An unexplained effect during solar eclipses casts doubt on General Relativity
Any thoughts on this article? Seems like we do not really completely understand gravity after all...
An unexplained effect during solar eclipses casts doubt on General Relativity
Any thoughts on this article? Seems like we do not really completely understand gravity after all...
Chris Duif did a good job I think, but he missed the boat on the explanation for the effect. Here is a link to Duif's original article. At the conclusion Duif rules out gravitational screening as the possible cause, without having discussed it anywhere in the article! In the paper by Wang et al (discussed in mutineer's thread) they do mention screening as a likely cause. It could be screening of either the Le Sage type or the (Quirino) Majorana type.
On the Allais Effect, thinking outside the box (of current physics) there is a way this increased gravity could be theorized during a total lunar eclipse. It would involve some sort of inverse proportionality of solar energy (radiating electromagnetic energy) and gravity. Theoretically, if the Earth were shielded by some very large mass so that it is now in shadow, then the solar energy reaching the planet would be curtailed. Though the planet acts as one unit, which is why this effect is not evident on its dark side, for example, a complete shielding would then modify, or increase, the gravitational effect as the solar energy is decreased, given their inverse proportionality. When we get a total lunar eclipse this occurs naturally, so that the gravitational force would be raised, at least enough to show its effect on a pendulum. The shielding would also affect atmospheric density, as theorized by Van Flandern and Yang in the article referenced. However, this would introduce a whole new way of understanding gravity, vis a vis solar energy, which would perhaps invalidate much of what we believe now. I don't know if the physics community is quite ready for this kind of thinking, for now, so leave it here as only a theoretical possibility.
If anyone is interested in the math which might describe this, though it is still an untested theory, please see the equations at: http://www.humancafe.com/cgi-bin/dis...gi?70/108.html
I do not hold its author accountable at this time, since it is still work in progress, namely myself. ops:
I gotta agree, I'm with you on that oneOriginally Posted by Lunatik
You seem to have attracted some interesting attention. Richard Hoagland...I dont' think he would sign things as "Hoaggie" though...Originally Posted by Lunatik
I blush at the attention, for it truly remains undeserved!
Like I said, this equation is only a work in progress, so go easy guys.
From equation one, the math on this site is horrible:Originally Posted by Lunatik
Em * c = hc/l = h/l (eomo)^1/2 = (1 - g)c^2= (Bm)c^2 = Eenergy
Apparently "Em" is to be some sort of "momentum associated with light, but that's not explained. then there's the mysterious (1-g) term which has units of mass, but it's impossible to say why.
A really poor work of putting random equations up for no good reason. Math that is well done has a point, it easy to follow, and well-explained. This is not worth looking at.
Thanks for looking in, the 'Em' was for 'electric force', but since revised.
That early "Axiomatic equation" was still seminal in development of what later became an equation describing how gravity and energy interact, which became a scientific paper showing how this interaction leads to the Pioneers Anomaly, with 4/5ths of the anomaly shown to have a 'variable gravity' G relationship, and the remainder due to systemic reasons. Some of those ideas were posted on the Pioneers 10 & 11 thread.
This final version, a paper titled: "Atomic Mass as a Gravity and Energy Function: with implications for the Pioneers 10 and 11 Acceleration Anomalies", is 16 pages with references. However, Physics Archives will not publish it without "enthusiastic endorsement" since I lack university affiliation, so it had only been seen privately.
If you, or anyone, know of someone (published at university) who would consider the endorsement needed to make it public, please write me to address in my profile.
Cheers, thanks, Ivan
[aka Lunatik ]
Not until you learn how to present math in a lucid manner. I am not convinced that you have anything.Originally Posted by Lunatik
I'm not out to convince you. I only offer to those who have an open mind to examine a new idea. To convince you is beyond my desire to explore. An idea is only an idea. It is not meant as a weapon to con-vince anyone.Originally Posted by Astronomy
Sometimes people really surprise me... what are they afraid of? New ideas? The math is in the paper, if anybody cares... but I really don't care if anyone does. It's ONLY an IDEA!
based on the Pioneer thread, it is clear that you are confused about the meaning of the formulae you use ("functions from Maxwell's, Planck's, DeBroglie's, Einstein's, and Newton's equations").
I have to agree with Astronomy.
If you still want to publish, try Galilean Electrodynamics: they published Lyndon Ashmore's paper.
Thanks papageno, but I'll hold for now. Not in any hurry. If the idea is any good, it won't disappear of its own, eventually somebody out there will either get it, or improve it. If no good, then who cares anyway?Originally Posted by papageno
It's not published yet! According to Lyndon Ashmore in this post it won't be published until 2006. There is a small (admittedly very small!) chance that the editors of Galilean Electrodynamics might come to their senses before then.Originally Posted by papageno
I'll believe that when I see it. Hopefully clearer minds will prevail.Originally Posted by Celestial Mechanic
I personally think Lunatik's theory, or who ever proposed it sounds interesting.
Does anyone know where the tests are done for gravity?
If they are taken in the Eclipsed part of the planet, shouldn't the test be done in several places at the same time.
I'm guessing but giving some credit to the people who do the tests to take the moons gravity into account or they are morons. But we know gravity can effect light and the deformations in space time can focus light.
But if gravity is in fact the transmission of gravitons would it be possible for a dense graviton field (the moon) be able to focus or deflect other gravitons?
Lunatik's "axiomatic equation" is no better than Ashmore's paradox: playing around with formulae does not give them a physical meaning.Originally Posted by electromagneticpulse
I did a quick search at the Physical Review Online Archive and I found this:Originally Posted by electromagneticpulse
Originally Posted by T. Van Flandern and X. S. Yang, [i
Gravitational forces add like vectors, hence gravitons should not interact with each other.Originally Posted by electromagneticpulse
The thing about GR or any relativsitc theory of gravity which shares a few of GR's most basic ideas is that it has to be non-linear, so if indeed there is a focre-carrier for gravity there almost certainly will be interactions between gravitons (edited to add: this is of course not an attmept to offer an explanation for the Allais effect).
Surely they must be morons.Originally Posted by electromagneticpulse
This is a far thing from a respectable scientific journal. The peer review process is completely gone from it.Originally Posted by Celestial Mechanic
This exactly the same conclusion I reached when Ashmore told us that they had accepted his paper.Originally Posted by Astronomy
AN IDEA IS ONLY AS GOOD AS ITS EXECUTION:
Here are the first 4 pages of the paper: "ATOMIC MASS AS A GRAVITY AND ENERGY FUNCTION, PER THE AXIOMATIC EQUATION: With Implications for the Pioneers 10 & 11 Acceleration Anomalies," by Ivan D. Alexander
The rest of the paper shows how this equation is used to figure Energy and G 'proportionals' for planets in our solar system, and how those resulting numbers coincide with the Pioneers 10/11 anomalous acceleration towards the Sun.Abstract: Mass is both a function of energy, as per Einstein's famous equation E = mc^2, and also a Quantum function of Planck's constant times c, divided by lambda times the proton mass, also known as the DeBroglie-Einstein equation. It will be shown that in addition to these, mass is also a gravity function, as defined by the Axiomatic Equation, derived here, as an extension of the DeBroglie-Einstein equation; where the proton mass is a variable, leading to a proton-to-proton gravitational coupling constant variable, which can then be computed into Newton's G gravity 'constant'. This Newton's G becomes a function of the Energy region where it is being measured, where for our solar system its delta G increases linearly at the rate of ~7.24E-11 Nm^2 kg^-2 per astronomical unit from the Sun, one AU = ~150E+9 meters. The hypothesis is that what happens to atomic mass at the quantum level is how it converts into Newton's G gravity at the macro level, per the Energy regions where G is measured.
Introduction: It had always been assumed that gravity is a universal constant, with which using Kepler's Law we were able to calculate distant orbital mass for planets and other cosmic bodies. Because these calculations yielded usable trajectories in space, there was no reason to doubt this universality until the Pioneers 10 and 11 traveling in opposite directions beyond the Kuiper Belt encountered a consistent acceleration towards the Sun, at the computed rate of ~8E-8 cm.s^-2, which remains unexplained to known physics . Neither Newtonian gravity nor Modern Physics as postulated by Einstein's General Relativity, both based on assumed universal constant G=~6.67E-11 Nm^2kg^-2, can accommodate this acceleration anomaly for our distant space crafts, so other systemic causes were examined, as per Scheffer , to no verifiable satisfaction. Gravity remains an anomaly to our understanding, though we had been able to use its assumed constant successfully for the inner planets. It was at about Saturn, at 9.5 AU, that this anomaly became pronounced enough to become measurable, though we had not been looking for it. In fact, it should have become obvious by Jupiter, at 5.2 AU, as will be seen below. The fact that this acceleration anomaly had remained constant right out to the Kuiper Belt, at beyond 50 AU, points to the need for a deeper understanding of what gravity is. Based on this observation, there is reason to believe that it may not be a universal constant, but interactive with the solar energy output of our local star, in a predictable way. There are now proposals to study this phenomenon directly, such as proposed by the European Space Agency  and by the proposed study by the LANL/JPL team, S.G. Turychev, J.D. Anderson and M.M. Nieto . This may be achieved by finding the inertial mass equivalence to the gravity G at any given AU distance, per the 'principle of equivalence' hypothesis, as studied by Haisch-Rueda et al . The concept of a non-universal Newton's G was proposed by both MOND  as well as by the late Toivo Jaakkola , so this is not a totally new idea. To date, no solution has shown itself to satisfy a relativistic approach to gravity to explain this anomaly. It is here proposed a methodology for understanding this problem using a modified version of the E = hc/ L(proton mass) = (1)c^2 equation, where mass is redefined. The computed values from this modified DeBroglie-Einstein equation yields a significant result for the Pioneers Anomaly observed, where G is shown to not be a universal constant.
1.0 : How the Axiomatic Equation was derived:
1.1: Hypothesis for a new definition of Mass: Conceptually any value of one can be derived from an integer multiplied by its inverse, from zero to infinity, where the product is always = 1. This principle can be applied to mass as having a value that is the product of Energy and its inverse 1/c^2, to equal one. In our region of space, this will always work out to be E =~ 9E+16 Joules, or 90 petajoules, when m = 1. Because we measure gravitational mass on Earth in kilograms, this m = 1 kg is assumed. But it need not be limited to Earth's gravity, if gravity is not a universal constant, since this value of m = 1 kg may be different elsewhere. By this above reasoning, mass is retained as m = 1, but the kilograms is held aside for now and (m) will be treated as kg/kg instead, so that the value of one, as a product of inverse numbers, is preserved.
This means that when there is a total interaction between E and 1/c^2, mass as m =1 is assured. But if this interaction is less perfect, meaning the numerator E is less than the denominator 1/c^2, mass becomes less than one. The evident assumption that follows is that if mass is less than exactly one, there is a remainder that must be accounted for. Given the DeBroglie quantum equation E = hc/ L(proton m), we can see immediately that for E = 90 petajoules, given h = 6.626E-34 m^2 kg s^-2, c = 3E+8 m s^-1, and L = 1.322E-15 m, the resulting proton mass = 1.67E-27 kg , which thus matches Einstein's E = mc^2. However, now if the real mass is less than one, to satisfy DeBroglie's equation, leaving all things equal, we must find another value on the right side to satisfy the equation. One way to do this is to say that mass, always equal to one, is modified by a gravitic value related to the left side, its proton mass, to account for a real value less than one. This can be met with subtracting from m = 1 a proton-to-proton gravitational constant value, let's call it 'g', which on Earth is computed as g = 5.9E-39, dimensionless. The resulting value for mass becomes m = (1-g) approximately, as will be explained. Though this value is so small as to appear negligible, it will be shown to be very important when values for E are calculated for different planetary orbital Energies.
1.2 : Calculating Mass as a function of Energy: Thus far, what results from the above is an equation that looks like this:
E = hc/ L(proton m) = ~(m)c^2 = ~(1-g)c^2
This is only an approximation, as will be shown later, but it serves to illustrate a principle. It also illustrates that (1-g)c^2 is a value of Energy that must translate into:
(1-g)c^2 = c^2 - gc^2, whereby E' = E - gc^2, where E' is a true Energy value, and E is the inverse of 1/c^2. This ideal inverse relationship can only exist in its pure form if there is no gravity, otherwise, E' must be less than E, per this equation, which means E is an ideal number and mathematically correct, though E' represents a real value.
If m =1, which means g becomes zero, it drops out, then the equation no longer works, except as a pure expression of E = mc^2. But no matter how small the g value, as long as g holds above zero, this equation may be usable as an expression of the interaction of Energy and its inverse, with a g remainder. The result is that E' is slightly less than E, of necessity, and that this Energy E' is the value sought after to calculate the proton gravitational constant g. Once found, then it can be converted into Newton's G, as will be shown. For now, the operable equation is an approximation for E':
E' = hc/ L(proton m) = ~(1-g)c^2, where g is the proton gravitational constant, as it is subtracted from a mathematical ideal m = 1.
This leaves us with two mathematical ideals: E/c^2 = m, and m = 1, which may not represent what happens in the real world. If we take one hydrogen atom as m = < 1, what we have is a proton nucleus surrounded by electron energy shell. This total atom is a unity of one minus its gravitational constant, as measured here on Earth, per this equation, which is less than the mathematical ideal, but closer to what is observed. Proton mass is a gravity effect, where on the left side the quantum E = hf is an energy effect. On the right, we have an ideal mass unit minus its gravitational coupling constant, times energy c^2, which should result in the Energy that defines E = hf. Thus, greater or lesser values for Energy E' will result in lesser or greater values for proton mass on the left, since they are inversely proportional, while at the same time on the right we should get the same proportional values for g. What we had hitherto assumed to be ideally equal,
E = hf = mc^2, is in fact not, since there is a small remainder force of g to be accounted for. Though extremely small, this g is a sought after value, because it will enable us to calculate the like Newton's G value from it.
1.3 : Computing Newton's G 'constant' from the Proton gravitational coupling 'constant': Multiplying out the above equation, we can see that mass is defined as (1-g) times the energy value of c^2, so that of necessity the proton gravitational constant, as a function of energy, becomes gc^2. However, this will be found as incomplete without pi^2. So the gravitational function G should now become:
f(G)m = gc^2 (m) pi^2, to yield an approximation of G = 6.67E-11 m^3 kg^-1 s^-2, which is:
f(G)m = (5.9E-39)(9E+16 m^2 s^-2) (pi)^2, which equals = 53.1E-23 (9.87) = 52.41E-22, in taking the square root is: function of G = ~7.239E-11 , which is in SI Base:
G^2 (1) = g (1) m^2 s^-2 pi^2, where kg/kg is implied for m =1, and g is expressed in "Volts meters squared/second", viz. W/A m^2/s, where for A = Nm^-1,
then (m^2 kg s^-3) (m^2 s^1)/ (m kg s^-2) (m^-1) = m^3 m kg/kg s^-2, making:
V*m^2/s =V^2= (m^4 s^-2)(kg/kg) and therefore:
G^2 = [(m^4 s^-2)(kg/kg)(m^2 s^-2) pi^2],
(SI base units for f(g) may also be (kg s^-1), still unresolved)**
so taking the square root:
G = (52.41E-22 m^6 s^-4 kg/kg)^1/2 = ~7.239 E - 11 m^3 kg/kg s^-2 (which is ~0.57E-11 more than Newton's G = ~6.67E-11 Nm^2 kg^-2), as only an approximation of Earth's G.
Although this is only an approximation of Earth's G, and g estimated in SI units of Volts remains unresolved, it is a workable equation for converting proton gravitational constant into Newton's G, with a relatively close result. Though it is not exact, there may be other reasons why Earth's gravity is slightly less. Earth may generate its own energy, which may effect planetary spin or interior heat, and its magnetic field, though for now these will not be pursued. There may also exist a relationship between Earth's energy received from the Sun and its total orbital Energy, modified by its internally generated energy, but not covered here.
1.4 : Comments on the preceding development: At this stage, the equations are still disconnected from their applications, which will follow, where the Newton's G 'constant' will be shown to grow linearly from the Sun at a constant rate of delta G = 7.239E-11 Nm^2 kg^-2/AU. The purpose of the development thus far is to show how the DeBroglie-Einstein equation can be modified to accommodate a gravitational value g, which can convert into Newton's G, and prove a useful variable. The goal will be ultimately to show how this new value of G applies to the Pioneers Anomaly. For now, we still need to finalize the above listed equations into what will be a workable model. Why was this not addressed a hundred years earlier by physics in Einstein's famous E = mc^2? My guess is that the value difference between ideal mass and real mass was so small, viz. 10x^-39, that it seemed irrelevant, so was basically ignored, or perhaps simply not yet understood.
1.5 : Writing the Axiomatic Equation: If we postulate that solar Energy may be different for planetary orbits, we must accommodate this with the two values of Energy, as E' computed for the planets, and E for Earth, (where here E equals 90 petajoule), we need a qualifier function of f(E'/E) to satisfy the computed values of E'. It is obvious that for Earth, where E' = E, this additional function f(E'/E) is irrelevant, since it equals one, but for other planets this will become instrumental in computing their relative proton mass and gravitational constants.
So the equation, factoring in this postulate, should be:
E' = hc/ L(proton m) = f(E'/E)~(1-g)c^2 = planetary total orbital Energy
An additional qualifier, to make g exact , which will become more meaningful later is a function:
Proton gravitational constant f(g' ) = (proton m)' * g / (proton m), where
(proton m)' = proton mass for E', and (proton m) = proton mass for E.
So the full Axiomatic Equation, factoring in pi in conversion to G, should read as:
E' = hc/ L(proton m) = f(E'/E) [1 - f(g')pi^2] c^2
Where f(E'/E) [1 - f(g' )pi^2] is the modified version of Mass on the right side of the DeBroglie-Einstein equation, for m = 1, as a postulated Axiom ...Snip...
You can find the BAD post for Energy and Gravity for planets at: TABLE OF OLD PLANETARY NEWTON'S G , AND THE NEW (varaible) G, OLD MASS, AND NEW G-ADJUSTED MASS (as 'local' mass in local G):...Snip... 3.2 : Acceleration of the Pioneers towards the Sun:
The acceleration towards the Sun may therefore be calculated from the G variable, using the methodology described above. Taking the delta G divided by Earth's known G, and then divided by one AU in meters yields the expected acceleration pointed towards the Sun:
Delta G = 7.239E-11 Nm^2kg^-2 (m^/s^2)
Earth G = 6.67E-11 Nm^2kg^-2
One AU in meters = 150E+9 meters
(7.239E-11 Nm^2kg^-2) / (6.67E-11) / (150E+9) = Pioneers acceleration anomaly
hypothetical acceleration = 1.085 / 150E+9 = 7.235E-12 m/s^2, in centimeters is:
-a = ~7.235E-10 cm/s^2, which satisfies the computed delta G of 7.239E-11 per AU, and workably close to Earth's G = 6.67E-11 Nm^2kg^-2 at one AU from the Sun.
It is this value the Pioneers should experience due to the equivalence of delta G on their inertial mass as they travel out of the solar system. The fact that their trajectory acceleration towards the Sun had been calculated as ~8E-8 cm/s^2, which translates into a higher delta G = ~8E-9 N (too high per AU), leaves room for other systemic factors as to why the probes are slowing in deep space. ...Snip...(pg. 10)
I'm posting this for information purposes only, to show how the math was developed, and certainly not to "con(with) - vince(victory)" anyone. Read it with amusement, if you will. Needless to say, if Newton's G 'constant' works as described, a lot of things change, so can fully understand the natural resistance to this idea. Not my fault if it proves after we measure G in situ to be so, with negative implications for GR... I didn't build the universe. #-o
I'm heading out for Tahiti for a couple of weeks, will visit upon return. Cheers, Ivan (aka Lunatik)
Here's a link to a 1960 Russian paper that discusses Allais' effect in terms of Brush's theory of gravity. I happen to be a supporter of Brush's theory.
Lunatik, does your paper explain why Halley is seemingly unaffected by your proposed variable G? It has been pointed out to you that we can now track Halley through its complete orbit.
Perhaps you remember this article: Distant Halley's Comet
In addition, there's the JPL Minor Planet & Comet Ephemeris Service. This data is used by professional and amateur astronomers. Are you able to show that any of the data produced by this service is incorrect?
It seems to me that with the data available, you ought to be able to show a pattern that supports your conjecture. Have you done so?
Yes, I remember that article and subsequent discussion. But no, I don't have an explanation for why Halley's highly elliptical orbit closely follows Newton's orbital dynamics, except to note that we do not have two way communciations attached to the comet, so cannot comment on how it behaves incrementally at the AU distances. It could be that once an orbit is established, no matter how elliptical, normal orbital laws apply, since Halley is not on an escape hyperbollic trajectory. But this is merely my guess, cannot offer a more informed opinion at this time. Perhaps an in situ measure of G in the outer solar system could offer some clues, but I remain clueless for now. :-?Originally Posted by Tassel
Thanks for bringing it up.
That paper was reprinted in the book "Pushing Gravity". But Radzievskii did a second paper in the 60's where the specific effects of an eclipse on an inclinometer were quantified. He thought that an inclinometer was a much better test of a Le Sage-type shadowing effect than a pendulum. I hope there could be another book where the second paper could be reprinted. Vladimir Radzievskii passed away two years ago, standing by his theory to the end.Originally Posted by John Kierein
Thanks for the link to Radziyevskiy's paper "The Nature of Gravitation". It does remind me of 'push gravity' mentioned elsewhere (a kind of Machian principle?), where 'pressure' from frictionless 'ultra-cosmic' particles interact with electromagnetic energy. I can envision such an isotropic spacevacuum energy represented in the inverse of E, viz. 1/c^2, where the c^2 represents that 'other' form of energy. What is it? Well, we don't know, but if it is an inverse of E, then it has to be equal to it in the absence of electromagnetic energy. As the paper says, pg. 8; "There is a well-defined relationship between the relativistic expressions of the momentum and energy, and it is impossible to imagine that a body radiating energy E (i.e., mass E/c^2) could with this momentum radiate more than E/c. If we suppose that the radiation of the mass is compensated by the corresponding reverse process of graviton absorption, the we return to a more natural elementary variant of the Lomonosov-Lesage hypothesis." However, that said, 'graviton radiation' is still an unconfirmed phenomenon. I suspect that c^2 is that upper limit graviton 'energy', which interacts with E. Can this be 'shielded'? ...don't know.Originally Posted by John Kierein
Well, gotta go find my passport.
We can follow its position in time by simply observing it with telescopes.Originally Posted by Lunatik
Why would we need a two-way communication?
Why would that happen?Originally Posted by Lunatik
If G is not constant, but depends on position (or distance from the Sun), there is no reason for the orbit to follow a quadratic curve (whether elliptical or hyperbolic or parabolic).
Unless you assume, like Jerry, that the masses magically re-adjust themselves to compensate exactly for the change of G, observing the orbit is more than enough to test your idea.
The anomalous motion of the Pioneer satellites is explainable in terms of pushing gravity (PG). A main objection to PG was made by Feymann that the earth should fall in to the sun because of an increase in flux of the pushing particles in the forward direction. But if the push is due electromagnetic radiation, the increase in flux in the forward direction is very small until the velocity approaches c. In fact one could interpret the increase in flux as causing the relativistic increase in mass as a body approaches c.
There should be a very small increase in flux, however, for the Pioneer S/C in the PG theory. This would appear to be a retardation in the velocity that would seem to be an anomalous acceleration toward the sun.