here is an excerpt from the article that will probably never get published. Using the equation for sound, that is, C = sqrt((adiabatic constant)*R*T*M)), and assuming the primary atmospheric makeup of the Sun to be hydrogen (?=1.41, M=0.00201 kg/mole), the computed value of the speed of sound is C=5,058.2 m/s, for an average temperature of T=4400°K. The Sun rotates once every 609.12 hrs for a period of T = 2,192,832 seconds (F=1/T=0.46 microhertz) and a radius of R = 696,000 Km. Using the following equation for multiples of wavelengths: n*lambda = n*[(Speed of sound)/(rotational frequency)] + Radius, an interesting relationship seems to develop between the above calculated parameters and the orbits of the planets. Namely, 1*lambda = 11.24 million Km 5*lambda = 56.4 million Km 10*lambda = 111.6 million Km 14*lambda = 155.9 million Km 20*lambda = 222.5 million Km 70*lambda = 777.1 million Km 129*lambda = 1,431.5 million Km 256*lambda = 2,873.5 million Km 405*lambda = 4,492 million Km 529*lambda = 5,868.2 million Km Now, comparing this to the orbital parameters of our solar system: Mercury 57.9 million Km Venus 108.2 million Km Earth 149.6 million Km Mars 227.9 million Km Jupiter 778.6 million Km Saturn 1.434 billion Km Uranus 2.873 billion Km Neptune 4.495 billion Km Pluto 5.87 billion Km The numbers seem surprisingly close. The above method really does work for most of the planets and their respective moons. Unfortunately, it doesn't work for all situations and hence isn't a viable theory or anything like that. I just thought it was interesting. I realize it's a bit of a stretch. I remember reading somewhere that peculiar things occur on the molecular scale near the surface of a loudspeaker. But hey, something's got to give with this gravity thing soon. Especially if any degree of real control can ever take place. For the record, it takes an incredible amount of acoustical energy just to move a grain of sand at 10Hz. It takes a vivid imagination to "see" the huge sound wave and the "particle" displacements involved. And Why not? Mother nature does all kinds of things on various scales. Perhaps the elliptical orbits could be due to massive doppler shift (remember, the sun is speeding t hrough the universe at it's own velocity). Is Mercury's perihelion indicating that the sun is orbiting something even bigger? Is gravity a "mechanical" force and not just electrical/magnetic in nature? Can rap music bring about the destruction of the solar system if it's loud enough? Is Yanni like music holding us to the planet? Am I on the right meds? -Eric Cantrell ecantrell at knology dot net > I recently submitted a paper which attempted to show a gravity/acoustical > relationship. I really think there might be something to this. [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > an interesting relationship seems to develop between the above calculated > parameters and the orbits of the planets. OK. What you imply is that the rotating sun acts as a pump which radiates sound, but that in addition "standing waves" can occur where there are loops and nodes. The loops can perturb planetary orbits but the nodes may not. Then I expect to find that planets will only be stable for eons at the nodes. It is interesting to check this hypothesis on the asteroid belt, now more easily perturbed by winds that planets. (add the asteroid belt to your list.) > Namely, > [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > The numbers seem surprisingly close. The above method really does work for > most of the planets and their respective moons. etc. Angelo Campanella >OK. What you imply is that the rotating sun acts as a pump which >radiates sound, but that in addition "standing waves" can occur where >there are loops and nodes. The loops can perturb planetary orbits but >the nodes may not. Then I expect to find that planets will only be >stable for eons at the nodes. I have yet to figure out the amplitude of the solar wave (or for any of the planetary waves) just yet. I did considered destructive interference as one possible explanation. But then, you have to ask, "What's it reflecting off of?" Face it, there's not an absolute vacuum out there any more than there's an absolute zero velocity (everything's moving relative to something). I thought this might be similar to the g-modes of the sun (although the jury is still out on the g-modes theory too), but I'm not smart enough to understand all the greeky stuff. >It is interesting to check this hypothesis >on the asteroid belt, now more easily perturbed by winds that planets. > >(add the asteroid belt to your list.) >Angelo Campanella I considered the asteroid belt. There's only a few hundred or so asteroids being tracked. It's to bad we can't see the orthogonal and planar distribution of the asteroids as function of time. I've tried looking at Einstein's ten equations. I think, wow! Imagine what he could have done if he had a computer even half as powerful as the one I'm typing on right now. Then again, if he had internet access, he would have quit with Brownian motion and got stuck on ebay or yahoo or even worse, usenet. For the record, this in no way contradicts GR or Newton's laws. At least, I don't think so. In reality, about the only way to prove any of this is to watch it for eons. So I've stopped lying awake at night trying to catch the moon swaying. -Eric There are a couple of flaws in your approach: 1. The speed of sound you calculate at the surface of the sun will not apply to the almost vacuum state of the interplanetary medium. The density is so much lower. Also, the definition of temperature gets a bit iffy in a very rarified environment. (The thermodynamic temperature relates to the mean kinetic energy of molecules in a system). 2. In effect, you have derived an expression with a constant (lambda) and then identified the necessary coefficients to match the known orbital radii of the planets. You could have acheived the same with almost any expression. e.g., you could have chosen solar diameters as the constant and found a relationship there or the height of Mt. Everest! In a way, a glorified - and interesting - version of 2 = 2. > Hello, > [quoted text clipped - 79 lines] > http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! > -----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =----- > There are a couple of flaws in your approach: > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > very rarified environment. (The thermodynamic temperature relates to the > mean kinetic energy of molecules in a system). The speed of sound obviously doesn't mean anything in a vacuum. When people hear the word sound (pun intended), they think they have to hear it. This isn't sound in "our" sense of the word. This is a massive perturbation of the acoustical kind acting on miniscule particles of the planetary kind. Think BIG, really, really BIG! Remember, our 11 billion Km wide solar system isn't even a speck in the universal picture. Recently, I've seen a couple of articles equating the distributing of cosmic background radiation with primordial sound waves (see http://www.cnn.com/2004/TECH/space/06/02/primal.scream/index.html and last February's issue of Discover magazine). Look at simulations of sound waves emanating from rotating machinery (www.femlab.com - I'm not suggesting you buy their software, just look at their examples). > 2. In effect, you have derived an expression with a constant (lambda) and > then identified the necessary coefficients to match the known orbital radii > of the planets. You could have acheived the same with almost any > expression. e.g., you could have chosen solar diameters as the constant and > found a relationship there or the height of Mt. Everest! In a way, a > glorified - and interesting - version of 2 = 2. Yes, I agree. I have effectively derived an equation similar to the monkeys on a keyboard theory. Except it was not intentional. I really truly started with the "exit" speed of sound, then calculated the wavelengths, then looked up the planetary orbits. In effect, I started working backwards from what you said and wound up with 2 = 2. Besides, the same approach wouldn't work like it does for the moons around planets. Let's take a look at Mars. It's atmospheric composition is primarily carbon (gamma=1.3,M=44) . With an average temperature of 218°K you get C=231.4 m/s. Multiply C time Mars sidereal period (24.62 hrs), you get lambda=13,887 Km. Two times that gives you the orbit of Deimos (to within a couple hundred Km). Go ahead, calculate the speed of sound on Jupiter, then determine the harmonics, then compare to the jovian moon system ( I only looked at the big four, not all sixty something). Not all the moons fall within some node or loop. I'm not packing for Stockholm just yet :^) . Even our very own moon somewhat follows this hypothesis (I use the speed of sound equal to 295 m/s, which is the speed of sound at 80,000 ft, which is the highest altitude the speed was recorded/calculated. There's really not enough data to support/verify/condem me as a heretic to determine whether this holds water for the other planets. I suspect it's just that we know more about the innies than the outies. -Eric > The speed of sound obviously doesn't mean anything in a vacuum. Yep. I think modulation is what he's looking for. |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2009 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.