Page 1 of 17 12311 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 30 of 484

Thread: Forrest Nobles Pushing Gravity

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    2,273

    Forrest Nobles Pushing Gravity

    Many years ago I theorized that gravity was a pushing force. I thought at the time that the idea was unique until the internet enabled me to see that the original pushing gravity theory was hundreds of years old. My current pushing gravity theory however is quite different, I think, than any other. It goes like this:

    We have been aware of the ZPF (zero-point-fluctuations/ field) for many decades now. Within this field the primary particle that we are aware of are neutrinos, millions per square centimeter and photons. Theorists have proposed the existence of dark matter to account for the failings to predict the orbital speed/ momentum of galaxy disk stars. Together these particles and their related energies could be called the new aether. These aether particles could be called dark matter but not Higg's particles because the Higgs accordingly would be much too big. These particles accordingly bounce off each other with a uniform random pressure similar to gas pressure. EM radiation in the form of waves accordingly would radiate density waves of aether away from all matter leaving a slightly lower density and pressure of aether surrounding all matter. Therefore there would be a force vector difference in the space surrounding all matter. Any surrounding matter in this space would feel a stronger force pushing toward the gravitational source and a weaker force pushing back. The matter in this space would be pushed toward the other matter. As to the Earth relative to lets say a rock dropped from an airplane, the rock would be pushed toward the Earth by this force differential. After an arbitrary period of time, let's say a second, the rock would be pushed toward the Earth the aether would flow in behind it at the speed of light. The rock would still have a stronger pushing vector force behind it so it would continue to accelerate, hence gravity.

    As Einstein showed, gravity also bends the path of photons and their waves which I propose are pressure waves of aether. To test both this theory of light and the above theory of gravity there should accordingly be a difference in the speed of light, down traveling at 64 feet per second faster than the speed going up (coincidentally the numerical value of its speed would be twice the number associated with the acceleration rate of gravity). Michelson and Morley’s experiment could not test up vs. down nor could it detect such a small difference in the speed of light. The experiment I propose would be a North-South (to discount differences due to the rotation of the Earth) shooting of reciprocal lasers for as far a distance as possible at roughly a 30 degree angle. The actual angle doesn't really matter because the speed difference could be trigged out if the distance and angle are great enough. Satellite laser shootings seemingly could be inconclusive since their orbital momentum could alter the results based upon time dilation possibilities and make the results more difficult to calculate and therefore more controversial. A ground based experiment would be seemingly simpler anyway.

    I intend to conduct this experiment as soon as I can locate the appropriate lasers and precision timing devices, hopefully off the shelf somewhere. If this experiment shows the predicted difference it would nullify Special Relativity in favor of Lorentz transforms, it would nullify General Relativity concerning its predictions of motion because it would generally confirm a different theory of gravity. The related equations which I have developed, would bring in to question the Big Bang Theory because its mathematical basis are the equations of General Relativity. It would change aspects of Quantum Theory etc. etc. All based upon one simple experiment. This differential in the speed of EM radiation, proposed by this experiment through air, would be very small and accordingly would be the reason why it hasn't been detected as yet.

    This theory along with many other alternative theories in cosmology and physics and more than 80 predictions and related logic and equations can be seen at pantheory.org. ----- e-mail pantheory.org@gmail.com

    respectfully, forrest noble
    Last edited by forrest noble; 2009-Feb-17 at 04:29 AM. Reason: clarity of content, spelling

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Posts
    13,138

    Welcome to BAUT Forrest Noble. Please take time to read the Rules For Posting to the board. found here. http://www.bautforum.com/about-baut/...ing-board.html
    I have moved your post into it's own thread to avoid hijacking Sabianqs original thread. If you want to promote, discuss or present your idea then this is the place otherwise we can close the thread
    Rules For Posting To This Board
    All Moderation in Purple

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    13,441
    Quote Originally Posted by forrest noble View Post
    Many years ago I theorized that gravity was a pushing force. I thought at the time that the idea was unique until the internet enabled me to see that the original pushing gravity theory was hundreds of years old. My current pushing gravity theory however is quite different, I think, than any other. It goes like this:

    We have been aware of the ZPF (zero-point-fluctuations/ field) for many decades now. Within this field the primary particle that we are aware of are neutrinos, millions per square centimeter and photons. Theorists proposed the existence of dark matter to account for the failings to predict orbital speed of galaxy disk stars. Together these particles and their related energies could be called the new aether. These aether particles (or you could call in dark matter but not Higg's particles because they accordingly would be much too small) would be bouncing off each other with a uniform random pressure similar to gas pressure. EM radiation in the form of waves accordingly would radiate density waves of aether and photons away from all matter leaving a slightly lower density of aether surrounding all matter. Therefore there would be a force vector difference in the space surrounding all matter. Any surrounding matter in this space would feel a stronger force in the direction away from matter and a weaker pressure pushing back. The matter in this space would be pushed toward the other matter. As to the Earth and lets say a rock dropped out of a high altitude aircraft, the rock would be initially pushed toward the Earth. After any time period, let's say a second, as the rock moves toward the Earth the aether would move in behind it at the speed of light. The rock would still have a stronger vector force behind it than it would have in the direction of the Earth so the rock would continue to accelerate, hence gravity.

    As Einstein showed, gravity also bends photons and there waves which I propose are pressure waves of aether. To test both this theory of light and the above theory of gravity there should accordingly be a difference in the speed of light, down traveling at 64 feet per second faster than the speed going up (twice the acceleration speed of gravity). Michelson and Morley’s experiment could not test up vs. down nor could it detect such a small difference in the speed of light. The experiment I propose would be a North-South (to discount differences due to the rotation of the Earth) shooting of reciprocal lasers for as far a distance as possible at roughly a 30 degree angle. The actual angle doesn't really matter because the speed difference could be trigged out if the distance and angle are great enough. Satellite laser shootings seemingly could be inconclusive since their orbital momentum would alter the results and make the results more difficult to calculate and therefore more controversial. A ground based experiment would be seemingly simpler anyway.

    I intend to conduct this experiment as soon as I can locate the appropriate lasers and precision timing devices, hopefully off the shelf somewhere. If this experiment shows the predicted difference it would nullify Special Relativity in favor of Lorentz transforms, it would nullify General Relativity because it would generally confirm a different theory of gravity and its equations which I have developed, as well as bringing in to question the Big Bang Theory which has as its mathematical basis the equations of General Relativity. It would change aspects of Quantum Theory etc. etc. All based upon one simple experiment. This difference in the speed of EM radiation proposed through the air would be very small and accordingly would be the reason why it hasn't been detected as yet

    This theory along with many other alternative theories in cosmology and physics and more than 80 predictions and related logic and equations can be seen at pantheory.org. ----- e-mail pantheory.org@gmail.com

    respectfully, forrest noble
    To what extent have you already shown that your new idea(s) are consistent with the dozens of experiments and observations, of many different kinds, that have been conducted to test General Relativity (GR)?

    Specifically, which of the ones covered in Will's The Confrontation between General Relativity and Experiment can you show - quantitatively, to within the stated uncertainties (errors) - your idea is consistent with?

    As you are new to BAUT (welcome! ) and this ATM section, when you have had a chance to read the rules, would you please state clearly the extent to which you are prepared to answer direction questions on the ATM ideas you have presented, as presented, and address challenges to them?

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    2,273

    Smile Predictive inadequacies of General Relativity

    "To what extent have you already shown that your new idea(s) are consistent with the dozens of experiments and observations, of many different kinds, that have been conducted to test General Relativity (GR)?"

    also

    "Specifically, which of the ones covered in Will's The Confrontation between General Relativity and Experiment can you show - quantitatively, to within the stated uncertainties (errors) - your idea is consistent with?


    General Relativity has been successful so far in predicting gravitational interactions between celestial bodies in close proximity to each other but totally fails to predict orbital velocities of stars in the disc of spiral galaxies. Besides this, it cannot predict the velocity of galaxies orbiting a cluster. For these reasons dark matter was invented. The problem with invoking dark matter is that roughly 90% of its mass must lie outside the visible galaxy and the rest of it must progressively decrease in density up to the galaxy core. This would be required to approximate stellar motions of disk stars. The same thing would be needed for galaxy clusters. Along with the required outer mass of dark matter its distribution would have to decrease in a particular manner between galaxies to determine galactic orbital velocity of a galaxy within a cluster.

    For these reasons General Relativity alone can make no valid predictions within galaxies. Instead the actual velocities are estimated and the right proportions of dark matter are presumed and calculations can then be made to match observation. A lot like Ptolemy's system of epicycles whereby after motions were estimated a system could be developed to explain the observations but would be a sterile method for calculating anything new. Then estimates could be made based upon prior observations and no calculations would be needed.

    "would you please state clearly the extent to which you are prepared to answer direct questions on the ATM ideas you have presented, as presented, and address challenges to them?"

    Of Course! Since my theories cover all of physics, I will attempt to answer any questions related to my posting, whether sophisticated or not.

    Is this posting on an index board where somebody could find it?

    respectfully, forrest
    Last edited by forrest noble; 2009-Feb-15 at 05:43 AM.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    2,273
    Sorry Nereid, I didn't at first see that you were the one that posted the above comment. I tried to find my posting on an index somewhere -- ah, I found it in the Against the Mainstream index.

    respectfully, forrest

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    28

    As Einstein showed, gravity also bends photons and there waves which I propose are pressure waves of aether. To test both this theory of light and the above theory of gravity there should accordingly be a difference in the speed of light, down traveling at 64 feet per second faster than the speed going up (twice the acceleration speed of gravity). Michelson and Morley’s experiment could not test up vs. down nor could it detect such a small difference in the speed of light. The experiment I propose would be a North-South (to discount differences due to the rotation of the Earth) shooting of reciprocal lasers for as far a distance as possible at roughly a 30 degree angle. The actual angle doesn't really matter because the speed difference could be trigged out if the distance and angle are great enough. Satellite laser shootings seemingly could be inconclusive since their orbital momentum would alter the results and make the results more difficult to calculate and therefore more controversial. A ground based experiment would be seemingly simpler anyway.
    Did Einstein not theorise that gravity "bent" space-time and not the photons themselves. It's only that they traverse the gravity affected space that they appear to bend. Or did I misunderstand?

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Aug 2002
    Posts
    7,640
    Quote Originally Posted by forrest noble View Post
    As to the Earth and lets say a rock dropped out of a high altitude aircraft, the rock would be initially pushed toward the Earth. After any time period, let's say a second, as the rock moves toward the Earth the aether would move in behind it at the speed of light. The rock would still have a stronger vector force behind it than it would have in the direction of the Earth so the rock would continue to accelerate, hence gravity.
    forrest noble, welcome to the board.

    Unfortunately, I find your writing rather complicated and not lightly understandable. I just picked out this example of yours, especially the bolded part, which does not make any sense to me. That is most definitely not what you want to say, I think.

    The rock has a stronger vector force behind it, than in the direction of the Earth. I guess you mean away from the Earth?

    Also, the standard question, if gravity is indeed pushing, then why can't we sit behind a wall and float away, or more scientifically, why do we not see any evidence of gravitational shielding?
    All comments made in red are moderator comments. Please, read the rules of the forum here and read the additional rules for ATM, and for conspiracy theories. If you think a post is inappropriate, don't comment on it in thread but report it using the /!\ button in the lower left corner of each message. But most of all, have fun!

    Catch me on twitter: @tusenfem
    Catch Rosetta Plasma Consortium on twitter: @Rosetta_RPC

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    13,441
    Your posting in BAUT coincided with a reorganisation, so it must have been a little confusing!

    Hopefully things are on an even keel now.

    Quote Originally Posted by forrest noble View Post
    "To what extent have you already shown that your new idea(s) are consistent with the dozens of experiments and observations, of many different kinds, that have been conducted to test General Relativity (GR)?"

    also

    "Specifically, which of the ones covered in Will's The Confrontation between General Relativity and Experiment can you show - quantitatively, to within the stated uncertainties (errors) - your idea is consistent with?


    General Relativity has been successful so far in predicting gravitational interactions between celestial bodies in close proximity to each other but totally fails to predict orbital velocities of stars in the disc of spiral galaxies. Besides this, it cannot predict the velocity of galaxies orbiting a cluster. For these reasons dark matter was invented. The problem with invoking dark matter is that roughly 90% of its mass must lie outside the visible galaxy and the rest of it must progressively decrease in density up to the galaxy core. This would be required to approximate stellar motions of disk stars. The same thing would be needed for galaxy clusters. Along with the required outer mass of dark matter its distribution would have to decrease in a particular manner between galaxies to determine galactic orbital velocity of a galaxy within a cluster.

    For these reasons General Relativity alone can make no valid predictions within galaxies. Instead the actual velocities are estimated and the right proportions of dark matter are presumed and calculations can then be made to match observation. A lot like Ptolemy's system of epicycles whereby after were known a system was developed to explain the already observed predictions but would be a sterile method for calculating anything new. Then estimates would be made based upon prior observations and no calculations would be needed.
    There are, IMHO, a number of ... misunderstandings ... of modern astrophysics here, not to mention GR. I may return to them later, and ask some (more) direct questions about your idea.

    For now, may I simply repeat the question I asked (and which you did not answer)?

    To what extent have you already shown that your new idea(s) are consistent with the dozens of experiments and observations, of many different kinds, that have been conducted to test General Relativity (GR)?

    For avoidance of doubt, I am not asking what you consider to be GR's failures wrt consistency with astronomical observations of galaxies, clusters of galaxies etc.

    And

    Specifically, which of the ones covered in Will's The Confrontation between General Relativity and Experiment can you show - quantitatively, to within the stated uncertainties (errors) - your idea is consistent with?

    Let's start with two of the first - the anomalous advance of the perihelion of Mercury, which was known for several decades before the publication of GR, and the deflection of light by mass, which the 1919 eclipse observations were used to distinguish between GR and the (then) traditional theory of gravity (Newton's), albeit with marginal significance.

    This is a yes/no question (two actually): have you shown, quantitatively, that your ATM idea is consistent with these two well-observed phenomena?


    "would you please state clearly the extent to which you are prepared to answer direct questions on the ATM ideas you have presented, as presented, and address challenges to them?"

    Of Course! Since my theories cover all of physics, I will attempt to answer any questions related to my posting, whether sophisticated or not.

    Is this posting on an index board where somebody could find it?

    respectfully, forrest
    Thanks!

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    2,273
    Fubaruk,

    The bending of spacetime or the warping of space was Einstein's explanation of gravity mechanics and why aether or a pulling force at a distance was not needed. The analogy used to explain this warping of space was the rubber sheet analogy, not a good one however since gravity is needed to explain itself by acting on the ball to pull it down on the rubber sheet. Einstein offered no explanation why he thought that matter warps space.

    tusenfem,

    "Unfortunately, I find your writing rather complicated and not lightly understandable"
    sorry about that -- sorry.

    "I guess you mean away from the Earth?" yes

    "why do we not see any evidence of gravitational shielding?"

    Gravitational shielding has been called "the shadow effect" in pushing gravity models. The Earth accordingly would act like a shield beneath your feet from much of the pushing forces coming in on the other side of the Earth, so the net force pushing us would be coming straight down at us. Does that make sense?

    Nereid,

    Thanks for the general info on the site. I wrote alot on the old site but only a couple of postings on this one so I'm still not navigating very well. But wow, fast responses. this is very cool.

    "To what extent have you already shown that your new idea(s) are consistent with the dozens of experiments and observations, of many different kinds, that have been conducted to test General Relativity (GR)?"

    Really, I tried to answer your questions directly. My theories are not new. I started writing them 50 years ago now. This gravity theory was one of the first of them.

    This theory does not contend with General Relativity for distances of lets say half the distance from us to the sun. It only starts to change significantly at distances of lets say one light year depending on the gravitational entities. At lets say two light years it becomes very different in that this theory predicts that between two stars, lets say four light years apart, gravity would become a perpendicular vector to a line of sight to the source of the gravity. For median distances (between relatively short and long distances) Newtonian gravity would rule. General Relativity, within our own galaxy, does not come close to being able to predict orbital velocity of stars except within the core, which is very difficult because of many three dimensional influences. My theory, accordingly, can predict orbital velocities of stars in general within the disks of spiral galaxies including our own, as can MOND gravity and other competing formulations to GR. GR or Newtonian gravity calculations do not at all match observation without the inclusion of the dark matter hypothesis and its distributions within the galaxy which are presently unobservable and therefore unpredictable by calculation, even if the hypothesis were correct.

    your second question:

    Specifically, which of the ones covered in Will's The Confrontation between General Relativity and Experiment can you show - quantitatively, to within the stated uncertainties (errors) - your idea is consistent with?

    In my model GR is used for short distances as in the two examples you presented above. At stellar distances, within galaxy disks, GR would become invalid since gravity accordingly would become a non-linear force as indicted above. The reasons between the two as to why the formulations would be valid, however, would be quite different. Instead of the warped space of Einstein, gravity according to this theory, would be the result of the pushing forces of a three dimensional aether vortex. That most curved, non-linear variations of this vortex would appear at close distances and distantly near gravitational boundaries between stars. Will's work, from what I have just read, seems to be primarily concerned with the verified "short distance" observations of GR, where my theories are concerned with galactic and extra-galactic forces and orbital mechanics where GR does not seem to be valid, because of unseen matter, or because the equations are incorrect.

    Hope I explained the differences between the theories in an understandable way.

    Thanks for your comments and respects to all, forrest
    Last edited by forrest noble; 2009-Feb-15 at 06:15 AM. Reason: clarity of content

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    13,441
    Quote Originally Posted by forrest noble View Post
    [...]
    tusenfem,

    [...]

    "why do we not see any evidence of gravitational shielding?"

    Gravitational shielding has been called "the shadow effect" in pushing gravity models. The Earth accordingly would act like a shield beneath your feet from much of the pushing forces coming in on the other side of the Earth, so the net force pushing us would be coming straight down at us. Does that make sense?

    [...]
    I'm sure tusenfem will have his own questions on your answers; these are mine.

    In your ATM idea of gravity, how does the force between two masses, m1 and m2 vary?

    Specifically, to what extent does it differ from an inverse square (distance) relationship?

    Has your ATM idea been published in a relevant, peer-reviewed journal? If so, please give a reference.

    I'll follow up on your response to my questions later (thanks for your swift reply).

  11. #11
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    2,273
    Hi again Nereid,

    You can see the formula and related explanations at pantheory.org page 57B through 57E1.1 in the gravity section. Newton's basic formula is F= G x Mm/r^2 as you know. Mine the linear vector is F=G x Mm/r^n where "n" = 2^ 1 + cr./ar. Accordingly ar. is the active range (which is the borderline between two stars (bodies) where both of the stars would have equal influence on any object in between. "cr" would be the distance between the boundary of Newtonian (Einsteinian) gravity (where gravity begins to become non-linear) and the "ar.". It works like this: Within the range of Newtonian gravity cr. is equal to ar. so cr./ar. = 1 and we would have the classical Newtonian formula. Close to the Sun or beyond the Newtonian range there would be a difference between the two. Although the Newtonian formula accordingly would still apply as to the force of gravity, the direction of the force would become non-linear and at stellar or galactic boundaries the force would become a perpendicular asymptote to the line of sight between the stars acting in a direction co-plainer to the planetary orbits which is the effect of the direction and force of the vortex at that point. View the appropriate book pages and if it doesn't seem to make sense keep firing questions and I'll do my best to hit them.

    No pier reviewed journals have accepted the gravity papers outside of vanity publications which I would have to pay for and who knows if they would really have qualified reviewers. On-line publication would seem to be a better way to go now-a-days for an updated version of these papers. I do have another technical paper on the web site though. You can access it from the header link. I've had positive interest from publishers on this one and expect that it may be published within months.

    respectfully, forrest
    Last edited by forrest noble; 2009-Feb-17 at 04:55 AM. Reason: typo

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    13,441
    Quote Originally Posted by forrest noble View Post
    [...]

    Nereid,

    Thanks for the general info on the site. I wrote alot on the old site but only a couple of postings on this one so I'm still not navigating very well. But wow, fast responses. this is very cool.

    "To what extent have you already shown that your new idea(s) are consistent with the dozens of experiments and observations, of many different kinds, that have been conducted to test General Relativity (GR)?"

    Really, I tried to answer your questions directly. My theories are not new. I started writing them 50 years ago now. This gravity theory was one of the first of them.

    This theory does not contend with General Relativity for distances of lets say half the distance from us to the sun. It only starts to change results at distances of lets say a light year depending on the gravitational entities. At lets say two light years it becomes very different in that this theory predicts that between two stars, lets say four light years apart, gravity would become a perpendicular vector and would be non-linear. For median distances (between relatively short and long distances) Newtonian gravity would rule. General Relativity, within our own galaxy, does not come close to being able to predict orbital velocity of stars except within the core, which is very difficult because of many three dimensional influences. My theory, accordingly, can predict orbital velocities of stars in general within the disks of spiral galaxies including our own, as can MOND gravity and other competing formulations to GR. GR or Newtonian gravity calculations do not at all match observation without the inclusion of the dark matter hypothesis and its distributions within the galaxy which are presently unobservable and therefore unpredictable by calculation, even if the hypothesis were correct.
    Thanks for this.

    It's clear to me that a general approach to challenging your ATM idea will likely be inefficient, if only because it will take too long to get to mutual understanding.

    Time to move on (but I'll ask some direct questions about this stated scope of your idea vs GR's in a later post).

    your second question:

    Specifically, which of the ones covered in Will's The Confrontation between General Relativity and Experiment can you show - quantitatively, to within the stated uncertainties (errors) - your idea is consistent with?

    In my model GR is used for short distances as in the two examples you presented above. At stellar distances, within galaxy disks, GR would become invalid since gravity accordingly would become a non-linear force as indicted above. The reasons between the two as to why the formulations would be valid, however, would be quite different. Instead of the warped space of Einstein, gravity according to this theory, would be the result of the pushing forces of a three dimensional aether vortex. That most curved, non-linear variations of this vortex would appear at close distances and distantly near gravitational boundaries between stars. Will's work, from what I have just read, seems to be primarily concerned with the verified "short distance" observations of GR, where my theories are concerned with galactic and extra-galactic forces and orbital mechanics where GR does not seem to be valid, because of unseen matter, or because the equations are incorrect.

    Hope I explained the differences between the theories in an understandable way.

    Thanks for your comments and respects to all, forrest
    First, you did not, in fact, answer either of my Yes/No questions.

    Perhaps they were insufficiently clear?

    Please show - with math, equations, numbers etc - that your ATM idea gives predictions of the anomalous advance of the perihelion of Mercury that are within the error bars of the most recent, most stringent observations of that perihelion advance.

    Ditto, wrt the anomalous perihelion advance of Eros, Venus, and Earth.

    Please show - with math, equations, numbers etc - that your ATM idea gives predictions of the gravitational deflection of light, by the Sun, that are within the error bars of the most recent, most stringent observations of that deflection, across the whole sky*.

    Ditto, wrt gravitation deflection of light by Jupiter.

    * IIRC, this deflection, by the Sun, has now been measured at angles well over 90o, and the results are consistent with GR.

  13. #13
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    13,441
    Quote Originally Posted by forrest noble View Post
    [...]

    This theory does not contend with General Relativity for distances of lets say half the distance from us to the sun. It only starts to change results at distances of lets say a light year depending on the gravitational entities. At lets say two light years it becomes very different in that this theory predicts that between two stars, lets say four light years apart, gravity would become a perpendicular vector and would be non-linear. For median distances (between relatively short and long distances) Newtonian gravity would rule. General Relativity, within our own galaxy, does not come close to being able to predict orbital velocity of stars except within the core, which is very difficult because of many three dimensional influences. My theory, accordingly, can predict orbital velocities of stars in general within the disks of spiral galaxies including our own, as can MOND gravity and other competing formulations to GR. GR or Newtonian gravity calculations do not at all match observation without the inclusion of the dark matter hypothesis and its distributions within the galaxy which are presently unobservable and therefore unpredictable by calculation, even if the hypothesis were correct.

    your second question:

    Specifically, which of the ones covered in Will's The Confrontation between General Relativity and Experiment can you show - quantitatively, to within the stated uncertainties (errors) - your idea is consistent with?

    In my model GR is used for short distances as in the two examples you presented above. At stellar distances, within galaxy disks, GR would become invalid since gravity accordingly would become a non-linear force as indicted above. The reasons between the two as to why the formulations would be valid, however, would be quite different. Instead of the warped space of Einstein, gravity according to this theory, would be the result of the pushing forces of a three dimensional aether vortex. That most curved, non-linear variations of this vortex would appear at close distances and distantly near gravitational boundaries between stars. Will's work, from what I have just read, seems to be primarily concerned with the verified "short distance" observations of GR, where my theories are concerned with galactic and extra-galactic forces and orbital mechanics where GR does not seem to be valid, because of unseen matter, or because the equations are incorrect.

    Hope I explained the differences between the theories in an understandable way.

    Thanks for your comments and respects to all, forrest
    In 2004, Gould et al. reported a determination of the mass of a lensing star (a star in the MW that lensed a star in the LMC), from the application of GR ... over "stellar distances, within galaxy disks" (link is to the arXiv preprint; here is a Hubblesite PR on it).

    The mass of the lensing star is consistent with modern stellar models.

    To what extent does this report represent an inconsistency between a (good) observational result and your ATM idea?

    Note that while this is the first reported result of this kind, there has been at least one subsequently, and future space-based missions will likely lead to many more (and of considerably higher precision).

  14. #14
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    2,273
    Hi again Nereid,

    Thanks again for your rapid response.

    "The mass of the lensing star is consistent with modern stellar models.

    To what extent does this report represent an inconsistency between a (good) observational result and your ATM idea?

    Note that while this is the first reported result of this kind, there has been at least one subsequently, and future space-based missions will likely lead to many more (and of considerably higher precision)."

    Your second comments:

    "First, you did not, in fact, answer either of my Yes/No questions.

    Perhaps they were insufficiently clear?

    Please show - with math, equations, numbers etc - that your ATM idea gives predictions of the anomalous advance of the perihelion of Mercury that are within the error bars of the most recent, most stringent observations of that perihelion advance.

    Ditto, wrt the anomalous perihelion advance of Eros, Venus, and Earth."

    Please show - with math, equations, numbers etc - that your ATM idea gives predictions of the gravitational deflection of light, by the Sun, that are within the error bars of the most recent, most stringent observations of that deflection, across the whole sky*.

    Ditto, wrt gravitation deflection of light by Jupiter."


    Both sets of comments, if I'm not mistaken, refer to the successful predictions of General Relativity. At these relatively close distances you have requested I would also use GR (I've never made these calculations) because of the unknown variables involved concerning the inner cr. & ar.; there would be no difference if I instead used GR formulations. In fact I will probably never attempt these close calculations unless GR at sometime in the future fails the test of observation.

    My formulations presently would only exclusively apply to ranges of gravity at stellar, galactic, inter-galactic, and cosmological distances. At these distances, considering many unknown variables, approximations can be made by my formulations that are not contradicted by observation. This simple equation which I presented (and others which can be seen on the web site unless you request them here) would apply as a mathematical limit allegedly outside the range of Poisson vector metrics. The unique application and advantages of this formulation, therefore, would be beyond a light year's distance, similar to MOND gravity, TeVeS and other against-the-mainstream galactic gravitation formulations.


    respectfully, forrest

  15. #15
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    13,441
    Quote Originally Posted by forrest noble View Post
    Hi again Nereid,

    Thanks again for your rapid response.

    "The mass of the lensing star is consistent with modern stellar models.

    To what extent does this report represent an inconsistency between a (good) observational result and your ATM idea?

    Note that while this is the first reported result of this kind, there has been at least one subsequently, and future space-based missions will likely lead to many more (and of considerably higher precision)."

    Your second comments:

    "First, you did not, in fact, answer either of my Yes/No questions.

    Perhaps they were insufficiently clear?

    Please show - with math, equations, numbers etc - that your ATM idea gives predictions of the anomalous advance of the perihelion of Mercury that are within the error bars of the most recent, most stringent observations of that perihelion advance.

    Ditto, wrt the anomalous perihelion advance of Eros, Venus, and Earth."

    Please show - with math, equations, numbers etc - that your ATM idea gives predictions of the gravitational deflection of light, by the Sun, that are within the error bars of the most recent, most stringent observations of that deflection, across the whole sky*.

    Ditto, wrt gravitation deflection of light by Jupiter."


    Both sets of comments, if I'm not mistaken, refer to the successful predictions of General Relativity. At these relatively close distances you have requested I would also use GR (I've never made these calculations) because of the unknown variables involved concerning the inner cr. & ar.; there would be no difference if I instead used GR formulations. In fact I'll never attempt these close predictions unless GR at sometime fails the test of observation.
    (bold added)

    Thanks; that is the kind of straight-forward answer I was hoping for.

    If you've not done the relevant calculations, how do you know that the results would be the same - to within the observational uncertainties - as those from GR?

    My formulations presently would only exclusively apply to ranges of gravity at stellar, galactic, inter-galactic, and cosmological distances. At these distances, considering many unknown variables, approximations can be made by my formulations that are not contradicted by observation. This simple equation which I presented (and others which can be seen on the web site unless you request them here) would apply as a mathematical limit allegedly outside the range of Poisson vector metrics. The unique application of this formulation, therefore, would be beyond a light year's distance, similar to MOND gravity, TeVeS and other against-the-mainstream galactic gravitation formulations.


    respectfully, forrest
    (bold added)

    That's one reason why I specifically asked about MACHO-LMC-5!

    Both the lens star and the lensed star are at distances considerably greater than that from Earth to Eris (say); in fact, the lensed star is in the LMC, which is many kpc distant (~50) ... i.e. well "beyond a light year's distance".

    So let me ask my question again: To what extent does this report (Gould et al. (2004)) represent an inconsistency between a (good) observational result and your ATM idea?

    More generally, what is the relationship between the mass of a deflecting object and the deflection in the path of light past it? A quantitative relationship please.

  16. #16
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Posts
    11,562
    Quote Originally Posted by forrest noble View Post
    To test both this theory of light and the above theory of gravity there should accordingly be a difference in the speed of light, down traveling at 64 feet per second faster than the speed going up (twice the acceleration speed of gravity). Michelson and Morley’s experiment could not test up vs. down nor could it detect such a small difference in the speed of light. The experiment I propose would be a North-South (to discount differences due to the rotation of the Earth) shooting of reciprocal lasers for as far a distance as possible at roughly a 30 degree angle.
    It appears that you confused the acceleration of gravity (approx. 32 feet per second per second) with a speed. There is no such thing as an "acceleration speed".

  17. #17
    Join Date
    Aug 2002
    Posts
    7,640
    Quote Originally Posted by forrest noble View Post
    "why do we not see any evidence of gravitational shielding?"

    Gravitational shielding has been called "the shadow effect" in pushing gravity models. The Earth accordingly would act like a shield beneath your feet from much of the pushing forces coming in on the other side of the Earth, so the net force pushing us would be coming straight down at us. Does that make sense?
    No, not really, because that would mean that we can "shield" (or shadow) gravity, however useful this would be, no laboratory is apparently capable of doing this. This means that the particles that do the pushing will not interact with the very thick walls that they could build around the lab to screen out gravity. I don't think the whole notion (sorry Tom van Flandern) of pushing gravity is going anywhere, there are too many inconsistencies. Because if the particles do not get shielded by the thick walls, then what makes them push against me keeping me on Earth.
    All comments made in red are moderator comments. Please, read the rules of the forum here and read the additional rules for ATM, and for conspiracy theories. If you think a post is inappropriate, don't comment on it in thread but report it using the /!\ button in the lower left corner of each message. But most of all, have fun!

    Catch me on twitter: @tusenfem
    Catch Rosetta Plasma Consortium on twitter: @Rosetta_RPC

  18. #18
    Join Date
    Aug 2002
    Posts
    7,640
    Dear forest noble, please make use of the "quote" button on the bottom right of every message, when you are replying to people, that makes it much easier to see what your comments are on the questions/comments of others.

    To split up one quote you only need the following:

    • left bracket "[" then "quote=username" then right bracket "]"
    • text you want to quote
    • left bracket "[" then "/quote" then right bracket "]"


    but all without the " "
    Last edited by tusenfem; 2009-Jan-20 at 06:35 PM. Reason: took out the colour, is not really moderator stuff, just a bit of friendly advise
    All comments made in red are moderator comments. Please, read the rules of the forum here and read the additional rules for ATM, and for conspiracy theories. If you think a post is inappropriate, don't comment on it in thread but report it using the /!\ button in the lower left corner of each message. But most of all, have fun!

    Catch me on twitter: @tusenfem
    Catch Rosetta Plasma Consortium on twitter: @Rosetta_RPC

  19. #19
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Posts
    13,138
    If the Earth screens the pushing gravity wouldn't we be able to detect this in deep mines? wouldn't water screen gravity as well so a deep diving sub would also be able to detect it?
    Rules For Posting To This Board
    All Moderation in Purple

  20. #20
    Join Date
    Aug 2002
    Posts
    7,640
    Indeed Capt'n my capt'n, that is the problem with pushing gravity, it seems to be choosing what it wants to push against and what not.
    All comments made in red are moderator comments. Please, read the rules of the forum here and read the additional rules for ATM, and for conspiracy theories. If you think a post is inappropriate, don't comment on it in thread but report it using the /!\ button in the lower left corner of each message. But most of all, have fun!

    Catch me on twitter: @tusenfem
    Catch Rosetta Plasma Consortium on twitter: @Rosetta_RPC

  21. #21
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Posts
    5,511
    The idea behind gravitational shielding is that it is not a surface effect, but that most of the particles which produce the pushing gravity travel right through matter while only a very small portion of them are stopped. It therefore takes a very large amount of matter before the effect becomes appreciable.

  22. #22
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Posts
    4,139
    Quote Originally Posted by forrest noble View Post
    Both sets of comments, if I'm not mistaken, refer to the successful predictions of General Relativity. At these relatively close distances you have requested I would also use GR (I've never made these calculations) because of the unknown variables involved concerning the inner cr. & ar.; there would be no difference if I instead used GR formulations. In fact I will probably never attempt these close calculations unless GR at sometime in the future fails the test of observation.

    My formulations presently would only exclusively apply to ranges of gravity at stellar, galactic, inter-galactic, and cosmological distances. At these distances, considering many unknown variables, approximations can be made by my formulations that are not contradicted by observation. This simple equation which I presented (and others which can be seen on the web site unless you request them here) would apply as a mathematical limit allegedly outside the range of Poisson vector metrics. The unique application and advantages of this formulation, therefore, would be beyond a light year's distance, similar to MOND gravity, TeVeS and other against-the-mainstream galactic gravitation formulations.
    Given that GR is a completely different description of gravity to "pushing gravity", how do you make them both compatible?

  23. #23
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    12,081
    Quote Originally Posted by tusenfem View Post
    Also, the standard question, if gravity is indeed pushing, then why can't we sit behind a wall and float away, or more scientifically, why do we not see any evidence of gravitational shielding?
    You know what's funny? Just over two years ago, I sat grappling with gravity. Mind you, I have no science background other than the requisite courses in highschool and the "intro" courses in college required for my non-science major.

    As I pondered gravity and how it "works", I thought about pushing. The more I thought about it, the more it seemed to make sense to me. That's how I found this forum.

    The one thing I didn't think about initially, but quickly squelched my enthusiasm for "gravity pushes" is exactly what you just asked: if gravity pushes, why don't we see these "Gravitational Shielding" effects?

  24. #24
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Posts
    13,138
    Quote Originally Posted by grav View Post
    The idea behind gravitational shielding is that it is not a surface effect, but that most of the particles which produce the pushing gravity travel right through matter while only a very small portion of them are stopped. It therefore takes a very large amount of matter before the effect becomes appreciable.
    So small objects should be effected less than large ones?
    Rules For Posting To This Board
    All Moderation in Purple

  25. #25
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    2,273
    Great Nereid,

    Your comments:

    "If you've not done the relevant calculations, how do you know that the results would be the same - to within the observational uncertainties - as those from GR?"

    Both at close and at distant ranges -- put in the right variables, in this case ar. and cr., and you get the right precession distance from the center of the sun. Using Keplerean formulations you can get the velocity. Unlike GR which whereby this can be calculated from Earth, these variables of gravity in my formulations would have to be measured by a solar satellite or estimated which would yield inferior results.

    Bottom line is that if I had all the relevant satellite information it would invalidate the need for such calculation because you would be mirroring, by observation, what you are trying to predict.

    That's one reason why I specifically asked about MACHO-LMC-5!

    "Both the lensing source and the lensed star are at distances considerably greater than that from Earth to Eris (say); in fact, the lensed star is in the LMC, which is many kpc distant (~50) ... i.e. well "beyond a light year's distance". "

    "So let me ask my question again: To what extent does this report (Gould et al. (2004)) represent an inconsistency between a (good) observational result and your ATM idea?"

    The way that I see this example and observation is that only that light which is approaching the gravitational influence of the lensing entity at exactly the proper angle relative to the source and the Earth can be observed. Since we can only estimate that angle because the source is obscured, it would seem to me that GR could predict the source was in a certain position and Newtonian Mechanics would assert that this source was at a slightly different position based on a slightly different angle. I don't understand how this could prove the calculations of GR over Newtonian mechanics since we cannot know the exact location of the source star relative to the X and Z axis ( where Y is co-plainer and discernibly by all formulations). My formulations would only predict a slightly different angle of the source based upon the presently estimated distances involved. For there to be a statistically significant difference my formulation would require tens of thousands of light years between lensed galaxies to make a predictive different from those possible using GR or Newtonian formulations, a far greater distance than would be required to distinguish GR from Newtonian formulations but I can't imagine in this case how one could really know the precise location of a source from a lensing entity unless there was another method other than red-shift. Gravitational tidal forces could conceivably stretch EM radiation in galactic scale lensing. To my knowledge there is no evidence to preclude this seemingly reasonable possibility.

    "More generally, what is the relationship between the mass of a deflecting object and the deflection in the path of light past it? A quantitative relationship please."

    The formulations which I presented deal with massive objects and not with massless entities such as light. To deal with light we would need to follow the aether field inward according to the model of pushing gravity that I presented i.e. the deflection capability of an occulting star as a lensing entity.

    As light would enter the gravitational influence it would take roughly one to four light years to cross (travel through) this space depending upon where in the galaxy the stars are located. Stars in the inner galaxy are closer together that stars in the outer galaxy.

    Since the star being lensed from our perspective is behind the lensing star the evidence of this lensing can be seen as a smeared spectra usually adjacent to one side of the star. Of course the advantage of lensing is that in some cases where we would not otherwise be able to see the star or galaxy being lensed we are able to do so because a greater portion of stellar radiation can be bent around the lensing entity that would otherwise be radiated in our direction the lensing entity acts like a lensing glass enabling observations of entities as well as their magnification that we otherwise could not see with optical or radio astronomy because of the occulting entity.

    As the light from the source star passes by the lensing star maximum deflection of its light would occur near the surface of the lensing star. Minimum deflection of the light begins as the light enters the gravitational field of the star at "x" distance from the star (in light years), these radial deflective pushing forces would reach their maximum strength as the light passes near the surface of the star. As the light leaves the star the deflection would be the same as when the light entered the stellar gravitational field. The maximum bending force at closest approach we will call "w" (the speed equivalent to one second of acceleration of a stationary object, an estimated number). The average bending (pushing) force would be w/2. The total bending time would be 2x years. The approximation of total deflected distance would be 2xw/2 or simply x times w. The of the angle of deflection would be this distance divided by the speed of light, xw/c. This angular ratio multiplied times one hundred gives the angle in grads. Changing it to degrees for the average star you would get about a deflection of about 2 seconds.

    The determination of the distance to the source star would be based on the extent of the observed halo. The more complete the occultation the more accurately one can determine the distance to source star.

    Einsteins calculations are as follows:

    Where the angle of deflection d = 4G Ms/ c^2 b

    where G is the gravitational constant, Ms is the mass of the star, c is the speed of light, and b is the distance between the minimum trajectory and the center of the Sun based upon the angle of approach.

    Both methods would yield the same results and both are prone to error. In the bottom formulation the mass of the star is estimated, in the top formulation the acceleration speed of gravity at closest approach is also estimated. Since the pushing gravity formulation requires additional calculations to estimated the "w" figure above, both formulations would require the same variables and accordingly the same amount of calculation. Both formulation variables can be adjusted based upon the actual observed deflection.

    Again, it is necessary to understand that the predictions of pushing gravity at great distances are a hundred fold difference to the answers produced by General Relativity and Newtonian Gravity. So far you have only asked questions concerning the verifiable predictions of GR rather than its complete lack of predictability at galactic scales. This theory for instance predicts that dark energy is only an optical illusion, the universe is not expanding, and that dark matter is an aether distributed fairly evenly everywhere. These are the big differences that one should ask questions about.

    Hope I didn't ramble too much, Nereid, and that you have some satisfaction concerning my answers to your questions.

    respectfully, forrest

  26. #26
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    2,273
    Wow this is fantastic, you guys are firing questions faster than I can try to answer them.

    Captain Swoop,

    "The idea behind gravitational shielding is that it is not a surface effect, but that most of the particles which produce the pushing gravity travel right through matter while only a very small portion of them are stopped. It therefore takes a very large amount of matter before the effect becomes appreciable."

    According to this theory it is not solely a surface effect but all atomic, molecular matter is surrounded by its own little vortex within the field. The vectors of the inflowing aether would slowly be absorbed by matter as the are pushed, compacting them. Only neutrinos would make it all the way through the Earth with few impact loses. The rest of the vector forces of the slowly inflowing aether would accordingly be absorbed.

    "So small objects should be effected less than large ones?"

    Small objects would absorb less vector forces but it would be the same amount per unit mass as a bigger object, each being pushed to the extent that they contain atomic matter.

    Fazor, Grav

    "if gravity pushes, why don't we see these "Gravitational Shielding" effects?"

    "The idea behind gravitational shielding is that it is not a surface effect, but that most of the particles which produce the pushing gravity travel right through matter while only a very small portion of them are stopped. It therefore takes a very large amount of matter before the effect becomes appreciable."

    Take the Earth and moon for instance. If there is a dense omnipresent aether (or dark matter if you prefer) bouncing around, there would be a uniform field pressure like gas in a container. This pressure would push evenly on all matter except where matter is close together. The outside pressures upon the matter would be the same as the field pressure but the inside pressure (between the Earth and moon in this example) would be less because the stronger field vectors traveling near the speed of light would be absorber be the moon and planet respectively. You could look at it as if each body was casting a shadow on the other. With a resultant reduced field pressure between the two bodies they would be pushed together by outside vectors. A simple pictorial representation of this and extended explanations can be seen at pantheory.org pages 57B-D.

    Fortis,

    "Given that GR is a completely different description of gravity to "pushing gravity", how do you make them both compatible? "

    The model is very similar to the Newtonian model. In Newton' gravity, gravity is a pulling force. Take a vacuum for instance. We say that the vacuum is sucking up the dirt. In fact as a result of the motor within the vacuum producing a lower atmospheric pressure within a tank, the higher pressure air outside pushes the air in which accordingly sucks up the dirt that's in the inflowing path. So you can see that the two perspectives are very similar. The primary difference in pushing gravity theory is that is explains why gravity is pushing i.e. -- based upon the kinetic pressure of an aether field, which could also be called dark energy if you prefer.

    The warped space model of GR also has kinship in that matter accordingly would warp a space surrounding it, and in the pan-gravity theory (aka forrest noble's pushing gravity herein) we are discussing, matter radiates away in pressure waves part of its surround Aether density reducing the surrounding field pressure of aether. In this case there are several major advantages to this perspective.
    *First, again it explains why a lower pressure surrounds all matter, and GR does not explain why matter supposedly warps space.
    *Secondly, they are not compatible at all at stellar, galactic, and cosmological scales. As I stated before, gravity on these scales can be more readily identified as a 3D vortex, no attraction is involved
    *Thirdly it is supported by observation: the universe appears to be flat rather than warped on any presently observable scale.
    *Fourth, it predicts a relatively uniform density of the observable universe past and present. All observations to date bare this out. Based upon the expanding universe model of GR galaxies would accordingly be expanding away from each other from an increasingly denser past. Observations have all been contrary to this prediction. see pantheory.org -- Technical Paper accessed in the header links.

    At close distances GR is easier to calculate and more reliable since the variables in this alternative theory at close distances are more difficult to determine since the variables require close-approach satellite information which are only less accurate estimates here on Earth without observation data that would make an accurate calculation meaningless.

    Tusenfem,

    Thanks for your comments concerning improved navigation and site operations. I will study and try to practice your helpful suggestions.

    "Indeed Capt'n my capt'n, that is the problem with pushing gravity, it seems to be choosing what it wants to push against and what not"

    "No, not really, because that would mean that we can "shield" (or shadow) gravity, however useful this would be, no laboratory is apparently capable of doing this. This means that the particles that do the pushing will not interact with the very thick walls that they could build around the lab to screen out gravity. I don't think the whole notion (sorry Tom van Flandern) of pushing gravity is going anywhere, there are too many inconsistencies. Because if the particles do not get shielded by the thick walls, then what makes them push against me keeping me on Earth."

    As I said above, in this pushing gravity model aether pushes uniformly on all sides of all matter within an open field. It begins to push unevenly when matter is in close proximity to other matter. Laboratory experiments have shown matter is drawn by other matter, even small matter. Whether you see how the forces between the matter could be less within an omni-present field is a matter whether you can except the possibility. again pantheory.org pages 57B-57D for a pictorial representation and an extended explanation.

    Captain Swoop,

    "If the Earth screens the pushing gravity wouldn't we be able to detect this in deep mines? wouldn't water screen gravity as well so a deep diving sub would also be able to detect it?"

    All matter at the surface and within the Earth is compressed by these forces. This theory predicts that not only the interior of the Earth is compressed and thereby heated by these vector forces. It also predictions that much of the Sun's heating would be the result of these inflowing field pressures, the result being that since less heat would be required by nuclear forces within the Sun to generate the observed heat, therefore the life expectancy of the Sun as well as all stars would be longer. pantheory.org pages 104-105 prediction #50.

    hhEb09'1

    "It appears that you confused the acceleration of gravity (approx. 32 feet per second per second) with a speed. There is no such thing as an "acceleration speed". "

    The speed of the inward pushing aether toward the Earths surface would be the same speed as a dropped ball would have after one second. The speed at the Earth's surface would be 32 feet per second. Farther out this speed would accordingly be less. Apparently my explanation of this was not very clear.

    Note: although this is a pushing gravity theory, in some ways it is quite unique from others so that standard objects to other models may not necessarily apply to this model. I'm not defending pushing gravity, I'm trying to explain my model of it.

    If I missed anybody or didn't properly answer your question please ask again,

    respectfully, forrest

  27. #27
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Posts
    11,562
    Quote Originally Posted by forrest noble View Post
    hhEb09'1

    "It appears that you confused the acceleration of gravity (approx. 32 feet per second per second) with a speed. There is no such thing as an "acceleration speed". "

    The speed of the inward pushing aether toward the Earths surface would be the same speed as a dropped ball would have after one second. The speed at the Earth's surface would be 32 feet per second. Farther out this speed would accordingly be less. Apparently my explanation of this was not very clear.

    Note: although this is a pushing gravity theory, in some ways it is quite unique from others so that standard objects to other models may not necessarily apply to this model. I'm not defending pushing gravity, I'm trying to explain my model of it.

    If I missed anybody or didn't properly answer your question please ask again,

    respectfully, forrest
    The problem with that is, then, you are assuming that the speed of that aether just happens to correspond to the human-devised second. Why not one and a half seconds? What if the acceleration of gravity is expressed in kilometers per hour (127000km/hr/hr)? Would the speed of the aether have to be 127000km/hr? Why not?

  28. #28
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    13,441
    Quote Originally Posted by forrest noble View Post
    Great Nereid,

    Your comments:

    "If you've not done the relevant calculations, how do you know that the results would be the same - to within the observational uncertainties - as those from GR?"

    Both at close and at distant ranges -- put in the right variables, in this case ar. and cr., and you get the right precession distance from the center of the sun. Using Keplerean formulations you can get the velocity. Unlike GR which whereby this can be calculated from Earth, these variables of gravity in my formulations would have to be measured by a solar satellite or estimated which would yield inferior results.

    Bottom line is that if I had all the relevant satellite information it would invalidate the need for such calculation because you would be mirroring, by observation, what you are trying to predict.

    That's one reason why I specifically asked about MACHO-LMC-5!

    "Both the lensing source and the lensed star are at distances considerably greater than that from Earth to Eris (say); in fact, the lensed star is in the LMC, which is many kpc distant (~50) ... i.e. well "beyond a light year's distance". "

    "So let me ask my question again: To what extent does this report (Gould et al. (2004)) represent an inconsistency between a (good) observational result and your ATM idea?"

    The way that I see this example and observation is that only that light which is approaching the gravitational influence of the lensing entity at exactly the proper angle relative to the source and the Earth can be observed. Since we can only estimate that angle because the source is obscured, it would seem to me that GR could predict the source was in a certain position and Newtonian Mechanics would assert that this source was at a slightly different position based on a slightly different angle. I don't understand how this could prove the calculations of GR over Newtonian mechanics since we cannot know the exact location of the source star relative to the X and Z axis ( where Y is co-plainer and discernibly by all formulations). My formulations would only predict a slightly different angle of the source based upon the presently estimated distances involved. For there to be a statistically significant difference my formulation would require tens of thousands of light years between lensed galaxies to make a predictive different from those possible using GR or Newtonian formulations, a far greater distance than would be required to distinguish GR from Newtonian formulations but I can't imagine in this case how one could really know the precise location of a source from a lensing entity unless there was another method other than red-shift. Gravitational tidal forces could conceivably stretch EM radiation in galactic scale lensing. To my knowledge there is no evidence to preclude this seemingly reasonable possibility.

    "More generally, what is the relationship between the mass of a deflecting object and the deflection in the path of light past it? A quantitative relationship please."

    The formulations which I presented deal with massive objects and not with massless entities such as light. To deal with light we would need to follow the aether field inward according to the model of pushing gravity that I presented i.e. the deflection capability of an occulting star as a lensing entity.

    As light would enter the gravitational influence it would take roughly one to four light years to cross (travel through) this space depending upon where in the galaxy the stars are located. Stars in the inner galaxy are closer together that stars in the outer galaxy.

    Since the star being lensed from our perspective is behind the lensing star the evidence of this lensing can be seen as a smeared spectra usually adjacent to one side of the star. Of course the advantage of lensing is that in some cases where we would not otherwise be able to see the star or galaxy being lensed we are able to do so because a greater portion of stellar radiation can be bent around the lensing entity that would otherwise be radiated in our direction the lensing entity acts like a lensing glass enabling observations of entities as well as their magnification that we otherwise could not see with optical or radio astronomy because of the occulting entity.

    As the light from the source star passes by the lensing star maximum deflection of its light would occur near the surface of the lensing star. Minimum deflection of the light begins as the light enters the gravitational field of the star at "x" distance from the star (in light years), these radial deflective pushing forces would reach their maximum strength as the light passes near the surface of the star. As the light leaves the star the deflection would be the same as when the light entered the stellar gravitational field. The maximum bending force at closest approach we will call "w" (the speed equivalent to one second of acceleration of a stationary object, an estimated number). The average bending (pushing) force would be w/2. The total bending time would be 2x years. The approximation of total deflected distance would be 2xw/2 or simply x times w. The of the angle of deflection would be this distance divided by the speed of light, xw/c. This angular ratio multiplied times one hundred gives the angle in grads. Changing it to degrees for the average star you would get about a deflection of about 2 seconds.

    The determination of the distance to the source star would be based on the extent of the observed halo. The more complete the occultation the more accurately one can determine the distance to source star.

    Einsteins calculations are as follows:

    Where the angle of deflection d = 4G Ms/ c^2 b

    where G is the gravitational constant, Ms is the mass of the star, c is the speed of light, and b is the distance between the minimum trajectory and the center of the Sun based upon the angle of approach.

    Both methods would yield the same results and both are prone to error. In the bottom formulation the mass of the star is estimated, in the top formulation the acceleration speed of gravity at closest approach is also estimated. Since the pushing gravity formulation requires additional calculations to estimated the "w" figure above, both formulations would require the same variables and accordingly the same amount of calculation. Both formulation variables can be adjusted based upon the actual observed deflection.

    Again, it is necessary to understand that the predictions of pushing gravity at great distances are a hundred fold difference to the answers produced by General Relativity and Newtonian Gravity. So far you have only asked questions concerning the verifiable predictions of GR rather than its complete lack of predictability at galactic scales. This theory for instance predicts that dark energy is only an optical illusion, the universe is not expanding, and that dark matter is an aether distributed fairly evenly everywhere. These are the big differences that one should ask questions about.

    Hope I didn't ramble too much, Nereid, and that you have some satisfaction concerning my answers to your questions.

    respectfully, forrest
    There's an awful lot here, forrest noble, and most of it incomprehensible to me on my first and second read (maybe it'll become clearer if I read it more times).

    In this post I'll simply clarify my last question.

    In Forrest Noble's Pushing Gravity idea, what is the formula which relates the mass of an object, the deflection of light passing by it, and the distance of closest approach (of the light to the object, call it d) ... assuming that the distance between the source (of light) and the object (doing the deflecting) is >> d? Also that the distance of the observer to the object is also >> d.

    The formula for Newtonian gravity and for GR can be found in many textbooks, and on many websites.

    For avoidance of doubt, I am not asking for either the Newtonian or GR formula.

    If the Forrest Noble Pushing Gravity formula contains terms other than d and the mass of the object (doing the deflecting), please say so, and state what they are.

  29. #29
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    13,441
    Quote Originally Posted by forrest noble View Post
    Great Nereid,

    Your comments:

    "If you've not done the relevant calculations, how do you know that the results would be the same - to within the observational uncertainties - as those from GR?"

    Both at close and at distant ranges -- put in the right variables, in this case ar. and cr., and you get the right precession distance from the center of the sun. Using Keplerean formulations you can get the velocity. Unlike GR which whereby this can be calculated from Earth, these variables of gravity in my formulations would have to be measured by a solar satellite or estimated which would yield inferior results.

    Bottom line is that if I had all the relevant satellite information it would invalidate the need for such calculation because you would be mirroring, by observation, what you are trying to predict.

    [...]
    (bold added)

    What is a "precession distance"?

    What is "a solar satellite"?

    How would (could?) "a solar satellite" measure "these variables of gravity in my formulations"?

    Specifically, what instruments would such a satellite need to have?

  30. #30
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    13,441
    Quote Originally Posted by forrest noble View Post
    [...]

    That's one reason why I specifically asked about MACHO-LMC-5!

    "Both the lensing source and the lensed star are at distances considerably greater than that from Earth to Eris (say); in fact, the lensed star is in the LMC, which is many kpc distant (~50) ... i.e. well "beyond a light year's distance". "

    "So let me ask my question again: To what extent does this report (Gould et al. (2004)) represent an inconsistency between a (good) observational result and your ATM idea?"

    The way that I see this example and observation is that only that light which is approaching the gravitational influence of the lensing entity at exactly the proper angle relative to the source and the Earth can be observed. Since we can only estimate that angle because the source is obscured, it would seem to me that GR could predict the source was in a certain position and Newtonian Mechanics would assert that this source was at a slightly different position based on a slightly different angle. I don't understand how this could prove the calculations of GR over Newtonian mechanics since we cannot know the exact location of the source star relative to the X and Z axis ( where Y is co-plainer and discernibly by all formulations). My formulations would only predict a slightly different angle of the source based upon the presently estimated distances involved. For there to be a statistically significant difference my formulation would require tens of thousands of light years between lensed galaxies to make a predictive different from those possible using GR or Newtonian formulations, a far greater distance than would be required to distinguish GR from Newtonian formulations but I can't imagine in this case how one could really know the precise location of a source from a lensing entity unless there was another method other than red-shift. Gravitational tidal forces could conceivably stretch EM radiation in galactic scale lensing. To my knowledge there is no evidence to preclude this seemingly reasonable possibility.

    [...]
    Um... I thought the Gould et al. (2004) paper, to which I provided a link, explained how they were able to use GR (and other astronomical techniques) to first establish internal consistency in their approach, second rule out confounding factors (to a remarkable extent), and third derive an estimate of the mass of the lensing star.

    Perhaps you could read that paper again, and if you have any questions on the techniques used, or referenced, start a new thread in the Q&A section?

    More fundamentally, I have been trying to ask questions about the Forrest Noble Pushing Gravity idea, as you have presented it here in this thread. So I'm looking for answers that describe how well - quantitatively - this ATM idea matches the results of various experiments and astronomical observations, as reported in relevant papers published in relevant peer-reviewed journals. Of course, not just any observations, but only the ones I choose to introduce.

Similar Threads

  1. A hypothesis of Pushing Gravity
    By bigsplit in forum Against the Mainstream
    Replies: 63
    Last Post: 2006-Jun-05, 06:40 AM
  2. Graviton - pushing theory osf gravity
    By ClementMcCulloch in forum Against the Mainstream
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: 2005-Mar-10, 05:56 PM
  3. Pushing gravity as the result of the Pull.
    By bigsplit in forum Against the Mainstream
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 2004-Dec-08, 07:13 PM
  4. Pushing Gravity book
    By John Kierein in forum Against the Mainstream
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: 2003-Jan-28, 02:43 AM
  5. Pushing Gravity
    By John Kierein in forum Against the Mainstream
    Replies: 25
    Last Post: 2002-Apr-20, 12:15 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
here
The forum is sponsored in-part by: