Inventions and Deceptions – Asteroid 2010 SO16

Wikipedia provides an introduction to “Asteroid 2010 SO16” as follows:

2010 SO16 is a near-Earth asteroid discovered by the Wide-field Infrared Survey Explorer space telescope. The orbit was described by Christou Apostolos and David Asher at the Armagh Observatory in Northern Ireland. The object has a magnitude of 20.7 and is several hundred meters in diameter.

2010 SO16 has a “horseshoe orbit” that allows it to stably share Earth’s orbital neighborhood without colliding with it. It is one of a handful of known asteroids with such an orbit, a group that includes 3753 Cruithne. It is, however, neither an Aten asteroid nor an Apollo asteroid because the semi-major axis of its orbit is neither less than nor greater than 1 AU, but oscillates between approximately 0.996 and 1.004 AU, with a period of about 350 yr. In its ~350 yr horseshoe cycle, it never approaches the Earth more closely than about 0.15 AU, alternately trailing and leading.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2010_SO16

Wikipedia also provides an explanation of the “horseshoe orbital” cycle:

The following explanation relates to an asteroid which is in such an orbit around the Sun, and is also affected by the Earth.
The asteroid is in almost the same solar orbit as Earth.
Both take approximately one year to orbit the Sun.

It is also necessary to grasp two rules of orbit dynamics:
1) A body closer to the Sun completes an orbit more quickly than a body further away.
2) If a body accelerates along its orbit, its orbit moves outwards from the Sun. If it decelerates, the orbital radius decreases.

The horseshoe orbit arises because the gravitational attraction of the Earth changes the shape of the elliptical orbit of the asteroid. The shape changes are very small but result in significant changes relative to the Earth.

The horseshoe becomes apparent only when mapping the movement of the asteroid relative to both the Sun and the Earth. The asteroid always orbits the Sun in the same direction. However, it goes through a cycle of catching up with the Earth and falling behind, so that its movement relative to both the Sun and the Earth traces a shape like the outline of a horseshoe.

Starting out at point A on the inner ring between L5 and Earth, the satellite is orbiting faster than the Earth. It’s on its way toward passing between the Earth and the Sun. But Earth’s gravity exerts an outward accelerating force, pulling the satellite into a higher orbit which (per Kepler’s third law) decreases its angular speed.

When the satellite gets to point B, it is traveling at the same speed as Earth. Earth’s gravity is still accelerating the satellite along the orbital path, and continues to pull the satellite into a higher orbit. Eventually, at C, the satellite reaches a high enough, slow enough orbit and starts to lag behind Earth. It then spends the next century or more appearing to drift ‘backwards’ around the orbit when viewed relative to the Earth. Its orbit around the Sun still takes only slightly more than one Earth year.

Eventually the satellite comes around to point D. Earth’s gravity is now reducing the satellite’s orbital velocity, causing it to fall into a lower orbit, which actually increases the angular speed of the satellite. This continues until the satellite’s orbit is lower and faster than Earth’s orbit. It begins moving out ahead of the earth. Over the next few centuries it completes its journey back to point A.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horseshoe_orbit

Unfortunately, using standard gravitational theory, the “horseshoe” [or “C”] orbit is “impossible” according to Miles Mathis:

Asteroid 2010 SO16, discovered in September of 2010 by Apostolos Christou and David Asher at the Armagh Observatory in Northern Ireland, follows the C-orbit above, drawn in blue-green. Of course, by the gravity-only theory, this is impossible.

To divert you from this rather obvious and glaring conclusion, the mathematicians at NASA and worldwide shunt you off into Lagrange point math. That is what the green L numbers are. They are trying to convince you that the gravity field can create these field potentials (white lines), so that this orbit looks plausible.

…all we have to do is look at the asteroid as it approaches the Earth, from either direction (point A or D). The distance between asteroid and Earth is diminishing with time, so the gravitational force between them must be increasing rapidly. The distance between Sun and asteroid is not yet changing at these points (it changes soon afterwards), so the force between Sun and asteroid is not changing. Therefore, we may ask what would make the asteroid make a 90o turn at this point in its motion.

Click to access aster.pdf

Examining the mechanics of the “standard model” shows the impossibility of the asteroid’s trajectory according to the “standard model”.

The Earth’s “straight line” gravitational attraction starts at point A [according to the illustration]. Therefore, the simple mechanics of the “standard model” dictates that the circular orbit of the asteroid will be perturbed as the asteroid starts to accelerate towards Earth.

Furthermore, the trajectory of the perturbed orbit must pass somewhere between point L1 [on the usual circular orbit path] and the centre of the Earth. Given the low approach speed of the asteroid Miles Mathis concludes that “by all the laws of gravity, the asteroid should crash into the Earth.”

However, the asteroids trajectory is totally compatible with the [predominately circular at this distance] “gravitational” force exerted by a Geocentric Rankine Vortex.

The transitions from both the inner (faster) and outer (slower) orbital paths [around the Sun] always follow the path of the [predominately circular at this distance] “gravitational” force of Earth.

Gallery | This entry was posted in Earth, Gravity, Inventions & Deceptions, Vortices. Bookmark the permalink.

17 Responses to Inventions and Deceptions – Asteroid 2010 SO16

  1. Greg says:

    Which one do you believe that it should crash into Earth or continue to go around the solar system? Why is it that we have the Trojan asteroids for millions of years, and why haven’t all of them crashed into Jupitar? I’m not sure how reliable this Miles is… Because of the rotating frame the point that an object from point A will fall between L1 and the Earth would only be if the system wasn’t rotating but due to the rotation object at A will lose its angular velocity by being pulled outward towards Earth but the point its being pulled to is always behind Earth in the sense you are examining the picture. the red line you drew should either be curved or to approximate it set the straight line at Earth’s previous position. It will play catch up and never get to Earth and eventually slow down but still maintain its outward velocity until balanced again. Now it moves slower than Earth and however you want to look at it Earth catches up or it slowed down is absolutely what happens. Take DTS course plot the unstable and stable manifolds. Run simulations that you have calculated it in Matlab or C++ and try and get a results that will prove what Miles has. I have been researching this for some time now for my Dynamical Systems and Chaos Theory class and have not had any of Miles results for my data.

    Reply:

    I personally find the criticisms of the “settled science” written Miles Mathis to be very interesting… he usually has some very valid points… On the other hand his replacement theories are just that: theories… some are very interesting… some are not so convincing… but that is the scientific process… nothing is proved… but theories can be proved wrong… and advancement is based upon elimination.

    Regarding “Asteroid 2010 SO16” I believe the criticisms made by Miles Mathis are valid… standard gravitational theory cannot explain the orbit of SO16… when it is approaching Earth on its inner “circular orbit” the Earth “standard” gravitational attraction should [according to the theory] cause some orbital deflection… the mechanics should deflect SO16 so that its path lies somewhere between L1 and the Earth… and that could even cause SO16 to impact the Earth… its basic vector mechanics.

    Standard gravitational theory does not explain the observed trajectory of SO16.
    This is another observation that invalidates the standard Newtonian explanation.

    The orbit of SO16 does not invalidate the “gravitational vortex” hypothesis… neither does it prove the “gravitational vortex” hypothesis… it just survives to face the challenges of another day… unfortunately “standard” gravitational theory doesn’t have that luxury if we follow the scientific method… unfortunately, the scientific method is uncomfortable territory for those people who believe in “settled science”.

    This blog is all about the scientific method… any scientific theory is valid until it is invalidated by observation… any comment is validate until it is invalidated… and challenging hubris is definitely part of the process.

    Now, let me answer your question more directly.

    I believe SO16 follows its observed orbital trajectory.
    I believe this observation invalidates the standard theory.
    I believe we need to develop new theories to explain the orbit of SO16.
    I don’t know what it “should” do.
    I can just observe what it does.

    But, being human, I am intrigued by theories that might explain the orbit of SO16.
    I will never know whether any of the theories are ultimately “true”.
    But, with luck, an open mind and the scientific theory I just might learn something.

    If you are happy with the “settled science” then that’s OK… everyone is entitled to reach their own conclusions… but if want to explore other theories that haven’t been invalidated by the scientific method then please feel free to contribute to the debate.

  2. A C Osborn says:

    If one rotation takes 350 years there is no way that we can know of the correct orbit. Unless it has gone through one of the horseshoe turn arounds in the last 100 years or so and been tracked by humans how do they know it performs like that.
    If it does perform like that how does Greg explain using current Gravity theory that sudden reversal of direction at about point C?
    Isn’t there a law of physics that states that on object will continue it’s course unless a force acts upon it, what force is there once it is past the Earth?
    What are the other Asteroids that perform such spacial airobatics mentioned in the wiki article?

  3. Jim Coyle says:

    The only force that could possibly manipulate rthe orbit would be Magnetism. If both bodies are of the same polarity they should repel each other, the larger being the dominate force. Earth Moves asteroid. I’m not sure why the suns polarity would allow this manuvere to happen as I’m sure its force would trump any exerted by the earth and or the asteroid. Of the top of my head that’s the only thing that makes any kind of sense, but not much of that either.

  4. Pingback: The Clockwork Universe | MalagaBay

  5. Pingback: The Clockwork Moon | MalagaBay

  6. Regarding a “Geocentric Rankine Vortex”, you were correct to use quotes around “gravitational”. Gravity is an acceleration without any perpendicular (tangential) motion. So this Rankine Vortex being caused by gravity alone is a non-starter. It may or may not exist in some fashion, but to cause this tangential motion we would need something else aside from or in conjunction with gravity. Gravity by itself is a direct line-motion acceleration (whatever the theoretical cause you subscribe to) and has no “twist”. Gravity doesn’t spin. Magnetism does, but that’s not what we’re talking about here – unless you wish to give Mathis the point on this topic, since his charge field IS the cause of magnetism, and it’s spin. It is a repulsion along with spin, in fact. It looks like this, when diagrammed:

    http://nevyns-lab.com/mathis/app/ProtonViewer

  7. Patrick Donnelly says:

    Again, nothing to do with 20 unknowns in Clerk Maxwell. So monkeys are satisfied with additional theories, which are merely restatement of the observation in different pseudo physical terms!

    Victory for the “Hidden hand”.

  8. Patrick Donnelly says:

    Jared the Dragon makes a great point. It also invalidates the concept of Arthur C Clarke and ?Dyson, that it is possible to creat gravity for large structures in space by rotation. There will be no acceleration for humans walking etc on the inside or outside of this rotating structure. This casts massive doubt on the “science” of NASA! There is only speed of rotation, with velocity only, for objects with respect to the rotating structure.

    Support for this idea is usually spruiked by reliance upon motor cycles circling a walled pit or funfair devices that force persons into their walls. analogy for monkeys!

  9. johnm33 says:

    “1) A body closer to the Sun completes an orbit more quickly than a body further away.
    2) If a body accelerates along its orbit, its orbit moves outwards from the Sun. If it decelerates, the orbital radius decreases.” and yet the Planets move at a more leisurely pace the wider their orbit.
    Could that mean that their orbital velocity is a property of the ‘field’ and that the ‘field’ is where the vortices operate? The foci of the planets in their orbits evokes the rim craters on many of the craters which EU claim as electrical phenomenon.
    Sometimes I invert things to see if there’s any more sense to be found, that is ‘space’ is say 42 orders of magnitude denser than mercury, a singular undifferentiated superconducting superfluid medium, it is permeated with waves on every scale and if we could observe it’s surface it would make the suns at it’s most turbulent appear as calm as a millpond on a windless day. Matter within this maelstrom is simply holographic bubbles that are sustained by aspects of the waves and in this manner provide ‘shade’ from the storm to lesser bubbles which looks like gravity at our scale, the larger the accumulation of bubbles the greater the shadow. Larger accumulations taking sustanence from the maelstrom recycle it and this imposes some order on it, and that order acts principally on other accumulations of bubbles.
    So the imaged proton would be recieving energy at its poles, and rotating such that the arms would look more like galactic arms, or with precession the heliospheric current sheet.

  10. oldbrew says:

    Therefore, we may ask what would make the asteroid make a 90o turn at this point in its motion.

    This looks like a misunderstanding. As Wikipedia says: ‘The orbital period of the smaller body is very nearly the same as for the larger body, and its path appears to have a horseshoe shape as viewed from the larger object in a rotating reference frame’.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horseshoe_orbit

    Emphasis on *appears*.

  11. Jared Magneson says:

    @johnm33: I’ve already directed you to the appropriate source that solves and answers all these questions. The mainstream cannot and WILL not. You have to look to the sidestream. You have to look at what Miles has done.

    When a theory solves a thousand other theories in a tenth the time, with just simply algebra, you should give it some serious weight.

  12. See point 8 at this: http://www.lextalus.com/pdf/The%20Coriolis%20Effect.pdf
    An object approaching from behind the greater mass is drawn (according to the balance of forces) to L4 or L5. With enough velocity it will sling-shot about that point and head back to behind the greater mass.
    As the heading of the article says, mathematics shows in true fashion what common sense tends to deceive (a common occurrence in engineering).

  13. johnm33 says:

    Jared, I try to keep abreast of M.Mathis’ work, in so far as I can understand it, which means I revisit it occasionaly to see if any more scales have slipped from my eyes. Where I differ with him is that although he carries the charge field through from the quantum level he doesn’t assume that the speed of waves in the medium, aether/space, indicates it’s density and thus one set of rules for physical reality, so where he suggests photon bombardment for the field force I’m thinking it’s the monstrous power of harmonic waves/standing waves forming in the medium. Even I wouldn’t bet on me against M.M. but I’m stuck with what I think makes sense.

  14. Jared Magneson says:

    @johnm33: Hmm, I’m not quite clear on what you’re differing with Miles upon. The “monstrous power” of waves in the medium? Do you mean the photon medium that other photons are traveling through, or larger baryonic matter? What is “waving” in the medium? What is the medium comprised of, to you? I’m genuinely asking.

    Here’s a video I made showing what wavelength and frequency in EM actually are, physically:
    Wavelength & Frequency – Inherent to Photon Motion

    And here’s a more recent breakdown I made of how photons actually gain stacked spins:
    Photon Stacked Spins – the story of quantum motion

    His paper on neutrinos may help you with this one, too.
    The Great NEUTRINO Muddle – Miles Mathis

    Click to access neutrino.pdf

  15. oldbrew says:

    At Wikipedia there’s a set of four side-by-side animations of asteroid SO16’s orbit. The fourth one is around the Sun, which is obviously just a normal elliptical orbit. The other three are from different frames of reference, which give the *apparent* oddities discussed above.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/(419624)_2010_SO16

    The asteroid hasn’t overthrown gravity theory.

  16. johnm33 says:

    Jared, if a wave propagates through water at 1,483mps and through steel at 4,512mps given their differing densities and elasticity then what density and elasticity would the medium have to be to propagate waves at 300,000,000mps? now I suspect that sound waves would be instantly dampened in such a dense medium, but it seems that when a photon or any other ‘particle’ implodes it does have sufficient energy to create waves in the medium
    http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/Sound/souspe2.html#c1
    http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/permot3.html#c1
    This suggests, to me, that as the sun passes through the medium it creates standing waves orthogonal to it’s direction of travel and that these persistent disturbances define the planets orbits, spin and period so these are intirinsic properties of the field in the medium rather than of the relatively puny planets, the sun itself may be caused by an interacting eddy field generated long ago at the heart of the galaxy, which entrained ‘matter’ concentrations by centripetal force. Luckily most stars seem to have been generated in this same manner and thus apart from size the fields they generate, or the eddies they occupy create similar disturbances as they pass through the medium.
    It may be that the passage of this asteroid outlines some dimensions of the field which defines Earths motion [ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Animation_of_(419624)_2010_SO16_orbit.gif ] and that we’ve simply tailored the maths to fit our perceptive limits..
    As to the nature of the medium? it would seem to be indivisible, much as we imagine matter to be in everyday life, superfluid in that the vortices present in it persist for eternities at our scale, and unitary in that some indications exist that superluminal communication/presence exists within it. So close to being either the inside of a black hole according to science, or a ‘universal’ god as described by the ancient seers.

  17. Jared Magneson says:

    johnm33 said: “This suggests, to me, that as the sun passes through the medium…”

    I think you may have missed a great many of Miles’ papers and that’s fine, there’s a lot to read. But there is no “medium”. There’s the charge field, and that’s it.

    johnm33 said: “…but it seems that when a photon or any other ‘particle’ implodes…”

    Photons cannot implode. Subatomic particles cannot implode. There’s only one “thing” in either, so nothing to implode upon. They can lose spins or gain spins, decreasing or increasing their effective radius-of-travel, but single, individual particles cannot implode.

    johnm33 said: “So close to being either the inside of a black hole according to science…”

    Black holes do not exist, John. They’re an error in Hilbert’s math in 1916, and that’s it. He divided by zero, returned an answer of “2”, and then mis-assigned THAT wrong answer to a non-existent radius variable in Einstein’s field equations. Droste, Schwarzchild, and Einstein didn’t make those mistakes, only Hilbert did.

    For more information including a full explosion of all those papers and equations, look up Stephen Crothers’ work on the topic or go to Miles’ science page.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.