Jerry Jensen's ATM idea

[Jerry]

[Moderator note] this thread was created by splitting posts from the Gravity is a nuclear force thread.

It contains posts discussing Jerry Jensen's ideas on gravity and mass. [/Moderator note]

Well, I've just browsed through this thread and I'm surprised that no one realized this:

When a pion is being exchanged there are three possible combinations:

p⁺ pi⁰ n⁰
p⁺ pi^- p⁺
n⁰ pi⁺ n⁰ .

The charge of a deuteron is never anything but +e. No oscillating charge, no pull on hydrogen atoms that don't pull back, etc. In short, no conjecture, much less theory. Nothing to see here.

Conceptually there is nothing wrong with Steve's root hypothesis, if you assume the frequency of these oscillations is so high that it is virtually undetectable. Face it: There has to be a mechanism for backing mass/energy into a gravitational field. Particle physicists assume this is the function of the Higgs boson - an animal never detected.

Particle physics has a phenominological history of development: We observed behaviour, then built models that explain the behavior. Eventually the models became so good, they could predict behavior in many cases. But this is no different from the development cycle of epicycles, and may contain fundamental conceptual errors in spite of the success of the methods.

One of the offshoots of Steve's approach (and my own, which is almost identical) is that we should expect field behavior near massive objects that is different from particle solutions. These variations should also be observable, and I think they are: In the acceleration of the solar wind, the Doppler dip of the Pioneer 6 probe, and many other poorly understood phenomenon - such as triboelectric effects.

[Nereid]

Conceptually there is nothing wrong with Steve's root hypothesis, if you assume the frequency of these oscillations is so high that it is virtually undetectable.

How high would 'the frequency of these oscillations' have to be to be 'virtually undetectable'?

Face it: There has to be a mechanism for backing mass/energy into a gravitational field. Particle physicists assume this is the function of the Higgs boson - an animal never detected.

This is either trivially true, a question that is well-recognised as something which will come from a unified theory, or nonsense (well, apart from the need to replace 'never' with 'not so far').

If it is part of some unification, then wouldn't it be better to focus on the details of that unification, than just a result? After all, without knowing where it comes from, what guidance could this statement have (in terms of ways to find answers)?

Particle physics has a phenominological history of development: We observed behaviour, then built models that explain the behavior. Eventually the models became so good, they could predict behavior in many cases. But this is no different from the development cycle of epicycles, and may contain fundamental conceptual errors in spite of the success of the methods.

Which is, again, either trivially true (something that is inevitable, given the scientific method), a cop-out (science progresses by testing theories, the 'mainstream' one against alternatives), or nonsense (and what on earth is "phenominological"?)

One of the offshoots of Steve's approach (and my own, which is almost identical) is that we should expect field behavior near massive objects that is different from particle solutions. These variations should also be observable, and I think they are: In the acceleration of the solar wind, the Doppler dip of the Pioneer 6 probe, and many other poorly understood phenomenon - such as triboelectric effects.

And if I'm not mistaken, you have put your alternative ideas up for us to consider, here in the ATM section, at least once before. Time to revive at least one such thread? (I'd prefer that we don't hijack this one, discussing Stephen's idea, to discuss yours Jerry).

[Jerry]

How high would 'the frequency of these oscillations' have to be to be 'virtually undetectable'?This is either trivially true, a question that is well-recognised as something which will come from a unified theory, or nonsense (well, apart from the need to replace 'never' with 'not so far').

How high of frequencies can be detected with scintillation detectors? The deBroglie wavelength of an hydrogen atom is a good jumping off point.

If it is part of some unification, then wouldn't it be better to focus on the details of that unification, than just a result? After all, without knowing where it comes from, what guidance could this statement have (in terms of ways to find answers)?

Good point, but no, this is not a unification solution - I don't think gravity has 'particle' properties on any scale - gravity is, in this theoretical concept, a chaotic above-the-Wien-limit electromagnetic field that results in a net attraction between masses while at the same time incumbering the motion of objects within this field, especially towards the other.

And if I'm not mistaken, you have put your alternative ideas up for us to consider, here in the ATM section, at least once before. Time to revive at least one such thread?

These ideas have been developed on this board, basically I have thrown out possible solutions and trimmed out the fat - thrown away what has been falsified. I'm not sure which thread to revive - the 'gravity behaving badly' thread was probably the most complete, but it would take some digging to find it. I started posting on the Bad Astronomy board because I had exhausted local resources available to me - and it has been a fruitful venture.

The prediction about Cassini will be very easy to follow. Likewise, MRO should uncover degenerate harmonics in the gravity solutions of Mars. I wish I knew enough about the Messinger science package to venture some predictions - that is something I will have to look at more closely - Likewise, the ESA Venus project - once again there should be degenerecies in the gravimetric solutions, but opposite the Martian probes in terms of crust-to-central mass distributions. We see this already in the polarized Beuguer gravity anomalies.

(I'd prefer that we don't hijack this one, discussing Stephen's idea, to discuss yours Jerry).

Steven was taking a pretty bad beating from the CM and not responding. CM took a cut at my physics background too, which is funny. I don't think the right response to fledgling theorists is to take them out at the knees - point them to some useful references or something. Besides, Steve, in my opinion, is on the right track.

[Ari Jokimaki]

I'm not sure which thread to revive - the 'gravity behaving badly' thread was probably the most complete, but it would take some digging to find it.

Here it is.

[Celestial Mechanic]

[Snip!]Steven was taking a pretty bad beating from the CM and not responding.

And deservedly so. Electric charge is conserved. At no time does a deuteron have a charge other than +e. Case closed.

CM took a cut at my physics background too, which is funny.

Once again, deservedly so. In the "Gravity Behaving Badly Thread" you declare E=mc² is wrong and that the formula should be E=mc^e, e being the base of natural logarithms, e=2.7182845... . I cannot image how someone with a physics background could come up with such a howler. I cannot imagine any sensible meaning for units of kg*(m/s)^e.

I don't think the right response to fledgling theorists is to take them out at the knees -- point them to some useful references or something. Besides, Steve, in my opinion, is on the right track.

Earlier in this thread I said the following:

The approach followed by you and by Stephen is almost identical in this respect: you ignore physical principles already known as well as measurements and experiments already performed. Charge does not "oscillate"; the speed of light does not vary by 20 percent across the diameter of the Solar System. Both of you need to go back to the university library of your choice and really read up on physics.

I'll say it again: Get thee to a library!

[Jerry]

And deservedly so. Electric charge is conserved. At no time does a deuteron have a charge other than +e. Case closed.

And triboelectric effects cannot rip off electrons with enough energy to produce gamma rays, but they do.

Once again, deservedly so. In the "Gravity Behaving Badly Thread" you declare E=mc² is wrong and that the formula should be E=mc^e, e being the base of natural logarithms, e=2.7182845... . I cannot image how someone with a physics background could come up with such a howler. I cannot imagine any sensible meaning for units of kg*(m/s)^e.

I appreciate your penchant for chasing down units, and acknowledge they are always important, but it does not mean I am incapable of leaving out a constant in an informal discussion.

In any case, E=kmc^E IS NOT A GOOD IDEA for a lot of reasons. >>>NO< I am not shouting, my keybored is acting up...later, after we ahve both had some sleep...

[Celestial Mechanic]

Conceptually there is nothing wrong with Steve's root hypothesis, if you assume the frequency of these oscillations is so high that it is virtually undetectable. Face it: There has to be a mechanism for backing mass/energy into a gravitational field. Particle physicists assume this is the function of the Higgs boson - an animal never detected.

If the frequency cannot be detected, why should any supposed effect be detectable? And speaking of undetected things like the Higgs boson, let me point out that violations of charge conservation have NEVER been observed. Are you sure you want to ride this crippled pony of a theory? This is one for the glue factory!

Particle physics has a phenomenological history of development: We observed behaviour, then built models that explain the behavior. Eventually the models became so good, they could predict behavior in many cases. But this is no different from the development cycle of epicycles, and may contain fundamental conceptual errors in spite of the success of the methods.

Great Flying Spaghetti Monster! I do wish people would stop gratuitously mentioning epicycles! That's 10 points off for you!

If your statement is taken at face value it would seem to mean that if our theories get to be too good at prediction then we should distrust them because they cannot possibly be right. What kind of an approach is this?

One of the offshoots of Steve's approach (and my own, which is almost identical) is that we should expect field behavior near massive objects that is different from particle solutions. These variations should also be observable, and I think they are: In the acceleration of the solar wind, the Doppler dip of the Pioneer 6 probe, and many other poorly understood phenomena -- such as triboelectric effects.

The approach followed by you and by Stephen is almost identical in this respect: you ignore physical principles already known as well as measurements and experiments already performed. Charge does not "oscillate"; the speed of light does not vary by 20 percent across the diameter of the Solar System. Both of you need to go back to the university library of your choice and really read up on physics.

[Jerry]

If the frequency cannot be detected, why should any supposed effect be detectable? And speaking of undetected things like the Higgs boson, let me point out that violations of charge conservation have NEVER been observed. Are you sure you want to ride this crippled pony of a theory? This is one for the glue factory!

You are making the assumption that these effects would be detectable as charge conservation violations. What makes you assume that?

A year ago I was shouted-out of a lecture when I speculated that point charges can be induced in electrically isolated grains. Within a month it was announced that gamma rays actually originate in lighning, and are not induced by cosmic rays. This observation flies in-the-face of current theory, and where there is smoke there is fire: gamma rays result in pair production. Isolated pairs rejoin in a clap of thunder. How do they get so far appart?

Great Flying Spaghetti Monster! I do wish people would stop gratuitously mentioning epicycles! That's 10 points off for you!

Agreed it is a little like mentioning a paradyme shift. I hate that.

Particle physics relies upon statistical solutions. I can argue that, at the root of particle physical theory, complex wave mechanics are involved that reduce to these 'simplified' models. This does not eschew quantum mechanics.

If your statement is taken at face value it would seem to mean that if our theories get to be too good at prediction then we should distrust them because they cannot possibly be right. What kind of an approach is this?

Good point. But I think a better analogy to what I am saying is to look at models of complex protien interactions: Relativistics physics play no obvious role, and we do not need them to understand these 'higher level' quantum behaviors. Gravity plays virtually no role in QMs. So the description within QM of gravimetric properties may be completely out in left-field.

The approach followed by you and by Stephen is almost identical in this respect: you ignore physical principles already known as well as measurements and experiments already performed. Charge does not "oscillate"; the speed of light does not vary by 20 percent across the diameter of the Solar System. Both of you need to go back to the university library of your choice and really read up on physics.

Basic theory has never properly married quantum and relativistic behavior, and this is after an 80 year engagement. That is a problem. Basic theory cannot churn out a good reason for lightning to produce gamma rays, for the acceleration of the solar wind, the accelerations of the Pioneer probes or the anomalous behavior of Cassini as it approaches Titan. Something very basic might be wrong.

If you want to try an interest though experiment, assume the speed of light does vary 20% between the sun and the Kuiper belt, then figure out how you would measure this, and what effect varying the speed of light would have on every thing we see and experience. Then gradually reduce the effect, making it most pronounced very near the sun, reducing to a very small, nearly constant acceleration by the orbit of Saturn. At what level would the effect be non-detectable? At what level would Saturn detectably glow more brightly in direct solar opposition than predicted? (Something we have observed!)

At what level would we see only wider-than-expected errors in GR predictions? Errors such as more gravitational lenses than we would expect to see; and greater gravitational redshifts in massive objects? The red shifts of these massive objects would cause us to overestimate both their size and absolute magnitude, and ultimately the size of the Hubble Constant. Since the most intrinsically redshifted objects would also appear to be more distant, there would be the appearance of cosmic evolution where evolution may not be occurring. Is this what we are seeing?

A speed of light in a true vacuum that is 20% greater that what we measure on Earth would explain the low solar neutrino content. That is where I came up with that number, and we both agree it is wrong. A much smaller shift is possible, but this requires a better explanation for the solar neutrino count. Do neutrinos have mass, as some have suggested? Is some of the mass of the sun allocated to the gravitational field? (Perhaps more than an atom of the same mass would be allocated at the orbit of the Earth); and as these atoms are fused, does this gravitational energy return to the sun? Is the energy per fusion reaction greater than SR predicts? Is this why red dwarf stars appear to have much longer lives than we think they should?

Where is the gravity budget for fusion experiments conducted on earth? Is the much wider-than-predicted blast zones of nuclear blasts due entirely to the unexpected fusion of case materials; or is there more energy than expected in the collapse of gravitational waves as mass is converted to energy? How do supernova explosions accelerate matter to such incredible velocities? What happens to the gravitational field energy when they explode? Why haven't we detected gravity waves?

Where is that Higgs boson when you really need it? Can your university library-of-choice answer these questions?

Edit: Grammer

[Celestial Mechanic]

You are making the assumption that these effects would be detectable as charge conservation violations. What makes you assume that?

If if walks like a duck and says "AFLAC!!!" like a duck, it's probably a duck. Stephen's idea calls for the charge of a deuteron to oscillate between +e and 0. That sounds like violation of charge conservation to me.

Agreed it is a little like mentioning a paradigm shift. I hate that.

I take points of for that too. Another 10 points!

[Snip!]But I think a better analogy to what I am saying is to look at models of complex protein interactions: Relativistics physics play no obvious role, and we do not need them to understand these 'higher level' quantum behaviors. Gravity plays virtually no role in QMs. So the description within QM of gravimetric properties may be completely out in left-field.

Two words: Hydrogen bonds. (Not bombs! ) Hydrogen bonds play a crucial role in the shapes and ultimately the functions of proteins. Of course we're still at the point of experiment and observe, we can't predict and observe yet. (Someone please correct me if I'm wrong about this!)

Basic theory has never properly married quantum and relativistic behavior, and this is after an 80 year engagement. That is a problem. Basic theory cannot churn out a good reason for lightning to produce gamma rays, for the acceleration of the solar wind, the accelerations of the Pioneer probes or the anomalous behavior of Cassini as it approaches Titan. Something very basic might be wrong.

Unfortunately the proposed solutions of various ATM proponents are wrong, very wrong, in their basic assumptions. Charge oscillation as proposed by Stephen is one of these very, very wrong things.

If you want to try an interesting thought experiment, assume the speed of light does vary 20% between the sun and the Kuiper belt, then figure out how you would measure this, and what effect varying the speed of light would have on every thing we see and experience. Then gradually reduce the effect, making it most pronounced very near the sun, reducing to a very small, nearly constant acceleration by the orbit of Saturn. At what level would the effect be non-detectable?

I tried it, remember when I branded your model "the Funhouse Solar System"? We do not see such grotesque distortions in the positions of the planets. And the fact that we do not observe aberrations other than the standard stellar and planetary observations puts fairly stringent limits on this effect.

But why take my word for it? Browse the Particle Data Group website, I think they may have some information on the variability of the speed of light. Since the speed of light and special relativity is so important to particle physicists, I'm sure that they have the best limits for both Earth-bound and Solar System experiments and references to the experiments in question. And no whining about these only being two-way measurements!

At what level would Saturn detectably glow more brightly in direct solar opposition than predicted? (Something we have observed!)

Apples and oranges, Jerry. Two more words for you: glory scattering.

Time does not allow me to answer the rest of this post; maybe later on tonight. Unless something more flawed and urgent comes up.

[Jerry]

Sorry, Neried, I missed the warning, and it was not unreasonable.

If if walks like a duck and says "AFLAC!!!" like a duck, it's probably a duck. Stephen's idea calls for the charge of a deuteron to oscillate between +e and 0. That sounds like violation of charge conservation to me.

You and Steven both missed the point:
The sign is irrelevant in an AC or field coupled component: We know there is an energy field coupling – we call this gravity. We know the gravitational force is a small fraction of a basic charge unit. If this is an electronic field, there would only be a magnitude coupling, not a "DC offset".

We also know, from the Hall effect, that the basic charge can be subdivided. What is not known is whether or not the gravitational force is electromagnetic, and whether or not it is related to the vibrational modes of an atomic nucleus. I am willing to argue that gravity is indeed electromagnetic it nature for a lot of reasons.

1) To the first order, gravity follows exactly the same inverse square rule.
2) Planck’s constant was derived using black body radiation. This is important, because it associates the ‘steps’ in the electromagnetic function with experimentally determined energy levels in baryons, leaving open the question of whether or not smaller ‘steps’ could exist if the search for radiating frequencies and fields is not limited to the thermal energy spectrum of baryons. In other words, gravity can only be associated with an electromagnetic field if this field only weakly interacts with matter.
3) Everywhere we look for, and expect to find gravity waves (neutron star binaries, black holes, supernova explosions) we find extremely energetic gamma rays. (This is what would be expected, if a gravitational collapse releases ultra-ultra-high frequency radiation; which is almost immediately reduced to lower observable frequencies through radiation transfer functions with ordinary photons, including microwaves.)
4) If such a field exists, it provides an immediate mechanism for tribo-electric effects, energizing particles in motion regardless of their proximity to other charges. This provides an easy explanation for how the solar wind becomes charged, how lightning originates in isolated clouds, and why earthquakes disturb the ionosphere.
5) The second order effects are rather more complex than simple gravity, and explain why Titan appears, from orbits and fly-by’s, to have a mean density of only ~2g/cc, but has all the hallmarks of a much more dense moon.

I tried it, remember when I branded your model "the Funhouse Solar System"? We do not see such grotesque distortions in the positions of the planets. And the fact that we do not observe aberrations other than the standard stellar and planetary observations puts fairly stringent limits on this effect.

Using only GR principles, the solar system is a hall-of-mirrors, and so is the rest of universe. GR should cause a slight focusing of the light from Saturn when the Earth and sun are in exact opposition, intensifying the glory. What is not clear is whether or not GR and glory effects can account for all the brilliance of Saturn during opposition.

Apples and oranges, Jerry. Two more words for you: glory scattering.

I am of the opinion, from reading accounts by astronomers of the startling brilliance of Saturn when this rare transition occurred last July, that the glory exceeded all expectations and is difficult to impossible to account for. What I do not know is if these were exaggerated accounts, or if they were ignore the GR effects. I welcome any and all analytical data which can help resolve this..

[Sani5]

There was an interesting couple of documentaries on Channel 5 UK last night. They both included the term 'UFO' in their titles, but focussed on secretive military research and the paranoia of the cold war after the second world war, etc. What I found most interesting was some of the research to do with EM effects. Various people were interviewed, most of whom had worked on various 'strange' projects.

One ex-engineer demonstrated an effect that he could not explain. A vast coil of fine wire, about the size of the head of a tennis racket, was plugged into the mains (US plug), and it floated above his wooden desk. There was no suggestion of any trickery. He said something like, "Of course, this effect can be varied by altering the power and frequency, etc."

This particular engineer was called because he had recognised some reported UFO/UAP phenomena as bearing similarities to this curious EM effect, and projects he had worked on. The trick can be a little dangerous of course, because of the heat and voltage concerned. The wires can soon begin to glow.

Is it really this simple to demonstrate the potential EM nature of gravity?

[Nereid]

Perhaps you can clarify this Jerry:

[snip]

3) Everywhere we look for, and expect to find gravity waves (neutron star binaries, black holes, supernova explosions) we find extremely energetic gamma rays. (This is what would be expected, if a gravitational collapse releases ultra-ultra-high frequency radiation; which is almost immediately reduced to lower observable frequencies through radiation transfer functions with ordinary photons, including microwaves.)

[snip]

By "extremely energetic gamma rays" do you mean the sort that H.E.S.S. and CANGAROO (etc) are designed to detect? Or do you mean intensity (lots of gammas, not necessarily TeV and above)? Or both? Or neither?

And in making this apparent connection, how close in time do you consider the relationship must be? I'm thinking of supernovae, where the gravitational radiation will (likely) be relatively strong only over the short period of the core collapse or detonation (unless the unfortunate star is in a binary), yet the high energy gammas will be emitted in the SNR (via various shock acceleration mechanisms) as well as the explosion itself including, of course, any GRB).

[John Dlugosz]

So how does the dipole nature of EM become the quadrapole nature of gravitation, as the frequency increases? Does it happen suddenly, or gradually?

[Jerry]

So how does the dipole nature of EM become the quadrapole nature of gravitation, as the frequency increases? Does it happen suddenly, or gradually?

We are used to looking at fields as smooth lines of force, whereas the gravimetric component is extremely chaotic. The polar orientations that align with gross atomic structure are almost meaningless in the wave regions below the Planck cutoff. A quadrapole is only a good first order approximation of gravity, and it leads to grossly understated and overstated masses of moons and planets, depending upon their gravitational environment.

Venus is lighter, while Titan, far from the sun and in orbit about Saturn, is about two times as heavy as Newtonian predictions from orbital calculations and flybys. We will see the degeneracy of these orbital predictions in the gravity runs of Cassini, with gross positive anomalies appearing at every closest pass.

The best 2d model I can visualize for the orbits of the planets, is a series of trails circling a round, eroding mesa. At the bottom, the road is smooth and the planets orbit cleanly. But moving closer to the mesa, the rocks get gradually larger, and you would have to trade your ride for first a sports utility vehicle, then an ATV, then a horse, and finally rock climbing equipment to negotiate the boulders. This is how I think the path through space increases, as anything gets closer to the sun. Notice also, that while it takes more kinetic energy to follow a closer path, this energy is stored in the random oscillations of the path, so unwinding from the center returns more energy than Newton predicts. This is why the solar wind accelerates, after reaching escape velocity and the radiating corona is so much hotter than the surface of the sun.

[Jerry]

Thanks again, Ari!

As documented in the 'Gravity behaving badly' and the "Are Mars probes falling too fast?" threads, once the conceptual huddle was breached, a flood of systemic evidence emerged that is consistent, as near as I can tell, with this alternative to GR. Most important: It has great predictive power of observable recordable by the current generation of planetary probes. All that is needed is recognition that the anomalies are systemic and causal roots exist.

[Jerry]

The Dark Matter phenomenon – the propensity for stars in the arms and edges of galaxies to rotate faster than Newtonian law predicts - has been a topic of extensive debate since the mid twentieth century. There are three possible causalities:

1) Observational error.
2) “Dark Matter” of some kind influencing the rotation.
3) A problem in the Newtonian dynamic – basic gravitational theory.

Unless the gods are playing cruel tricks intended to deceive us, (1) can be ruled out.

When ‘dark matter’ was first discovered, it was thought that it might be burned out clinkers of stars, or other types of baryonic matter – careful observations have also ruled out these and all baryonic choices. If a mass is the culprit, it is not radiating or absorbing energy, it is not neutrinos, MACHOs or WHIMPS – Jim Peebles has characterized the search for dark matter as “embarrassing”.

Although many point to ‘gravitational lensing’ as a second leg of evidence. This is not true – gravity is gravity, and more gravity than Newton predicts is either dark matter, or the Newtonian prediction is wrong.

Molgrom has found a phenomenological modification of the Newtonian dynamic that is a good mathematical model for most Dark Matter environments, but he has not built a theory to support the model. (Although other proponents of his research have.)

There is an explanation, and if it is correct, what is causing the Dark Matter, is also observable in local space, within our own solar system. If this explanation is correct, it would mean that Einsteins interpretation of the Michelson-Morley experiment is wrong: The “ethereal field” Maxwell predicted exists, but is a function of mass: If M&M would have pointed their interferometer straight down and compared the velocity of light up-and-down with the velocity in any other direction, it would have changed. Einstein’s interpretation of this ‘gravitational bending of space and time’ is mostly wrong: the correct interpretation is that the speed of light, and anything else, decreases ever-so-slightly as a function of the total local mass.

Close to a large mass like the sun, orbiting bodies move slower than they do with increasing distance, because the path through space is longer. Likewise, starlight is bent as it moves close to a dense object. There is no need to vary both space and time, when a single variable, pathlength, can be altered and produce the same results. This is what we are observing.

If the path length through space varies, the results are similar results to General Relativity, but with stunning and predictable, locally observable differences: Rather than attenuating as a function of 1/r^2, the change in the pathlength is a function of 1/r, integrated to ln(r ), where r is the effective radius of the sun. This means that Newtonian gravity, as measured in an orbit at the Earth’s distance from the sun, over-predicts the mass of planets closer to the sun, and under-predicts the mass with increasing distance from the sun.

The difference in the orbital velocity is stored in the gravitational field, so objects with a net velocity away from the sun, near the sun, accelerate towards the sun at a slightly lesser rate than Newton predicts (but at a rate that is usually indistinguishing from the solar wind). Outside the orbit of the Earth, this trend reverses, and it is readily apparent in the accelerations of the Pioneer probes, once they reached a radial distance no longer impacted by the solar wind.

The difference between the Einsteinian prediction, and what we see, is also observable in the deviations of the Pioneer 6 spacecraft as it passed near the sun. I have cited evidence for this all over these web pages, but it wouldn’t hurt to pull some of it together one more time:

1) Pioneer 6 Doppler residuals.
2) Probes landing ‘softer than expected’ on Venus.
3) Venus has an extremely electrostatic environment.
4) All chasima of Venus exhibit positive Bouguer anomalies.
5) All volcano of Venus exhibit negative Bouguer anomalies.
http://www.gps.caltech.edu/classes/g...es/crustal.ppt
6) The variance in the Earth-moon orbits are an order of magnitude greater than expected, based upon lunar laser ranging.
7) All probes to the Martian surface have fallen faster than expected, and orbital insertions have proven difficult. Even the MRO, inserted at an altitude of ~350km, experiences a 2% lower than expected breaking force from the engines. This could just as easily be an as-predicted performance with more braking energy needed to slow the orbiter as it approached a more massive planet than Newton predicts. (Notice that this means all orbital insertions must have required more energy, and if you look at the aerobraking histories, there is a consistent trend, as the orbiter surfaces heated up much more than expected – you can also expect to see this same trend as MRO is aero-braked into a circular orbit.) The Viking landers measured surface gravity on Mars 2-3% greater than predicted.

8) There is a large discrepancy between the mass distribution within the body of Mars, as determined using the landers, as opposed to the distribution determined using orbiters.
9) According to orbiting surveys, all volcanoes on Mars exhibit positive Bouguer anomalies. http://www.gps.caltech.edu/~oa/publi...0a_science.pdf http://www.eri.u-tokyo.ac.jp/heshiki/work02/03LPS.pdf http://www.lpi.usra.edu/meetings/lpsc2002/pdf/2024.pdf
10) All valleys on Mars demonstrate negative Beugoer anomalies. The exact inversion of the Martian and Venetian anomalies is very strong evidence that Newtonian determinations of mass from orbiters and fly-bys are suspect.
11) Very little (if any) electrostatic activity has been observed on Mars.
12) There are harmonic degeneracies in the gravity anomalies of Mars as recorded by the different orbiting platforms at different elevations: The closer the orbiter, the greater the anomaly.
13) In Galileo’s ‘gravity passes’ of the Jupiter moon Ganymede, correcting for all possible scenarios and source of error, scientists concluded that there is a major positive gravity anomaly, with no apparent surface features, exactly at the point of Galileo’s closest pass. (This would have to be true if this theory is correct, and we should see the same type of effects, only greater, in the gravity mapping of Titan by Cassini.) http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/news/news.cfm?release=2004-200
14) NASA hade to use >200km/hr shear winds (down drafts) to model the acceleration of the Galileo probe into the Jupiter atmosphere. http://spaceprojects.arc.nasa.gov/Sp...e_summary.html
15) The Huygens probe was moving 30m/s faster than expected after entry into Titan's atmosphere, and continued to accelerate even after the parachute deployed! Just like the Jupiter probe, the velocity in the high atmosphere required extreme and unexpected shear winds (10-30 m/s) to model if the expected gravimetric forces are used. http://www.nature.com/nature/journal...e04060_F2.html
16) The Pioneer Anomalies.

17) Returning now, to the Dark Matter phenomenon: We observe stars at the edges of galaxies are rotating faster than they should according to Newton and Einstein. This theory, which predicts masses of the outer planets and their moons are more dense than Newtonian orbits predict, also predicts that masses in the outer orbits of galaxies should rotate faster than expected…as they do.

[Sani5]

There is an explanation, and if it is correct, what is causing the Dark Matter, is also observable in local space, within our own solar system. If this explanation is correct, it would mean that Einsteins interpretation of the Michelson-Morley experiment is wrong: The “ethereal field” Maxwell predicted exists, but is a function of mass: If M&M would have pointed their interferometer straight down and compared the velocity of light up-and-down with the velocity in any other direction, it would have changed. Einstein’s interpretation of this ‘gravitational bending of space and time’ is mostly wrong: the correct interpretation is that the speed of light, and anything else, decreases ever-so-slightly as a function of the total local mass.

Banning is too good for you Mr Jensen. You should be hung, drawn and quartered for proposing such heresy!

History has a way of showing that what was once acceptable is complete nonsense – Bono

[Jerry]

Banning is too good for you Mr Jensen. You should be hung, drawn and quartered for proposing such heresy!

History has a way of showing that what was once acceptable is complete nonsense – Bono

Ya, I crawled out on this limb, and then started looking for some roots. I cannot stress enough how important of a root the Boeguer inversions are: I reasoned, that if there is this second order effect upon gravity, the dwell time over mountain peaks by orbiting probes is effectively greater than the the general surface, and if the planet or moon is more massive than the orbital solution predicts, the mountains should appear to be anomalously massive relative to the surrounding terrain.

The exact flop-flop in the Boeguer anomalies of Mars and Venus confirm this systemic non-Newtonian, or rather second-order gravimetric effect does in fact exist...at least mathematically. If anyone can offer a better explaination for Venus to have ultra-light volcanoes and heavy valley floors, while Mars has ultra heavy mountains and extra light floors, I am all ears.

And it goes further than that: If you look at the impact craters of the moon, the floors are compressed, and understandably heavier than the surrounding terrain, and in the orbital surveys, they have strong positive Beoguer anomalies. On Mars, the trend is just opposite: The large craters show clear negative Boeguer anomalies. Explain that.

Edited to correct: Mars craters show negative-to-weakly-positive anomalies.

[Celestial Mechanic]

Just a few questions about this post.

[Snip!]Close to a large mass like the sun, orbiting bodies move slower than they do with increasing distance, because the path through space is longer. Likewise, starlight is bent as it moves close to a dense object. There is no need to vary both space and time, when a single variable, pathlength, can be altered and produce the same results. This is what we are observing.

And how do you measure the pathlength without using the metric tensor? What you are saying is that the metric tensor varies in space and time, and I'm afraid that The Man From Ulm beat you to it by a good ninety years!

If the path length through space varies, the results are similar results to General Relativity,

It is exactly general relativity or one of its extensions because that's what general relativity is all about--the variation of the metric tensor in space and time.

but with stunning and predictable, locally observable differences: Rather than attenuating as a function of 1/r^2, the change in the pathlength is a function of 1/r, integrated to ln(r ), where r is the effective radius of the sun.

If r is the "effective radius of the sun" (whatever that means) then ln(r) is a constant. It is not clear what you are integrating and why you are integrating it. I'll skip ahead.

6) The variance in the Earth-moon orbits are an order of magnitude greater than expected, based upon lunar laser ranging.

References please.

7) All probes to the Martian surface have fallen faster than expected, and orbital insertions have proven difficult.[Snip!]

As usual you base your arguments on the descent of spacecrafts through atmospheres. To date we have only landed craft on two bodies with negligible atmospheres, the Moon and 433 Eros. Eros has a very irregular gravitational field on account of its irregular shape. The Moon is closer to regularity. Any descent anomalies in lunar landers?

[Snip!]11) Very little (if any) electrostatic activity has been observed on Mars.

No surprise, there's not much atmosphere.

15) The Huygens probe was moving 30m/s faster than expected after entry into Titan's atmosphere, and continued to accelerate even after the parachute deployed! Just like the Jupiter probe, the velocity in the high atmosphere required extreme and unexpected shear winds (10-30 m/s) to model if the expected gravimetric forces are used.

Atmospheric physics again, not gravitational physics!

[nutant gene 71]

Nice going Jerry!

Some time ago I wrote something I called the Axiomatic Equation which shows a hybrid-quantum relationship between solar energy and proton-to-proton gravitational constant, for planet regions of our solar system, and further illustrated with the Pioneer Anomaly. My numbers may be off, perhaps not in line with pathlength function of 1/r (though I think they’re pretty close, may be modified by planets's interior energy output), but intriguing and ‘puzzling’ to say the least. Something is happening out there with Newton’s G, and we had been blindsided by Einstein positivism in his Relativity (first and second postulates) and the Newton assumption that G is a universal constant. Everything from galaxy rotational curves, to quasar lightshift, to Pioneers, to Bouguer anomalies, to Titan's atmosphere thickness, are telling us something is not quite right (in our assumptions) for space away from Earth’s known values. Only dedicated tests for G in the outer solar system will clear the air, whether or not our assumptions had been right. I suspect, as you do, that there will be some serious rewrites on gravity and quantum theory in not too distant future. It should be fun!

[Celestial Mechanic]

Nice going Jerry!

Some time ago I wrote something I called the Axiomatic Equation which shows a hybrid-quantum relationship between solar energy and proton-to-proton gravitational constant, for planet regions of our solar system, and further illustrated with the Pioneer Anomaly. My numbers may be off,

Quite far off, as is the "derivation" of this so-called "axiomatic equation".

perhaps not in line with pathlength function of 1/r (though I think they’re pretty close, may be modified by planets's interior energy output), but intriguing and ‘puzzling’ to say the least. Something is happening out there with Newton’s G, and we had been blindsided by Einstein positivism in his Relativity (first and second postulates) and the Newton assumption that G is a universal constant.

Not true. There are a number of extensions to general relativity in which G is spacetime dependent. I subscribe to a variant of the Brans-Dicke theory, for example. But I also know that the observations are just not there for very large variance of G, certainly not of the magnitude nor the behavior that you and Jerry Jensen have been touting.

Everything from galaxy rotational curves, to quasar lightshift, to Pioneers, to Bouguer anomalies, to Titan's atmosphere thickness, are telling us something is not quite right (in our assumptions) for space away from Earth’s known values.

Titan's atmosphere does not belong here. We understand gravity in the Solar System better than we understand atmospheric physics. Which do you have more confidence in--the position of Titan 5 years from now or the weather forecast for 5 days from now? 'Nuff said.

Only dedicated tests for G in the outer solar system will clear the air, whether or not our assumptions had been right. I suspect, as you do, that there will be some serious rewrites on gravity and quantum theory in not too distant future. I(t) should be fun!

You and Jerry will not be doing the writing, sorry to say.

[nutant gene 71]

Titan's atmosphere does not belong here. We understand gravity in the Solar System better than we understand atmospheric physics. Which do you have more confidence in--the position of Titan 5 years from now or the weather forecast for 5 days from now? 'Nuff said.

Well, CM, it’s all hypothetical for now, perhaps not even yet a theory, but the empirical evidence may surprise us regarding why Titan’s atmosphere (for a world much smaller than Earth) should show such high volume. Does temperature alone account for that? You may remember, this was discussed at length on the Titan’s Atmopshere thread, now closed. My take on it is that dedicated tests for gravitational G out there in the cold of the outer solar system may yield 'interesting' empirical results. But until then, "Yup, ‘nuff said."

[Jerry]

Just a few questions about this post.

- always appreciated.

And how do you measure the pathlength without using the metric tensor? What you are saying is that the metric tensor varies in space and time, and I'm afraid that The Man From Ulm beat you to it by a good ninety years!

He did, but then he discarded the paper. In 1911 Einstein submitted and later retracted a paper that modeled the relativistic tensor with a 1/r attenuation factor. He had enough information by 1916 to know 1/r in his general formula would under-predict the perturbation of Mercury unless he abandoned time dilation - and he was unwilling to do that.

I can only estimate the variance in the tensor, and do so as an estimate of the difference in the effective pathlenth relative to the Earth's orbit but it works like this:

Path(effective of Venus) = Path of Venus(known) * ln(distance of earth in effective radius')/ln(distance of venus in effective radius') IF the mean Earth distance in effective radius' is ~258 and venus~187, the Effective Pathlength of Venus is ~6% longer than the the path of the Earth.

It is exactly general relativity or one of its extensions because that's what general relativity is all about--the variation of the metric tensor in space and time.

Mathematically it is very close, but then it must be, because GR/SR are very close. Conceptually, changing the pathlength and varying the speed of light are dramatically different solutions. Both produce lensing effects, but the pathlength solution is an extension of Maxwellian solutions - one that allows the permittivity and permeability of free space to change as a function of the local mass distribution. (In Maxwellian physics, these are essentially unit- conversion constants.)

References please.

By analyzing the effect of a non-zero η on the dynamics of the Earth-Moon system moving in the gravitational field of the Sun,

Laser Ranging to the Moon, Mars and Beyond
http://lanl.arxiv.org/PS_cache/gr-qc...11/0411082.pdf
General Theory of Relativity: Will it survive the next decade?
http://lanl.arxiv.org/PS_cache/gr-qc...02/0602016.pdf

Even at the classical level, and assuming the Equivalence Principle, Einstein’s theory does not provide the most general way to establish the spacetime metric.

As usual you base your arguments on the descent of spacecrafts through atmospheres. To date we have only landed craft on two bodies with negligible atmospheres, the Moon and 433 Eros. Eros has a very irregular gravitational field on account of its irregular shape. The Moon is closer to regularity. Any descent anomalies in lunar landers?

There should not be much – The moon is at the same orbital distance from the sun…almost, but there is some:
http://lanl.arxiv.org/PS_cache/astro...10/9510157.pdf

Nordtvedt (1968) derived a polarization of the lunar orbit in the direction of the Sun with amplitude δr _ 13 η meters (Nordtvedt effect). The most accurate test of this effect is presently provided by Lunar Laser Ranging (LLR), and in recent results, Dickey et al. (1994) obtain η = −0.0005 ± 0.0011 .

This is a known possible deviation in the moon’s orbit towards the sun relative to the expected value, according to the strong equivalence principle.
[quote]
No surprise, there's not much atmosphere.

Atmospheric physics again, not gravitational physics!

The gravitational force plays a MAJOR roll in the expected atmospheric distribution. In every single Mars landing, and In the Beagles failure, the upper Martian atmosphere has been thinner than expected. If our modeling were correct, the error should fall on both sides of the expected norm.
One of the missions of the Mars Recon Orbiter is to nail down Mar’s fickle atmosphere, and make some sense out of the harmonic degeneracies in the orbital determinations of gravity anomalies, as well as nail down Mar’s moment of inertia. I expect the results to be more puzzling than ever, with a relentless trend toward greater anomalies in lower orbital measurements.

[Celestial Mechanic]

By analyzing the effect of a non-zero η on the dynamics of the Earth-Moon system moving in the gravitational field of the Sun,

Laser Ranging to the Moon, Mars and Beyond
http://lanl.arxiv.org/PS_cache/gr-qc...11/0411082.pdf
General Theory of Relativity: Will it survive the next decade?
http://lanl.arxiv.org/PS_cache/gr-qc...02/0602016.pdf

I have skimmed over these two papers but I cannot find anything that even remotely looks like your assertion

6) The variance in the Earth-moon orbits are an order of magnitude greater than expected, based upon lunar laser ranging.

Did I miss something? Can you please tell me on which page(s) of these papers they give 1: a figure for an expected variance, and 2: a measurement of said variance that is an order of magnitude bigger than the estimate in 1:?

Both of these papers are about how amazingly, stunningly precise general relativity is and just how little parameter space is left for any alternatives. In particular there is not enough room for your hand, much less the waving of said hand. (The title "General Theory of Relativity: Will it survive the next decade?" is something of a tease. The article leaves no doubt about its survival.)

[Jerry]

Yes, the title is a teaser, and the accuracy of the tests near earth orbit are very highly confirmational of GR. Never-the-less, the error bars are there, and there is wriggle room:

http://lanl.arxiv.org/PS_cache/gr-qc...11/0411082.pdf
Page 8:

The most accurate test of the SEP violation effect is presently provided by LLR [61, 48, 23], and also in [24, 62, 63, 4]. Recent analysis of LLR data test the EP of
(MG/MI )EP = (−1.0 ± 1.4) × 10−13 [68]. This result corresponds to a test of the SEP of
(MG/MI )SEP = (−2.0 ± 2.0) × 10−13 with the SEP violation parameter η = 4β −γ −3 found to be η = (4.4 ±4.5) ×10−4.

η must equal exactly zero if the strong equivalence principles holds, a reported value of 0.00044 +/- 0.00045 is within 2% of being to-great to support the theory.

On page 3, they state the reported accuracy of the Eddington parameter is 2.3 x 10^-5. If the expected accuracy is 50 ppm, but the slop in the error bars is 400 ppm, that is about a factor of 10 less accuracy than expected.

Using the recent Cassini result for the PPN
parameter γ, PPN parameter β is determined at the level of β − 1 = (1.2 ± 1.1) × 10−4.

I think this Cassini paper has been withdrawn, but in this GR SEP parameter, which must be exactly one, the measured minimal value of β (0.00001) falls outside of the expected tolerance band - which would mean a violation of the Strong equivalance principle. To state that it does not, means the actual accuracy of the test is assumed to be less than the error analysis indicates.

This is a very small hole to drive an alternative theory through, but if the alternative theory predicts that GR and Newtonian physics will only yield correct results at the distance that the earth orbits the sun, this is not the place to look for confirmation of the alternative.

If you have not checked out the measured Boeguer anomalies on Venus and Mars, it is worth taking the time to do so - No one has put forward a single proposition for why these are flipped on opposite sides of the Earth. I didn't know this evidence existed, until I started testing this theory, and reasoned that the gravimetric anomalies MUST be inverted if this concept is correct. They are.

I hope Messinger will return gravimetric parameters for Mercury, and these must also follow the trend seen on Venus (negative Boeguer anomalies for peaks, positive anomalies for valleys); and the scale of the Mercury anomalies must also be greater!

[Launch window]

I don't think there is much on some of these ATM gravity ideas, but I still think some of them should not be totally dismissed. I like reading Jerry's ideas some of them are good but I think others are too far out there with not enough evidence.

I think it was a shame to see all NASA's science missions cut, Constellation -X and LISA looked great. I think these missions could have helped us understand things a lot more, but they have fallen under the latest budget cuts


http://funphysics.jpl.nasa.gov/technical/grp/lisa.html
http://www.universetoday.com/am/publ...ity_waves.html

[Nereid]

Jerry, I notice that, despite your earlier post concerning BHs, SNe, neutron stars, etc, in post #19, where you seem to lay out your stall, you mention only very weak (gravitational) field cases - the rocky planets and one moon.

Why wouldn't the far, far more intense (gravitational) environments of binary pulsars be better places to look for evidence? Especially as we've not got a double pulsar to monitor!

Or, putting it quantitatively, given your ideas, expressed in the various equations and relationships you've posted here in BAUT over the years, what would you expect to see, from the double pulsar?

8) There is a large discrepancy between the mass distribution within the body of Mars, as determined using the landers, as opposed to the distribution determined using orbiters.

Source/reference(s) please.

17) Returning now, to the Dark Matter phenomenon: We observe stars at the edges of galaxies are rotating faster than they should according to Newton and Einstein. This theory, which predicts masses of the outer planets and their moons are more dense than Newtonian orbits predict, also predicts that masses in the outer orbits of galaxies should rotate faster than expected…as they do.

And this is just one of footprints of DM.

To what extent does your idea address these other footprints?

• DM in (spiral) galaxy halos (per lensing studies)
• DM in rich clusters (per X-ray, lensing, SZE, and galaxy motion studies)
• DM in the universe (per large-scale structure and CMB studies)

[Jerry]

Jerry, I notice that, despite your earlier post concerning BHs, SNe, neutron stars, etc, in post #19, where you seem to lay out your stall, you mention only very weak (gravitational) field cases - the rocky planets and one moon.

Why wouldn't the far, far more intense (gravitational) environments of binary pulsars be better places to look for evidence? Especially as we've not got a double pulsar to monitor!

These are excellent questions! I will start here and work backwards.

1) ANY place Einstein predicts gravity waves, we should see gamma rays - Binary pulsars are a good place to start - and they do produce Gamma rays! I have read papers that imply the total energy budget - for both the gamma rays we observe, and the unseen gravity waves is too high, but I don't know all the assumptions necessary to sort this out. I wish I could be more quantitative, but I am not any where nearly certain what energy levels to expect, because when you throw the basic GR equations out of the boat, it is difficult to know what to expect. However:

2) Gravitimetric lensing and gravitational redshifting should be much greater than predicted by GR. This is just an extrapolation of the 1/r field attenuation, rather 1/r^2 (and in some cases, 1/r^4 found in relativistic scenarios.) This means, for example, if quasars are accretion disks near 'black holes', they MUST have gravitational redshifts that are 2-20 times greater than GR predictions. Since all quasars are redshifted, this prediction holds.

Or, putting it quantitatively, given your ideas, expressed in the various equations and relationships you've posted here in BAUT over the years, what would you expect to see, from the double pulsar?Source/reference(s) please.And this is just one of footprints of DM.

Sorry, as has been noted on other forums, NASA has been taking down a lot of links lately, and references to scientific papers are rapidly disappearing - including this one, but I will see what I can find.

Universe Today Article:
"Dark matter, which composes about 25% of the Universe, is a simple word to describe something we really don't understand," said Hector Flores

I am arguing that it does not take more 'gravity' to create the appearance of dark matter, only higher-than-expected orbital velocities and gravitational lensing where there is less matter. The orbital velocity of the Earth about the sun is slowed by the effect of the sun's mass on the pathlength. The Moons of Jupiter are slowed much less, and the orbital parameters we observe cause us to significantly underestimate the mass of jupiter. If we knew, via some other method of measurement, that Jupiter is 40-60% more massive than Newton predicts, dark matter would be necessary to explain planetary orbits as well.
[/quote]
To what extent does your idea address these other footprints?

• DM in (spiral) galaxy halos (per lensing studies)
• DM in rich clusters (per X-ray, lensing, SZE, and galaxy motion studies)
• DM in the universe (per large-scale structure and CMB studies)

[/QUOTE]
It is absolutely essential to my thesis that these effects occur - that Newtonian gravity as model from the earth doesn't work anywhere else - (Except in the rare case were the mass proportions are the same as between the Earth and the sun.)

Incidently, this is where I started - trying to explain gamma rays associated with supernova, and the double surge of neutrinos from 1987A - this turns out to be quite simple, because as gravity waves collapse following the initial supernova explosion, there MUST be a second peak and knee in the gamma ray spectrum as the collapsing field and the accelerationg particles 'pass' in a second energy peak, similar to the peak in the velocity of charged ions in the Sun's corona.

[Jerry]

For what it is worth, the jury is still out on Huygens', I mean Titan's, atmosphere - is the distribution Newtonian? True, the Huygen's team has published a model that is consistent with Newtonian expectations, but if you have looked at the Huygens radar plots, they are messy, and do not include time-at-altitude stamps. Likewise, the accelerometer data is EXTREMELY inconsistent with the expected rate-of-descent. Also Carolyn Porco found mapping of cloud movements 'problematic' when she tried to bump the cloud motions observed by Cassini with Huygen's characterization of the atmosphere.

There are a few more piece of the puzzle still pending: Cassini has just started to make gravity runs, and a week ago Cassini performed the first occultation experiment with the earth in the background - one that should either confirm, or raise questions about the Huygens' atmosphere model.

Edited to put the atmosphere back on Titan...Huygens would be the probe resting at the bottom of the atmosphere (o)

Finally, the trianglulated VLA positioning of Huygens during the descent has not been released. This is necessary to confirm whether or not the shear winds used to model the acceleration of Huygens actually moved the probe as plotted by the ESA - there are a couple of degrees of freedom that the VLA positioning should nail down.

[R.A.F.]

For what it is worth, the jury is still out on Huygens' atmosphere...

Huygens has an atmosphere??

That really is an "ATM" idea.



edited to change wording...