Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Chineson
1) The force that runs the moons and planets is the Gravity Force which was discovered by Newton. In my article, I find no more other Newton's theory is needed.
|
Thanks; that makes things much simpler, doesn't it?
Quote:
2)The time period for a initially clockwise palnet to change its orbit to a normal one should meet a function, I believe,though I can not offer it right now. The time should be an infinite parameter in the sense of math, for zero is the infinitesimal limit value for the Coriolis Force to reach while reducing the intersect angle between the orbit of such planets/moons and the sun.In the sense of math, this infinitesimal limit (zero) can never be reached.
The bigger the intersect angle is, the more significant the change will be made. A vertically circling moon will make the most significant tilting. The tilting speed should be be proportional to the differential coefficient of a function as Sin(x) or similar. It's not a constant.
|
It may be that, as
Ken G and others have already pointed out, the analysis you have presented is flawed; it may be that it is not.
However, the claims in the OP ("
the author of this article found that these main features are not the reflection of the origin of our solar system as most theories hypothesized but are the results of its movement mechanism") are clearly unsubstantiated.
First, there is nothing in this thread related to the "not" - nothing to show that 'most theories' are internally inconsistent or inconsistent with good observational results.
Second, per the item just quoted, without a timeframe, the main claim of this thread is a 'work in progress' (at best) or incapable of being tested (at worst).
In the absence of quantification - at least to the OOM (order of magnitude) level - what further discussion of this claim is possible (other than a discussion of possible flaws in the analysis presented)?
Do you have an estimate of when you will be presenting quantification of the timeframe for the 'normalisation' of counterclockwise planetary orbits (according to your idea),
Chineson?
Quote:
|
3)I am sorry to say that I haven't. Could you please show me how to get it?
|
Why don't you start a suitably worded thread in BAUT's Q&A section?