Probality of God

[gravityblock]

I just have to ask for clarification... .just how is a planet orbiting a sun, not a satellite of the sun? What is the difference between a planet and a satellite?

I think that the term "satellite" includes planets, since they are orbiting about a primary. And it also could even include suns, if they are orbiting another star. The Milky Way has several satellite galaxies, in fact.

In the case of Mercury, science erroneously claimed that it revolved once on its axis for every revolution in orbit.  They discarded their former assumption, and now erroneously maintain mercury rotates three times on it's axis for every two orbital revolutions.  What happens is that Mercury has a very rapid axial rotation.  This does not take place on the equatorial plane of the solar system, but at right angles to it.  Mercury is really a satellite of the Sun and not, strictly speaking, a planet, because only satellites have this peculiarity.

Gravock

[TinselKoala]

In the case of Mercury, science erroneously claims that it revolves once on its axis for every revolution in orbit.  What happens is that Mercury has a very rapid axial rotation.  This does not take place on the equatorial plane of the solar system, but at right angles to it.  Mercury is really a satellite of the Sun and not, strictly speaking, a planet, because only satellites have this peculiarity.

Gravock

Really? I wonder if you can cite a reference for that.

And what about Uranus, with an axial tilt of nearly 100 degrees to the ecliptic plane? Not a planet either, by your definition, I guess.

Actually, the difference between planets and satellites (natural) has to do with whether or not they are big and heavy enough to differentiate inside. Since Mercury has a magnetic field, it also is differentiated inside, likely having a small molten or crystal iron core like the Earth. This makes it a planet, even if it were wandering in space far from any sun.
Asteroids, and probably things like Pluto, aren't planets because they are uniform inside, no crust/mantle/core differentiation.

[Gwandau]

In the case of Mercury, science erroneously claims that it revolves once on its axis for every revolution in orbit.  What happens is that Mercury has a very rapid axial rotation.  This does not take place on the equatorial plane of the solar system, but at right angles to it.  Mercury is really a satellite of the Sun and not, strictly speaking, a planet, because only satellites have this peculiarity.

Gravock

Gravock,

I have no idea where you got such erronous information.

Mercury has a very slow axial rotation, and its rotational axis deviates even less from the equatorial plane of the sun than other planets.

The former assumption of Mercury revolving once on its axis for every revolution in orbit whas discarded 1965 when radar observations proved that the planet has a 3:2 spin–orbit resonance, rotating three times for every two revolutions around the Sun; the eccentricity of Mercury's orbit makes this resonance stable—at perihelion, when the solar tide is strongest, the Sun is nearly still in Mercury's sky.

The original reason astronomers thought it was synchronously locked was that, whenever Mercury was best placed for observation, it was always nearly at the same point in its 3:2 resonance, hence showing the same face. This is because, coincidentally, Mercury's rotation period is almost exactly half of its synodic period with respect to Earth. Due to Mercury's 3:2 spin–orbit resonance, a solar day (the length between two meridian transits of the Sun) lasts about 176 Earth days. A sidereal day (the period of rotation) lasts about 58.7 Earth days.

This does not take place on the equatorial plane of the solar system, but at right angles to it.

Could it be that you have misinterpreted the information, doing the erronous assumption that the rotational axis of Mercury was at right angles to the axial rotation of the other planets?


There is a certain peculiarity about the axial rotation of planet Mercury though. Unlike other planets who most of them have some deviation in the axial tilt, Mercury's rotational axis stands perpendicular to its orbital plane with its axial tilt being almost zero, with the best measured value as low as 0.027 degrees. This is significantly smaller than that of Jupiter, which has the second smallest axial tilt of all planets at 3.1 degrees. This means that to an observer at Mercury's poles, the center of the Sun never rises more than 2.1 arcminutes above the horizon.


Gwandau

[gravityblock]

Really? I wonder if you can cite a reference for that.

And what about Uranus, with an axial tilt of nearly 100 degrees to the ecliptic plane? Not a planet either, by your definition, I guess.

Actually, the difference between planets and satellites (natural) has to do with whether or not they are big and heavy enough to differentiate inside. Since Mercury has a magnetic field, it also is differentiated inside, likely having a small molten or crystal iron core like the Earth. This makes it a planet, even if it were wandering in space far from any sun.
Asteroids, and probably things like Pluto, aren't planets because they are uniform inside, no crust/mantle/core differentiation.

A planet is attracted to the magnetic center of the solar system.  This point of equilibrium of the solar system lay at a distance from the Sun equal to three times its diameter. It is round this point of equilibrium which the sun moves.  When this magnetic center is between a planet and the sun, then the force of attraction is predominant and the planet is drawn in.  However, when the sun is between a planet and the magnetic center, then the force of repulsion from the sun's light is predominant and the planet moves out.  This describes the motion of the planets in their orbits. 


However, the satellites are within the etheric covering of their respective planets which they orbit. This means they are more under the influence of the vertical component of magnetism of their respective planet in which they orbit instead of the magnetic center of the solar system.


In summary, a planet interacts with the magnetic center of the solar system, and the satellites interact more with the vertical component of magnetism of their respective planet.  Mercury is inside the etheric covering of the sun, so it's more under the influence of the sun's magnetic attraction force instead of the magnetic center of the solar system, thus it's a satellite of the sun.


I can't cite any references, because earthly science believes in a real force of gravity.  Their failure in being able to unite gravity with the other fundamental forces of nature should be a real concern which causes them to rethink their idea of gravity.  However, they can't think past mass attracting mass, so I doubt this will happen.  I have previously shown how gravity isn't a real force.  Now I have shown how the planets and satellites are able to move without a real force of gravity.


Gravock

[gravityblock]

Gravock,

I have no idea where you got such erronous information.

Mercury has a very slow axial rotation, and its rotational axis deviates even less from the equatorial plane of the sun than other planets.

The former assumption of Mercury revolving once on its axis for every revolution in orbit whas discarded 1965 when radar observations proved that the planet has a 3:2 spin–orbit resonance, rotating three times for every two revolutions around the Sun; the eccentricity of Mercury's orbit makes this resonance stable—at perihelion, when the solar tide is strongest, the Sun is nearly still in Mercury's sky.

The original reason astronomers thought it was synchronously locked was that, whenever Mercury was best placed for observation, it was always nearly at the same point in its 3:2 resonance, hence showing the same face. This is because, coincidentally, Mercury's rotation period is almost exactly half of its synodic period with respect to Earth. Due to Mercury's 3:2 spin–orbit resonance, a solar day (the length between two meridian transits of the Sun) lasts about 176 Earth days. A sidereal day (the period of rotation) lasts about 58.7 Earth days.

Could it be that you have misinterpreted the information, doing the erronous assumption that the rotational axis of Mercury was at right angles to the axial rotation of the other planets?


There is a certain peculiarity about the axial rotation of planet Mercury though. Unlike other planets who most of them have some deviation in the axial tilt, Mercury's rotational axis stands perpendicular to its orbital plane with its axial tilt being almost zero, with the best measured value as low as 0.027 degrees. This is significantly smaller than that of Jupiter, which has the second smallest axial tilt of all planets at 3.1 degrees. This means that to an observer at Mercury's poles, the center of the Sun never rises more than 2.1 arcminutes above the horizon.


Gwandau

Yes, they discarded their former assumption of one axial revolution per orbital revolution, so what makes you think their latter assumption of the 3:2 is correct and shouldn't be discarded like their former assumption?  I modified my original post to better reflect their erroneous assumptions, both the former and the latter.  We know their former assumption was erroneous, just like I stated.  Thanks for proving this for me!


Gravock