PDA

View Full Version : Anomalous Acceleration of Pioneer 10 and 11



Pages : [1] 2

Chip
2002-Jan-22, 12:18 AM
One of the problems with the popular far out topics like "UFOs" or the "Face on Mars" is that they get in the way of the real mysteries and weird things that scientists are puzzling over.

Here's one: Apparently Pioneer 10 and 11 Doppler data does not match the expected solar system model. There is a Doppler residual signal that represents an anomalous acceleration toward the Sun. (This data currently comes from Pioneer 10, and some earlier data from Pioneer 11 before a switch failure disabled it in 1990.)

The page linked here (http://arXiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0104064) leads to an interesting summary. Further down there is a link to a PDF file of the very technical 95 page paper. It's worth a look if this topic is of interest to you.

The Planetary Society also has a great article about this in their November/December issue. You can read a little description of it if you go here (http://planetary.org/html/news/articlearchive/headlines/2001/tpr11_12_01toc.html) and scroll down. But the complete article is not available on line.

Gsquare
2002-Jan-22, 12:34 AM
Thanks for the link Chip.
I have heard of the anamolous acceleration before but never seen the full report.

I wish they'd use some format that I can read ; never can understand the symbology of these posts. What is $a_P ?

Anyway, what's your thought as to the cause?

2002-Jan-22, 03:06 PM
[quote]
On 2002-01-21 19:34, Gsquare wrote:
Thanks for the link Chip.




Anyway, what's your thought as to the cause?
My guess? LIE's are much MUCH more Profitable
currently than truth. & probably so for some time into the near future!

Chip
2002-Jan-22, 05:22 PM
On 2002-01-21 19:34, Gsquare wrote:
Thanks for the link Chip.
I have heard of the anomalous acceleration before but never seen the full report.

I wish they'd use some format that I can read; never can understand the symbology of these posts. What is $a_P ?

Anyway, what's your thought as to the cause?



As per the "$a_P etc..." they're talking about magnitudes and also equations later, but this seems to be a case of computers not having the characters necessary to completely resolve the original figure, and so "$" is being substituted. Or "$" has been assigned a different meaning - but my computer is not privy that "secret handshake." (-;
One can still read through the description to get the gist of what they're saying. In the big paper, the equations are clear.

As for what is causing the acceleration toward the Sun, in the paper they've ruled out Planet X (research of which was part of their original use of Pioneer Doppler telemetry,) so the mystery is really a conundrum. In the Planetary Society article, they imply that this little esoteric puzzle (which will not capture the public's imagination) is one of those things that could actually have very far reaching effects on physics, as well as other fields such as space navigation. Something out there is acting upon these spacecraft over time. All the choices as to what it is, based on known factors, don't fit.


<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Chip on 2002-01-22 12:34 ]</font>

Chip
2002-Jan-22, 05:32 PM
On 2002-01-22 10:06, HUb' wrote:
[quote]
On 2002-01-21 19:34, Gsquare wrote:
Thanks for the link Chip.
Anyway, what's your thought as to the cause?

My guess? LIE's are much MUCH more Profitable
currently than truth. & probably so for some time into the near future!


True, but this is too esoteric to be popular or profitable. Doppler research detecting anomalies in space probe velocity (and what that may imply) doesn't capture the general public's imagination. This research seems very levelheaded and avoids sensationalism, at least to me. (-;

lpetrich
2002-Jan-23, 10:03 PM
This anomalous Pioneer 10/11 acceleration is

(8.74 +/- 1.25) * 10^-8 cm/s^2

The original's dollar signs and other odd symbols are inputs for TeX, a common system for setting up mathematics-heavy documents. If you've ever composed HTML pages by hand, working with TeX will be a similar experience. For more, see http://www.tug.org

The acceleration of the Earth in its orbit is 0.593 cm/s^2 on average (1 AU)*(2*pi/yr)^2

making this anomalous acceleration 1.5*10^-7 of that.

However, Pioneer 10 was 67 AU from the Sun in 1997, when its mission was downgraded to a sort of background status, and Pioneer 11 was 40 AU from the Sun when contact with it was lost in 1995. This means that the anomalous acceleration is ~10^-4 of the Sun'as acceleration of them at that distance.

Finally, I note that calculated nongravitational effects, such as radiation reaction from the spacecraft's radio transmissions and the glow of the RTG's, are not much smaller than the anomalous acceleration itself, suggesting that one may have to model such effects more carefully.

Also, there are no similar effects reported for the Voyager spacecraft, so these may be due to some quirk of the Pioneers.

Argos
2002-Jan-23, 10:41 PM
On 2002-01-22 12:22, Chip wrote:


On 2002-01-21 19:34, Gsquare wrote:

I wish they'd use some format that I can read; never can understand the symbology of these posts. What is $a_P ?



As per the "$a_P etc..." they're talking about magnitudes and also equations later, but this seems to be a case of computers not having the characters necessary to completely resolve the original figure

That's because they don't use MathML (http://www.w3.org/Math/)

I'm one amongst those freaks who preach in the desert about the virtues of the Math mark-up languague (I have suggested it to BA for the new software, but I know the majority of software vendors don't implement it in their packages). It could ban those weird characters, at least from the Internet.



<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Argos on 2002-01-24 15:51 ]</font>

Chip
2002-Jan-26, 05:34 AM
On 2002-01-23 17:03, lpetrich wrote:
This anomalous Pioneer 10/11 acceleration is

(8.74 +/- 1.25) * 10^-8 cm/s^2

The acceleration of the Earth in its orbit is 0.593 cm/s^2 on average (1 AU)*(2*pi/yr)^2
making this anomalous acceleration 1.5*10^-7 of that.....Pioneer 10 was 67 AU from the Sun in 1997...and Pioneer 11 was 40 AU from the Sun when contact with it was lost in 1995. This means that the anomalous acceleration is ~10^-4 of the Sun'as acceleration of them at that distance......calculated nongravitational effects, such as radiation reaction from the spacecraft's radio transmissions and the glow of the RTG's, are not much smaller than the anomalous acceleration itself, suggesting that one may have to model such effects more carefully......there are no similar effects reported for the Voyager spacecraft, so these may be due to some quirk of the Pioneers.


Thank you for some very insightful points concerning this! I think radiation reaction was accounted for -- but I find no accounting for the other things you've mentioned.

Chip

lpetrich
2002-Jan-26, 07:09 AM
The authors of that paper had attempted to account for radiation reaction, but they seemed to have used some rather simplistic models, suggesting that more careful modeling might cause the discrepancy to disappear.

Gsquare
2002-Jan-26, 07:09 PM
Thank you Lpetrich; especially for the data on the magnitude of the effect.

I was of the opinion that in interplanetary ranging determinations, an estimate of solar radiation effects was always done, even on Voyagers, but I am unaware of the order of magnitude of such. Your data is helpful.
I'll come back to this when I have time.

G^2

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Gsquare on 2002-01-26 14:12 ]</font>

ljbrs
2002-Jan-27, 03:50 AM
Thank you, lpetrich. I read the Planetary Report account late today and had wondered about the details concerning the Pioneers' acceleration toward the Sun. You have mostly cleared up my misunderstandings about the article.

I read your posts whenever I find them, because you are always clear about your information.

ljbrs /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_smile.gif /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_biggrin.gif

Michael
2002-Jan-29, 11:34 AM
[quote]Also, there are no similar effects reported for the Voyager spacecraft, so these may be due to some quirk of the Pioneers. [quote]

If you look at the following link, you will see the quote.

"Now six space scientists, armed with many years of Pioneer data, supplemented with trajectory information from Galileo and Ulysses, have carried out the first thorough analysis of the problem and find the anomaly to be as persistent as ever. (The Voyager spacecraft are less useful for determining acceleration anomalies.)"

I would suspect that means that they don't have the right kind of data for the Voyager missions or trust the data enough to use it in determining the acceleration anomalies. Also, Galileo and Ulysses do show those acceleration anomalies, so I suspect the acceleration is pretty well confirmed.

http://www.aip.org/enews/physnews/1998/split/pnu391-1.htm

Donnie B.
2002-Jan-29, 02:35 PM
As I mentioned in another thread...

The reason the Voyager data can't be used is that they are thruster-stabilized, and it's impossible to crunch out the effects of those thruster burns to high enough accuracy to see this (small) anomaly.

The Pioneers are relatively simple spin-stabilized vehicles, so there's no thruster effects to muddy the waters. (Well, far less, anyhow; they must have used thrusters for maneuvering, but probably not since their last planetary encounters.)

Michael
2002-Jan-29, 09:17 PM
Thanks. I figured there would be a simple reason why its data couldn't be used.

informant
2002-Feb-15, 08:39 AM
Could Kuiper Belt objects, or some other group of small bodies like them be the expanation for the Pioneers's acceleration?

grumium
2002-Feb-28, 05:09 AM
Is this confirmed, now?

John Kierein
2002-Feb-28, 02:30 PM
I suspect that they have ignored all the dust in the solar system. The cumulative effect of this as you travel away from the sun may add to the gravitational attraction. This dust is seen as the Zodiacal light and shows up very dramatically in the IRAS and COBE all sky maps.
http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap980128.html
Very small particles of this may be a transparent medium. The dust is concentrated in the ecliptic plane.

Valiant Dancer
2002-Feb-28, 05:32 PM
On 2002-02-28 09:30, John Kierein wrote:
I suspect that they have ignored all the dust in the solar system. The cumulative effect of this as you travel away from the sun may add to the gravitational attraction. This dust is seen as the Zodiacal light and shows up very dramatically in the IRAS and COBE all sky maps.
http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap980128.html
Very small particles of this may be a transparent medium. The dust is concentrated in the ecliptic plane.


Interesting idea. Also may explain why Voyager data may be unaffected. Pioneer 10 is 3 degrees out of the ecliptic. Pioneer 11 is 17 degrees out of the ecliptic. Voyager 1 is 35 degrees out of the ecliptic. And, Voyager 2 is 48 degrees out of the ecliptic.

Drag from striking dust particles on a spin stabilized craft may explain why the anomilies only affect the Pioneer project measurably. The Voyager project would be less affected due to their steeper angle out of the ecliptic. (less dust to create drag on a thruster stabilized craft.)

Michael
2002-Mar-02, 10:26 AM
Drag from striking dust particles on a spin stabilized craft may explain why the anomilies only affect the Pioneer project measurably. The Voyager project would be less affected due to their steeper angle out of the ecliptic. (less dust to create drag on a thruster stabilized craft.)

Other spacecrafts data can't be used in determing, if there is an anomaly in their flights. Therefore, it is not known that the anomilies only affect the Pioneer project measurably. Here is quote from CNN from NASA's, John Anderson. "The scientists were unable to calculate the effects of distant gravity on other deep space probes, like Voyager I or Voyager 2, because they employ a different kind of orientation and propulsion system, Anderson said."
http://www.cnn.com/2001/TECH/space/05/21/gravity.mystery/index.html

2002-Mar-02, 02:39 PM
<a name="20020302.8:30"> page 20020302.8:30 aka ? Math




http://www.cnn.com/2001/TECH/space/05/21/gravity.mystery/index.html

Has transmitter frequency drift been ruled out?
[1] vote for frequency drift
{um the Xtals cooling} etc

Gsquare
2002-Mar-04, 02:40 AM
On 2002-03-02 05:26, Michael wrote:
http://www.cnn.com/2001/TECH/space/05/21/gravity.mystery/index.html


This link says, "Astronomers studied the Doppler shift of the radio signals to help calculate the distances of the probes, "

What about transit time ? Isn't that the method for distance determination ? How can Doppler do it with any accuracy? Wouldn't that give only radial velocity ?

G^2

kg034
2004-Oct-06, 05:03 AM
The page linked here (http://arXiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0104064) leads to an interesting summary. Further down there is a link to a PDF file of the very technical 95 page paper. It's worth a look if this topic is of interest to you.

The Planetary Society also has a great article about this in their November/December issue. You can read a little description of it if you go here (http://planetary.org/html/news/articlearchive/headlines/2001/tpr11_12_01toc.html) and scroll down. But the complete article is not available on line.



Latest issue of Nature has a small tidbit about this...
Apparently Anderson and Turyshev want to submit a proposal to NASA for funding a detailed re-sifting of the Pioneer data....They even proposed a spacecraft to test the anomaly....a neat idea...a spacecraft followed by a reflective ball...bouncing lasers of the ball would measure the distance and account for any unexpected accelerations due to the systems on the spacecraft itself. However, chances are small of such a mission being funded, with costs estimated at $.5 bil if I read my zeros correctly.

2004-Oct-06, 02:50 PM
&lt;a name="20020302.8:30"> page 20020302.8:30 aka ? Math




http://www.cnn.com/2001/TECH/space/05/21/gravity.mystery/index.html

Has transmitter frequency drift been ruled out?
[1] vote for frequency drift {1}
{um the Xtals cooling} etc
http://spaceprojects.arc.nasa.gov/Space_Projects/pioneer/path.html
--
Ok so P10 is Going BackWords of the Sun's direction?
===
What does it mean?
::::;
Which direction is Forward
?????
I currently use the Square Vega,A,A,A as the $ward direction
//tilt\\ and place Px in that Space heading this way {Back Wards}
So Px &amp; P10 have the same general direction of motion
Maybe Px has P10 in a TractiVe Beam

ToSeek
2004-Oct-06, 03:26 PM
Which direction is Forward
?????
I currently use the Square Vega,A,A,A as the $ward direction
//tilt\\ and place Px in that Space heading this way {Back Wards}
So Px &amp; P10 have the same general direction of motion
Maybe Px has P10 in a TractiVe Beam

Toward Vega (http://www.cartage.org.lb/en/themes/Sciences/Astronomy/Thestars/stellarmotion/SecularandStatistical/SecularandStatisticalParallax.htm), apparently.

2004-Oct-06, 03:32 PM
Which direction is Forward
?????
I currently use the Square Vega,A,A,A as the $ward direction
Maybe Px has P10 in a TractiVe Beam

Toward Vega (http://www.cartage.org.lb/en/themes/Sciences/Astronomy/Thestars/stellarmotion/SecularandStatistical/SecularandStatisticalParallax.htm), apparently.
20041006 8:32AM Pt from NH465 {really rare post {its the Math Lab Computer$
http://www.w3.org/Math/
http://www.w3.org/Math/XSL/
http://www.w3.org/2003/03/Translations/OverviewTech.html#XSL

Lunatik
2004-Oct-06, 10:18 PM
As I mentioned in another thread...

The reason the Voyager data can't be used is that they are thruster-stabilized, and it's impossible to crunch out the effects of those thruster burns to high enough accuracy to see this (small) anomaly.

The Pioneers are relatively simple spin-stabilized vehicles, so there's no thruster effects to muddy the waters. (Well, far less, anyhow; they must have used thrusters for maneuvering, but probably not since their last planetary encounters.)
Regarding the 'accelerating' Pioneer crafts exiting the solar system, they're actually accelerating towards the sun, so are slowing down. The linked paper below does also mention that spin is being affected, (see pg. 23) so that periodic adjustments are executed. One (way out) possibility is that the crafts are entering denser gravity G regions, so their centripetals are affected, giving greater spin (in one direction only, so one will spin faster while the opposite direction will spin slower), and it may also account for increasing inertial mass, which given constant momentum would slow them down. No evidence this is so, so only a supposition at present.

Study of the anomalous acceleration of Pioneer 10 and 11 (http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/gr-qc/pdf/0104/0104064.pdf)

Gsquare, I realize this thread is more than two years old, but thought just for fun:

G^2 = g c^2 pi^2

This equation seems to work, if little g is the proton to proton gravitational constant (ie. g = 5.9e-39 dimensionless). Take the sqare root and you're pretty close to Newton's G constant! :roll:

2004-Oct-07, 02:07 PM
Toward Vega[/url], apparently
http://www.w3.org/Math/
http://www.w3.org/Math/XSL/
http://www.w3.org/2003/03/Translations/OverviewTech.html#XSL[/quote]

5:31 AM 10/7/04 sqU/O^ie(A'misH {Math Hour}:(BBC)
----
well ?: the thread has found a path to a Math moments
that appear to do some Math in an HTML format
====
although i've click the site, i've not spent many min.
in any aspect spacificly writing any script
::::
Todays Sceens:?:? I'll leave the apartment earily
and insure the NW Entry to SB2 is locked { }Y ( )N
????
once in SB2 i'll just check to insure both sites are
occupied &amp; move along.. So the posting place is A?
//tilt\\
OK? starting at 8: NH465 {Math} 9? {?} 10: ubrn204
and Noon LH {Studio}

7:05 not omly was SB2 NW open this room 169 was empty
-----
now back to the chase {in a little while}

?xml vers deleted BY me see pi MAN ref &lt; 2005

thats from the XMS page and i've no Idea {delete if required2} I did SO DO

now back to 169 7:10 no longer empty
some one came in to turn on all the Machines
only this one {has Sound} was already on

enter Girl .. { With sound } exit me to next station 7:12

2004-Oct-07, 02:25 PM
Toward Vega[/url], apparently
http://www.w3.org/Math/XSL/


http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml
http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML


thats from the XMS page and i've no Idea {delete if required2}

1 to begin with my Math Methode is itterative
2. {not as clever OR AS FAST as REcursive
3: &amp; sometimes {maybe often} does not work

---
here I was trying to see what I would see using W3
so far its a total unknow to me
and My translating abilities are very slow {iterative}

A Thousand Pardons
2004-Oct-07, 03:30 PM
Gsquare, I realize this thread is more than two years old, but thought just for fun:

G^2 = g c^2 pi^2

This equation seems to work, if little g is the proton to proton gravitational constant (ie. g = 5.9e-39 dimensionless). Take the sqare root and you're pretty close to Newton's G constant! :roll:
Interesting. But the units on the left don't match the units on the right, so the coincidence depends upon the units.

And I looked into it a little closer. I found the same claim elsewhere (http://www.space-talk.com/ForumE/showthread.php3?threadid=1797&amp;pagenumber=4) (are you Coppernicus2?). When I tried to find how that "proton to proton gravitational constant" was computed, I was led to this page (http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/forces/couple.html#c5). Weirdly, it appears to be a ratio of gravitational force to the electromagnetic force for two protons, but it is multiplied by the fine structure constant--which cancels the charges! So, it ends up equal to the ratio of Gp^2 to (c times h-bar), where p is the mass of a proton.

2004-Oct-07, 03:43 PM
http://www.space-talk.com/ForumE/showthread.php3?threadid=1797&amp;pagenumber=4]elsewhere

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/forces/couple.html#c5


when viewing hbase forces
it reminds me that i wish i knew if there were a way for me to
fill in the right side {see SmartCal} ( top link below) of my index page
without using FORMS?
------
INDEX.HTML page formatting doeth elude me.. and I think I prefer
NOT TO USE FORMS?/?




8:47 and this REMinds me a trick i lernt yesterday
click link H_ba above
once you see Ag
then at the top {Menu Bar}? click V_iew (then click Sourc_e)
GOOD LUCK

Lunatik
2004-Oct-07, 06:49 PM
DELETED DUPE

Lunatik
2004-Oct-07, 06:53 PM
Gsquare, I realize this thread is more than two years old, but thought just for fun:

G^2 = g c^2 pi^2

This equation seems to work, if little g is the proton to proton gravitational constant (ie. g = 5.9e-39 dimensionless). Take the sqare root and you're pretty close to Newton's G constant! :roll:
Interesting. But the units on the left don't match the units on the right, so the coincidence depends upon the units.

And I looked into it a little closer. I found the same claim elsewhere (http://www.space-talk.com/ForumE/showthread.php3?threadid=1797&amp;pagenumber=4) (are you Coppernicus2?). When I tried to find how that "proton to proton gravitational constant" was computed, I was led to this page (http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/forces/couple.html#c5). Weirdly, it appears to be a ratio of gravitational force to the electromagnetic force for two protons, but it is multiplied by the fine structure constant--which cancels the charges! So, it ends up equal to the ratio of Gp^2 to (c times h-bar), where p is the mass of a proton.
Ah yes, that equation above was a short hand for the real thing, so the SI units wouldn't work. The original was:

G^2 * m = g c^2 pi^2

where G=6.67x10^-11 m^3.kg^-1.s^-2 (Newton's G)
g=~5x10^-39 (proton to proton gravitational constant)
c=3x10^8 m.s^-1
m = 1 dimensionless, kg implied
pi=3.14...
The way it works out then becomes:

G*m = (g)^1/2 *c*pi

Now, the SI units became

(m^3.kg^-1.s^-2) kg = (g?) m.s^-1

...snip...

However, I never really figured it out either, since mass m=1 is either dimensioneless (kg/kg), or it retains the kg units. So the G^2 equation remains mainly a curiosity, though at the same time I found it useful in converting little proton-to-proton gravitational coupling constant into Newton's G. As an aside, this whole exercise stems from an equation developed earlier using the deBroglie equation matched up with a modified version of Einstein's famous equation, mc^2 = (1-g)c^2, so that it becomes:

E = hc/ lambda (proton mass) = (1 - g) c^2 = 90 petajoules

where m is always m = 1, and little g ranges from 0 --> 1, depending upon the value of E.

... but that's another story.

Cheers, Ivan (aka Coppernicus2)

Jerry
2004-Oct-08, 02:46 AM
The authors of that paper had attempted to account for radiation reaction, but they seemed to have used some rather simplistic models, suggesting that more careful modeling might cause the discrepancy to disappear.

Anderson published another paper detailing why he does not think the acceleration could be caused by differential heating - the effect was extremely consistent from about the obit of Mars until way past Saturn, consistent, so dust and many other systemics can be eliminated. The 10 and eleven were virtually identical, so it would have to be either inherent in the craft or "real".

In a paper rejected by AA, Jacques Moret-Bailly and I speculated it may be caused by a blueshifting of the radio frequency by the CREIL process - I have reasons now, to believe that this less likely. Another possibility is that the effect is a real gravitational effect - the acceleration rate is very close to the MOND effect found in other galaxies and normally attributed to dark matter.

All in all, it is a very good mystery, and another mission to verify, to try to pin down the cause is a very good idea.

MrObvious
2004-Oct-08, 04:56 AM
What's the long term stability of 1970's crystals after being subjected to the rigours of launch and conditions in space?

If the same crystal set the data rate as well as the transmit frequency this could be easily checked. My quess is to go through the schematics first and eliminate anything possible from there.

Jerry
2004-Oct-08, 12:50 PM
What's the long term stability of 1970's crystals after being subjected to the rigours of launch and conditions in space?

If the same crystal set the data rate as well as the transmit frequency this could be easily checked. My quess is to go through the schematics first and eliminate anything possible from there.
The Pioneer used a phase-locked loop, retransmitting a multiple of the frequency sent to the probe from the earth, so there was no internal timing in the probes.

Everything about the probes = the spin stablization, the location and symetry of the power sources, was designed to maximize the accuracy of the Dopper ranging. Ranging was based only upon the timing signal from the earth, which was generated by the most accurate clocks known.


The authors of that paper had attempted to account for radiation reaction, but they seemed to have used some rather simplistic models, suggesting that more careful modeling might cause the discrepancy to disappear.

The venting of the reactor heat was specifically designed to be symetrical - the reactors were boom mounted. differential tainting of the surfaces facing the solar wind and opposing it are the only viable explanations I have heard, but even this would mean 10 and 11 aged at nearly identical rates.

Anyone who has studied the MOND effect in any detail may have predicted this solar dragging. This may be the most critical experiment since Michelson and Morley, and it may be trying to tell us we really do not understand the nature of what we call the gravametric force. Our failure to find a whisper of a gravity wave, or detect a Higgs boson certainly includes this possibility.

I am beginning to think that Aristotle might have been correct after all: objects fall to the earth because they belong there. That is an over simplification of a nagging suspicion about the formation of solitons and other optical wave stablizations: Coherent light has an uncanny ability to maintain phase alignment that is extremely difficult to model or explain.

If you extend this attribute of light to all electromagnetic functionality, as you should, integrated field alignment of very large objects is a natural product of these equations. Electromagnetically, we are huge. Are we attracted by gravity, or trying to align with with a monster centrated solar field? Such a field would have areas of stability, not unlike electron orbitals. If as we find and identify planatary systems they are found in the same periodic patterns we find in our own solar system, we should conclude there is a resonant causality.

This may be a good time to point out that in the current cosmology, ~95% of the energy/mass of the universe is attributed to dark energy and dark matter. Of the remaining 5%, 99% of the mass is suppose to reside in the Higgs boson, which has never been detected. In other words 99.95% of what we know is about 0.05% of everything there is to know. This is not very encouraging.

2004-Oct-08, 03:09 PM
In a paper rejected by AA, Jacques Moret-Bailly and I speculated it may be caused by a blueshifting of the radio frequency by the CREIL process - I have reasons now, to believe that this less likely. Another possibility is that the effect is a real gravitational effect - the acceleration rate is very close to the MOND effect found in other galaxies and normally attributed to dark matter.

All in all, it is a very good mystery, and another mission to verify, to try to pin down the cause is a very good idea.

Perhaps the truth LIES there: {Bottom line}

anyway I would like to see a link to
1 the Decelleration Plot for 10
2: THE Acceleration plots for 9 &amp; 11

Jerry
2004-Oct-10, 07:03 AM
Perhaps the truth LIES there: {Bottom line}

anyway I would like to see a link to
1 the Decelleration Plot for 10
2: THE Acceleration plots for 9 &amp; 11
http://lanl.arxiv.org/PS_cache/gr-qc/pdf/0104/0104064.pdf

There are a couple of follow-on papers that discuss differential radiation effects, antenna polarity, but this one has the most information on 10 &amp; 11.

2004-Oct-11, 02:53 PM
Perhaps the truth LIES there: {Bottom line}

anyway I would like to see a link to
1 the Decelleration Plot for 10
2: THE Acceleration plots for 9 &amp; 11
http://lanl.arxiv.org/PS_cache/gr-qc/pdf/0104/0104064.pdf

There are a couple of follow-on papers that discuss differential radiation effects, antenna polarity, but this one has the most information on 10 &amp; 11.
ok i found fig 3 page 5? THANKS
now if i can discover how to link to the PLOT
attempt 1



http://web.pdx.edu/~pdx00782/img04/try2.

it looks like it lost some detail in translation but I got something
"Galatic Center UP"

Silent Knight
2004-Oct-11, 08:07 PM
Are the laws of physics set and consistent throughout the universe? Or can they change? Can there be mistakes/anomolies? I'm not talking about theories here, but the actual laws.

iantresman
2004-Oct-11, 09:56 PM
Are the laws of physics set and consistent throughout the universe? Or can they change? Can there be mistakes/anomolies? I'm not talking about theories here, but the actual laws.

Intuition tells us that ALL the laws of physics are the same throughout the Universe, but this is untestable.

For example, it was thought that the Second Law of Thermodynamics was universal, until it broke [ref (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/2135779.stm)].

So yes, the is evidence that there can be mistakes. And Einstein had to modify Newton's laws. For more anomalies, see the Science Fontiers Web site (http://www.science-frontiers.com/).

Regards,
Ian Tresman

MrObvious
2004-Oct-12, 03:33 AM
The Pioneer used a phase-locked loop, retransmitting a multiple of the frequency sent to the probe from the earth, so there was no internal timing in the probes.


Just thinking aloud:
All values for example only.
TxEarth =100MHz
TxCraft=TxEarth x M

if the doppler shift at the receiver of the spacecraft was D then:
RxCraft=TxEarth - D
and then
TxCraft=RxCraft ie
TxCraft= M (TxEarth - D)

RxEarth = TxCraft -D
RxEarth = M (TxEarth -D) - D

So we are multiplying doppler shift and any error in the received signal and re-transmitting it. Easy test is if the PLL is programable, ie the divider can be set to any reasonable value. This would change the M value and from there the the result analysed. May show nothing but the results would be interesting to know.

Jerry
2004-Oct-12, 12:47 PM
May show nothing but the results would be interesting to know.
Unfortunately, the Pioneer probes are too far away to listen to us anymore...we quite listening to them, too.

I can't fight off the nagging thought something very fundamental is being observed, here. The failed search for dark matter near the edges of galaxies should be telling us something, to. At least there is a candidate now, as DRuss as pointed out before:

The VLA surveys (http://lanl.arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0410238) are turning up hydrogen clouds in unexpected places. You know if galaxy cores are outgasing, actually generating hydrogen, this is the kind of evidence we should expect to see. Violation of the 2d law? Or just another slowly unwinding spring?

One of the obvious implications of this is that much of the dark matter is really baryonic - this is completely at odds with the WMAP conclusions. It will be interesting to hear Ned Wright's twist on these cosmic hydrogen fountains.

2004-Oct-12, 03:33 PM
Perhaps the truth LIES there: {Bottom line}

anyway I would like to see a link to
1 the Decelleration Plot for 10
2: THE Acceleration plots for 9 &amp; 11
http://lanl.arxiv.org/PS_cache/gr-qc/pdf/0104/0104064.pdf

There are a couple of follow-on papers that discuss differential radiation effects, antenna polarity, but this one has the most information on 10 &amp; 11.
ok i found fig 3 page 5? THANKS
now if i can discover how to link to the PLOT
attempt 1



http://web.pdx.edu/~pdx00782/img04/try2. {Ending Deleted To AS-simulate)


it looks like it lost some detail in translation but I got something
"Galatic Center UP"

MrObvious
2004-Oct-13, 01:45 AM
Unfortunately, the Pioneer probes are too far away to listen to us anymore...we quite listening to them, too.


bummer :(

ToSeek
2004-Oct-13, 02:41 PM
Unfortunately, the Pioneer probes are too far away to listen to us anymore...we quite listening to them, too.


bummer :(

Had to happen sometime....

iantresman
2004-Oct-14, 07:41 PM
Apparently Pioneer 10 and 11 Doppler data does not match the expected solar system model. [..]

The page linked here (http://arXiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0104064) leads to an interesting summary.

The paper mentions several possible causes of the anonamous acceleration, and rules them ALL out. I am reminded of the following quote:


Sherlock Holmes: "When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth".

It is interesting that the authors to do not consider an electric field (probably because it is generally accepted that there not one). Yet they rule out the following:


TABLE II: Error Budget: A Summary of Biases and Uncertainties.

Item Description of error budget constituents
1 Systematics generated external to the spacecraft:
.. .. a) Solar radiation pressure and mass
.. .. b) Solar wind
.. .. c) Solar corona
.. .. d) Electro-magnetic Lorentz forces
.. .. e) Influence of the Kuiper belt’s gravity
.. .. f) Influence of the Earth orientation
.. .. g) Mechanical and phase stability of DSN antennae
.. .. h) Phase stability and clocks
.. .. i) DSN station location
.. .. j) Troposphere and ionosphere

2 On-board generated systematics:
.. .. a) Radio beam reaction force
.. .. b) RTG heat reflected off the craft
.. .. c) Differential emissivity of the RTGs
.. .. d) Non-isotropic radiative cooling of the spacecraft
.. .. e) Expelled Helium produced within the RTGs
.. .. f) Gas leakage
.. .. g) Variation between spacecraft determinations

3 Computational systematics:
.. .. a) Numerical stability of least-squares estimation
.. .. b) Accuracy of consistency/model tests
.. .. c) Mismodeling of maneuvers
.. .. d) Mismodeling of the solar corona
.. .. e) Annual/diurnal terms

Reference: A Mystery Solved - Welcome to the Electric Universe! (http://www.holoscience.com/news/mystery_solved.html)

Regards,
Ian Tresman
Proponent, The Electric Universe (http://www.electric-universe.info)[/url]

tjm220
2004-Oct-14, 08:28 PM
How credible a reference is holoscience.com?

iantresman
2004-Oct-14, 08:58 PM
How credible a reference is holoscience.com?
I would hope that you would not let the peer-assessed credibility of any publications affect your own judgement. Recall:


"Don't go where the path leads. Rather go where there is no path and leave a trail." -- Ralph Waldo Emerson

Regards,
Ian Tresman

2004-Oct-14, 09:55 PM
How credible a reference is holoscience.com?

well its all looked VERY reasoned &amp; reasonable to me

Thomas
2004-Oct-16, 09:56 AM
The so called 'anomalous acceleration' may be simply due to an inconsistency with the definition for the 'speed' of light: traditionally, the travel time of the communication signal between the earth and the spacecraft (and back) is assumed to depend on the relative speed of both, but this contradicts the postulate that the 'speed' of light should be independent of the state of motion of source and reveiver. If you assume instead that the travel time of the signal depends only on the distance at the time of emission, you would associate larger distance with a given travel time of the signal (corresponding to the distance the spacecraft travels during this time). This would about compensate for the observed discrepancy (see my webpage http://www.physicsmyths.org.uk/lightspeed.htm for more details).

Lunatik
2004-Oct-16, 05:59 PM
Thomas, regarding your:

Thomas: The so called 'anomalous acceleration' may be simply due to an inconsistency with the definition for the 'speed' of light: traditionally, the travel time of the communication signal between the earth and the spacecraft (and back) is assumed to depend on the relative speed of both, but this contradicts the postulate that the 'speed' of light should be independent of the state of motion of source and reveiver... snip... (see my webage http://www.physicsmyths.org.uk/lightspeed.htm for more details).
You make a very interesting point, that the readings may be c related. (I personally think Einstein's first postulate, no preferred reference frames in SR, is wrong, since the observer's frame of reference is always preferred. Saying it is not preferred does not obviate the fact that only the observer's frame yields measurable results, which cannot be transferred to the observed frame. Not sure about the invariance of c either, but my bias. SR holds no special thrill for me, alas.)

You say further, per the link given:

"This circumstance could for instance be the explanation for the apparent anomalous acceleration (slowdown) of the Pioneer 10 spacecraft, as the traditional way of calculating the travel time of the communication signal underestimates the corresponding distance approximately by the observed mismatch (it is obvious that for the speeds involved (10s of km/sec) this problem will only become apparent for large distances, as observed)."

This could also be seen separately as a function of the total Energy received from our local star, the Sun, at a distance. If you calculate E = (solar radiance) x (distance) x (kinetic orbital energy)* you get a fairly close reading of E = 9e16 Watts, viz. 90 petajoules/second.

I used the following to get E:

Solar radiance = 1367.6 W.m^-2
Earth's mean d from Sun = 149e9 meters (or 149e6 km)
G = 6.67e-11 Nm^2kg^-2
Earth's mean orbital v = 29.78 km.s^-1
v^2 = 886.85 km^2.s^-2
m = 1 (this is a kg/kg function, dimensionless)

If you figure this same total orbital E for the inner planets, it is higher as you go towards the Sun, and for the outer planets it is lower with distance. I wonder what the Pioneer probes velocities are now, if they started at 10s km/s?

A simplified way of illustrating this distance related E is as follows:

Using Einstein's famous E=mc^2 = 9e16 J, so that if for distant planets from the Sun E was less than 90 petajoules, the m would be less than one, which applying Newton's orbital equation: GM=Vr^2, would yield a higher G. If this G was to be higher, then inertial mass would likewise be higher, so that given a constant momentum at v = 10s km/s, per p = mv, the velocity of the craft should show a slower v. (This is a highly simplified version, not proof.)

I figured these computations on my http://www.humancafe.com/cgi-bin/discus/show.cgi?70/145.html and found that while the E curve is parabollic, the G curve is linear, that is it grows linearly (d/d^2) with distance from the Sun. See the (crude) graph on Oct. 4, 2004, in that page for an illustration.

Could this account for the Pioneers accelerating towards the Sun at a steady rate of about 10-7 cm s-2 , as per http://physicsweb.org/articles/world/12/1/5 ?

Of course, this introduces a new variable into how we guage distant Energy for the planets, and for Earth the E = mc^2 = 90 petajoules may be only a coincidence. But if it is not a coincidence, then we have to figure something new as to what G is at a distance. I wonder, any way to measure G at a distance, other than using orbital equation?

Cheers, Ivan

*planet's E(kinetic) = 1/2 mv^2

Thomas
2004-Oct-17, 04:03 PM
You make a very interesting point, that the readings may be c related. Just for clarification: there is nothing wrong with the numerical value of c but only how this value is interpreted in case emitter and receiver are moving relatively to each other. The point is that with the usual concept of 'speed' the travel time of the light signal becomes dependent on the relative velocity of emitter and receiver according the rule of vectorial addition of velocities. However, light does not adhere to this rule (as many experiments have shown) and hence the travel time should depend only on the distance at the moment the signal is emitted (as detailed on my page http://www.physicsmyths.org.uk/lightspeed.htm ). This is especially clear if you consider the observer as resting and the emitter as moving: once the signal is emitted, any change of location of the emitter is obviously irrelevant and since the travel time of the signal does not depend on the state of motion of the emitter (invariance of c), the travel time of the signal is hence fixed by the initial distance.



If this G was to be higher, then inertial mass would likewise be higher, so that given a constant momentum at v = 10s km/s, per p = mv, the velocity of the craft should show a slower v.
The question is, if you correct the distance measurements for the obvious (and undeniable) error mentioned by me above, is there any discrepancy left to be explained by new theories?

2004-Oct-18, 02:26 PM
http://web.pdx.edu/~pdx00782/Forum/phpBB/viewtopic.php?p=191#191

ToSeek
2004-Oct-18, 04:54 PM
The Problem with Gravity: New Mission Would Probe Strange Puzzle (http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/mystery_monday_041018.html)


Then more than a decade ago a researcher noticed something funny about two Pioneer spacecraft that were streaming toward the edge of the solar system. They weren't where they should have been.

Something was holding the probes back, according to calculations of their paths, speed and how the gravity of all the objects in the solar system -- and even a tiny push provided by sunlight -- ought to act on them.

Now scientists have proposed a new mission to figure out what's up with gravity.

Lunatik
2004-Oct-18, 05:37 PM
The Problem with Gravity: New Mission Would Probe Strange Puzzle (http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/mystery_monday_041018.html)


Then more than a decade ago a researcher noticed something funny about two Pioneer spacecraft that were streaming toward the edge of the solar system. They weren't where they should have been.

Something was holding the probes back, according to calculations of their paths, speed and how the gravity of all the objects in the solar system -- and even a tiny push provided by sunlight -- ought to act on them.

Now scientists have proposed a new mission to figure out what's up with gravity.
Yup, this is serious enough for the Europeans to consider launching a probe to test for inertia and acceleration in those distant regions of the solar system.

Rob Roy Britt in this piece says: "The discrepancy caused by the anomaly amounts to about 248,500 miles (400,000 kilometers), or roughly the distance between Earth and the Moon. That's how much farther the probes should have traveled in their 34 years, if our understanding of gravity is correct.

That's a lot of missing miles/kms!

Jerry
2004-Oct-18, 09:34 PM
That's a lot of missing miles/kms!
It's probably another meters/pounds conversion factor error :wink:

Lunatik
2004-Oct-19, 02:37 AM
That's a lot of missing miles/kms!
It's probably another meters/pounds conversion factor error :wink:
Like when a probe missed Mars (http://www.schoolsobservatory.org.uk/astro/textb/solsys/mars/probetab.htm) by leagues, 1999? Somebody forgot to convert inches to centimeters. :)

Thomas
2004-Oct-19, 04:21 PM
The discrepancy caused by the anomaly amounts to about 248,500 miles (400,000 kilometers), or roughly the distance between Earth and the Moon. That's how much farther the probes should have traveled in their 34 years, if our understanding of gravity is correct.
That's a lot of missing miles/kms!As I said above already, this is the distance the probe travels whilst the communication signal is on its way to or from earth.
The whole mismatch has merely something to do with associating the wrong distances to the probe because its relative velocity is mistakenly assumed to affect the travel time of the communication signal.

jfribrg
2004-Oct-19, 06:43 PM
The discrepancy caused by the anomaly amounts to about 248,500 miles (400,000 kilometers), or roughly the distance between Earth and the Moon. That's how much farther the probes should have traveled in their 34 years, if our understanding of gravity is correct.
That's a lot of missing miles/kms!As I said above already, this is the distance the probe travels whilst the communication signal is on its way to or from earth.
The whole mismatch has merely something to do with associating the wrong distances to the probe because its relative velocity is mistakenly assumed to affect the travel time of the communication signal.

Too bad that simply repeating the same thing over and over doesn't make it true. The paper that Lunatik referenced in his post explains in gory detail everthing that was considered in trying to determine where the anamolous acceleration is coming from. Many of the details of that paper are beyond me, but the authors do specifically show that the differences are clearly an acceleration anamoly. Failure to take into account the movement of the spacecraft during the transmission would not result in an anamolous acceleration, but rather a constant anamolous velocity. In other words, you would get the correct accelerations, but incorrect distances. I find it inconceivable that the movement of the spacecraft is not taken into account. The part of the paper that discusses how the raw signal is interpreted is too technical for me. Maybe somone else can verify that the motion of the spacecraft is explicitly considered. Also, check out the graphs on page 19. It shows that the anamolies are not an increasing function of distance, which you would expect if the anamoly is based on transmission delay.

Jerry
2004-Oct-19, 08:38 PM
It is always possible the anomally is the result of an unknown, unconstrained systemic error, but as Thomas wrote, a systemic error in acceleration when the probes were, by design, an excellent differential discriminator of acceleration means we should do this experiment again!

MrObvious
2004-Oct-21, 01:32 AM
Unfortunately, the Pioneer probes are too far away to listen to us anymore...we quite listening to them, too.


bummer :(

Had to happen sometime....

Hmmm, that is true but going on the same reasoning we can now follow the complete orbit of Halley's comet. Apparently there is one arcsecond difference between the predicted position and the observed one at present. Would be interesting if the two could somehow be related.

I guess what I'm trying to say is, if the pioneers were unpowered and we can't communicate with them, why not use something else out there that we can track?? 8-[

MrObvious
2004-Oct-21, 04:18 AM
Another of my famous speculations: If the sun ejects material in the way of solar wind and gravity wants to pull it back, then doesn't it create a cloud at the point of equilibrium? Going on the same notion I can't imagine all the hydrogen that initialy formed the sun went into it and the planets. Upon the suns ignition wouldn't the rest of it be in a state of equilibrium considering the pressure of light (from the sun) and the solar wind creating a halo of hydrogen? 8-[

If so then someone with the required knowledge and skill would be able to calculate the distance this would occur at.

Lunatik
2004-Oct-21, 04:39 AM
Unfortunately, the Pioneer probes are too far away to listen to us anymore...we quite listening to them, too.


bummer :(

Had to happen sometime....

Hmmm, that is true but going on the same reasoning we can now follow the complete orbit of Halley's comet. Apparently there is one arcsecond difference between the predicted position and the observed one at present. Would be interesting if the two could somehow be related.

I guess what I'm trying to say is, if the pioneers were unpowered and we can't communicate with them, why not use something else out there that we can track?? 8-[
I'm only making an 'educated' guess here, but Pioneers may slow down enough to eventually go into some distant orbit around the Sun, possibly join all the other floatsam and jetsam from our solar system stuck in the Oort Cloud way past Pluto. Or, it might end up in a highly elliptical orbit same as some comets. Either way, it is very unlikely our distant space probes, Voyager included, will ever make it to the stars without additional thrust, if it turns out that G is progressively greater out there than it is here. :-({|=| Might want to attach a two-way probe to Hailey's next time around?

Chip
2004-Oct-21, 06:58 AM
I'm only making an 'educated' guess here, but Pioneers may slow down enough to eventually go into some distant orbit around the Sun, possibly join all the other floatsam and jetsam from our solar system stuck in the Oort Cloud way past Pluto. Or, it might end up in a highly elliptical orbit same as some comets. Either way, it is very unlikely our distant space probes, Voyager included, will ever make it to the stars without additional thrust...?

Couple of things:
Pioneer 10 &amp; 11 are not moving back into an orbit toward the Sun and the vicinity of Earth or stuck in a very large distant orbit. They are leaving the solar system. We will never see them again, (unless we invent warp drive or something.) The term "anomalous acceleration towards the sun" refers to a detected pull on the space probes of 10 billion times smaller than the "acceleration" we feel from Earth's gravitational pull. This anomaly was detected from careful analyses of the nature of radio data.

It is also believed that in 1992 Pioneer 10 may have been deflected by close approached to an unknown, unseen Kuiper belt object at 56 AU from us. The object may have since been discovered by a team at Queen Mary and Westfield College in London, but awaits confirmation by other astronomers.

Barring unforeseen circumstances, Pioneer 11 will pass near one of the stars in the constellation Aquila in 4 million years. I'm not sure it will experience any detectible "anomalous acceleration towards the sun" by that time. It will likely be experiencing an new acceleration toward a new star by then. :wink: Pioneer 11 is silent to us.

Pioneer 10 is about 85 AU from the Sun and still inside the Kuiper Belt. Pioneer 10 is leaving the solar system over many more years. I am not sure which star system it is now headed toward.

The anomalous gravitational effect is still not fully understood but from what I've read, it will likely have an explanation that does not contradict conventional physics.

More interesting information can be found here: http://spaceprojects.arc.nasa.gov/Space_Projects/pioneer/PNStat.html

Lunatik
2004-Oct-21, 04:31 PM
Chip: Pioneer 10 &amp; 11 are not moving back into an orbit toward the Sun and the vicinity of Earth or stuck in a very large distant orbit. They are leaving the solar system. We will never see them again, (unless we invent warp drive or something.) The term "anomalous acceleration towards the sun" refers to a detected pull on the space probes of 10 billion times smaller than the "acceleration" we feel from Earth's gravitational pull.
Well, you realize my offering was 'pie in the sky', which would only become operative if the Newton G 'constant' proved incontinent at the far end of our solar system. The Oort Cloud is still many AU's past the Kuiper Belt, maybe half way to our nearest star. As you point out, past the half-way mark, the next star takes over and puts a drag on Pioneer or Voyager, to capture it into its own 'Ooort cloud' distant orbit. (I'm assuming all stars have this distant region, if G is not a constant but greater farther out.). My point is that it may be much more difficult to achieve a linear trajectory in the medium of gravity variant space, given how much stuff is out there to effect this gravity, that it makes Einstein's space 'curvature' look pretty flat by contrast. That's why I think our distant probes, now coasting on their own momentum, may not have enough initial thrust to send them much further than the Oort Cloud, if (and only if) the Newton gravitational universal constant is not, and I mean not constant, but actually increases the further we get from a hot star. In the very cold of deep space, G may be a very big number, much more than the very tolerable 6.67e-11 Nm^2kg^-2 we experience here. Blue sky for now, however, until we have evidence that G ain't a universal constant as now assumed. Naturally, if we discover G is lower here and greater there, everything changes in astronomy, physics, theory, and Newton constants, and Einstein space-time. Remarkably, should this prove so, it will actually simplify physics! :P

ToSeek
2004-Oct-21, 05:15 PM
MOND suggests a modification of G (I think) on galactic scales, but it's only a very small one. I would think orders-of-magnitude variances in G would be evident by now one way or another: stars orbiting the galaxy, comets returning sooner than expected, etc.

Lunatik
2004-Oct-21, 07:56 PM
MOND suggests a modification of G (I think) on galactic scales, but it's only a very small one. I would think orders-of-magnitude variances in G would be evident by now one way or another: stars orbiting the galaxy, comets returning sooner than expected, etc.
I would have thought they would have seen any G differences by now too, so I'm with you there. MOND's modification is too small to effect real influence on Pioneers, in my opinion. G's variability would have to be orders above that. :(

One reason I suspect they had not guessed at a variable G was because it was never obvious. So if it is not a universal constant, as we now assume it is, but proves to be something else, then it means we've been duped by Mother Nature, who is loathe to release her secrets wantonly, into believing an illusion. How could that be? The only way I can imagine this, other than the fact that we estimate all distant mass per its behavior vis a vis Newton's orbital equation, is if something happens to that mass in different G regions: greater G would mean our mass estimates for those regions are higher than they should be, BUT their inertial mass are greater, so they balance out. Hence, we never noticed. This is the only way it would make rational sense to me. Of course, Mother Nature may not be rational on her end! :lol:

Thomas
2004-Oct-24, 07:26 PM
The discrepancy caused by the anomaly amounts to about 248,500 miles (400,000 kilometers), or roughly the distance between Earth and the Moon. That's how much farther the probes should have traveled in their 34 years, if our understanding of gravity is correct.
That's a lot of missing miles/kms!As I said above already, this is the distance the probe travels whilst the communication signal is on its way to or from earth.
The whole mismatch has merely something to do with associating the wrong distances to the probe because its relative velocity is mistakenly assumed to affect the travel time of the communication signal.

Failure to take into account the movement of the spacecraft during the transmission would not result in an anamolous acceleration, but rather a constant anamolous velocity. In other words, you would get the correct accelerations, but incorrect distances.
There is actually a resultant apparent acceleration if you misjudge the spacecraft distance by an amount corresponding to the distance the spacecraft travels whilst the signal is on its way (as argued on my webpage Speed of Light and Theory of Relativity (http://www.physicsmyths.org.uk/lightspeed.htm)):

the distance mismatch at distance S(t) is
(1) s=-S(t)*V(t)/c
where V(t) is the spacecraft velocity.

From this you can calculate the apparent acceleration
(2) a(t)=d^2s/dt^2; = - 1/c*d^2(S(t)*V(t))/dt^2;

If you evaluate the differential you get
(3) a(t)=-A(t)*3*V(t)/c - S(t)/c*dA(t)/dt,
where A(t)=dV(t)/dt is the original acceleration due to whatever forces are acting on the probe.
If you assume A(t) to be given just by the gravitational field of the sun's mass M ,i.e.
(4) A(t)=GM/S^2(t),
and assume that V is roughly constant over the considered range, i.e.
(5) S(t)=V*t ,
one finds that the second term in Eq.(3)
(6) S(t)/c*dA(t)/dt = -2*A(t)*V/c ,
and therefore from (3)
(7) a(t)=-A(t)*V/c .

If you insert now for instance for A(t) the sun's gravitational acceleration at a distance of 20 AU and assume v=20 km/sec to be the average relative velocity between the probe and earth, you get

a(20AU)=-9.8*10^-8 cm/sec^2 ,

and at 60 AU
a(60AU)=-1.1*10^-8 cm/sec^2

The acceleration has therefore the observed order of magnitude but decreases with distance and is directed away from the sun. If one subtracts this acceleration from the constant observed acceleration of +8*10^-8 cm/sec^2, one obtains

a(20AU)(data)=1.7*10^-7 cm/sec^2 ,

and at 60 AU
a(60AU)(data)=9*10^-8 cm/sec^2

Corrected for the error due to the signal propagation, the anomalous acceleration is now not constant anymore (as diplayed in Andersons et al.'s analysis) but decreases with distance. This should substantially alter the situation regarding which effects might be responsible.

However, I would also like to mention that Anderson et al. quote the statistical error of the measurements as
2*10^-8 cm/sec^2 . This is actually not much smaller than the alleged anomalous acceleration, so one has to ask if there has probably a constant factor been neglected in the analysis and the whole effect is not some statistical noise.

Lunatik
2004-Oct-25, 01:48 AM
Thomas: There is actually a resultant apparent acceleration if you misjudge the spacecraft distance by an amount corresponding to the distance the spacecraft travels whilst the signal is on its way:

the distance mismatch at distance S(t) is
(1) s=-S(t)*V(t)/c
where V(t) is the spacecraft velocity.

From this you can calculate the apparent acceleration
(2) a(t)=d^2s/dt^2; = - 1/c*d^2(S(t)*V(t))/dt^2;

If you evaluate the differential you get
(3) a(t)=-A(t)*3*V(t)/c - S(t)/c*dA(t)/dt,
where A(t)=dV(t)/dt is the original acceleration due to whatever forces are acting on the probe.
If you assume A(t) to be given just by the gravitational field of the sun's mass M ,i.e.
(4) A(t)=GM/S^2(t),
and assume that V is roughly constant over the considered range, i.e.
(5) S(t)=V*t ,
one finds that the second term in Eq.(3)
(6) S(t)/c*dA(t)/dt = -2*A(t)*V/c ,
and therefore from (3)
(7) a(t)=-A(t)*V/c .

If you insert now for instance for A(t) the sun's gravitational acceleration at a distance of 20 AU and assume v=20 km/sec to be the average relative velocity between the probe and earth, you get

a(20AU)=-9.8*10^-8 cm/sec^2 ,

and at 60 AU
a(60AU)=-1.1*10^-8 cm/sec^2

The acceleration has therefore the observed order of magnitude but decreases with distance and is directed away from the sun. If one subtracts this acceleration from the constant observed acceleration of +8*10^-8 cm/sec^2, one obtains

a(20AU)(data)=1.7*10^-7 cm/sec^2 ,

and at 60 AU
a(60AU)(data)=9*10^-8 cm/sec^2

Corrected for the error due to the signal propagation, the anomalous acceleration is now not constant anymore (as diplayed in Andersons et al.'s analysis) but decreases with distance. This should substantially alter the situation regarding which effects might be responsible.

However, I would also like to mention that Anderson et al. quote the statistical error of the measurements as
2*10^-8 cm/sec^2 . This is actually not much smaller than the alleged anomalous acceleration, so one has to ask if there has probably a constant factor been neglected in the analysis and the whole effect is not some statistical noise.
Cool! I'll go over yours some more, since it seems to come up pretty close. My looking into this matter came up a little different from yours:

I had figured out independently that the Newton gravitational 'constant' G grows at the rate of about 7.3x10^-11 per AU, or approximately per 150x10^6 km. If you take this delta G and divide it by one AU in meters, you get:

7.3e-11/ 150e9 m = 0.048667e-20, or = 4.8667e-22 G/m

Now, assuming G is actually linear (ie., d/d^2 = 1/d) and growing at this rate, where it about doubles per AU (leaving aside for now the obvious problem, of why didn't we see this before?) then if you divide this growth rate by Earth's 'universal' G you get:

4.8667e-18/ 6.67e-11 = 0.7297e-7 m.s^-2, which is also = ~7.3e-8 m/s^2, or in centimeters it becomes: (delta) G/ (universal?) G = ~7.3e-10 cm.s^-2

Notice how close this is to the LANL study's acceleration towards the Sun: ~8x10^-8 cm/s^2. (vs. 7.3e-10 cm/s^2, room for systemic factors)**

So this does not prove anything, except that there may be more than one explanation of why these distant crafts are slowing. It could also be due to onboard factors, such as heat radiation, but I doubt these would be enough to cause the acceleration (really deceleration) of such a consistent magnitude. Of course, I could be wrong, but it seems to point to something not being quite right out there at 39+ AU, where they are now past Pluto. Too bad they can't 'talk' anymore!

Still, I am intrigued by yours, except that the calculations I read about say the acceleration is constant, not variable. In my opinion, this is truly worthy of further study, but I do stocks and bonds for a living, so am not up to it more than this. :lol:

Cheers, Ivan

**(edited for minus power error in original)

papageno
2004-Oct-25, 09:34 AM
As I said above already, this is the distance the probe travels whilst the communication signal is on its way to or from earth.
The whole mismatch has merely something to do with associating the wrong distances to the probe because its relative velocity is mistakenly assumed to affect the travel time of the communication signal.

Considering that we have probes travel for years in the Solar System and we still can get them to land where we planned, I have my doubts about this explanation.

As far as I understand, the velocity of the probe is measured from the Doppler shift of the signal, and the effect does not depend on the distance.
Why would they assume that the travel time of the signal depends on the velocity?

Thomas
2004-Oct-25, 12:51 PM
I had figured out independently that the Newton gravitational 'constant' G grows at the rate of about 7.3x10^-11 per AU, Ivan, I am sure a corresponding variation in G would have been detected already long ago from the motion of planets for instance.

Thomas
2004-Oct-25, 01:06 PM
[Considering that we have probes travel for years in the Solar System and we still can get them to land where we planned, I have my doubts about this explanation.

As far as I understand, the velocity of the probe is measured from the Doppler shift of the signal, and the effect does not depend on the distance.
Why would they assume that the travel time of the signal depends on the velocity? The time for the signal to reach the spacecraft is traditionally calculated through the equation
(1) T=(S+V*T)/c
where S is the distance of the spacecraft at the moment the signal is sent out, V the velocity of the spacecraft and c the speed of light. This means that
(2) S=(c-V)*T.
However this equation contradicts the principle of the invariance of c which implies that a vectorial addition of c and V is not allowed (I have detailed this on my page http://www.physicsmyths.org.uk/lightspeed.htm ).
The invariance of c would imply instead
(3) S=c*T
which means that (2) underestimates the distance by an amount
(4) s=-V*T = -S*V/c (using (3))

As shown in my mathematical derivation above, from this it follows that the acceleration A (due to the gravitational influence of the sun) is correspondingly overestimated by an amount
(5) a= -A*V/c .

Both (4) and (5) give the right order of magnitude for the observed mismatches of the distance and acceleration but they depend on the distance and they have the wrong sign. It does therefore not fully explain the data as these show an anomalous acceleration constant with distance, but if the effect is taken into account, the data would then be not constant anymore but show a decrease with distance (as shown numerically above).

Regarding your argument that we can still land spacecraft on other planets: all missions involve frequent corrections to the orbit in order to account for all kinds of known and unknown influences. This is likely to mask any systematic error in the determination of the trajectory.

papageno
2004-Oct-25, 01:54 PM
Considering that we have probes travel for years in the Solar System and we still can get them to land where we planned, I have my doubts about this explanation.

As far as I understand, the velocity of the probe is measured from the Doppler shift of the signal, and the effect does not depend on the distance.
Why would they assume that the travel time of the signal depends on the velocity?

The time for the signal to reach the spacecraft is traditionally calculated through the equation
(1) T=(S+V*T)/c
where S is the distance of the spacecraft at the moment the signal is sent out, V the velocity of the spacecraft and c the speed of light. This means that
(2) S=(c-V)*T.


Which is the distance of the probe when the signal was emitted form Earth.
If the probe is travelling with constant velocity V (as you assumed for simplicity in eq. (1)), the distance probe-Earth when the signal is recieved by the probe is given by:

(2bis) S + V*T = c*T - V*T + V*T = c*T

which is exactly what eq. (1) implied (meaning that T is defined as distance probe-Earth divided by c).



However this equation contradicts the principle of the invariance of c which implies that a vectorial addition of c and V is not allowed (I have detailed this on my page http://www.physicsmyths.org.uk/lightspeed.htm ).


Wrong, because (c - V) is not the speed of the signal as observed by the probe.
The speed of the signal as observed by the probe is still c, but the probe is moving and the signal has to catch up (having a finite speed).
Hence eq. (2bis), where to the distance S we need to add the distance V*T (the distance the probe gained while the signal covered the distance S).



The invariance of c would imply instead
(3) S=c*T

But in eq. (1) you defined implicitly T as the time necessary for the signal to go from Earth to the moving probe.
The signal started when the probe was at distance S, and the signal reached it when the probe was in S+V*T.
So, eq. (3) is wrong because the term V*T has been omitted.




which means that (2) underestimates the distance by an amount
(4) s=-V*T = -S*V/c (using (3))

As shown in my mathematical derivation above, from this it follows that the acceleration A (due to the gravitational influence of the sun) is correspondingly overestimated by an amount
(5) a= -A*V/c .


Sorry, but your mathematical derivation is wrong.

What you have done is:
1) assume a=b (eq. (1));
2) assume a=c (eq. (3));
3) but b is not c, therefore the theory is wrong.

You used contraddictory assumptions, so it is no wonder that you get contraddictory results.



Both (4) and (5) give the right order of magnitude for the observed mismatches of the distance and acceleration but they depend on the distance and they have the wrong sign. It does therefore not fully explain the data as these show an anomalous acceleration constant with distance, but if the effect is taken into account, the data would then be not constant anymore but show a decrease with distance (as shown numerically above).

Regarding your argument that we can still land spacecraft on other planets: all missions involve frequent corrections to the orbit in order to account for all kinds of known and unknown influences. This is likely to mask any systematic error in the determination of the trajectory.

Trajectories that have been computed beforehand.

Thomas
2004-Oct-25, 04:27 PM
What you have done is:
1) assume a=b (eq. (1));
2) assume a=c (eq. (3));
3) but b is not c, therefore the theory is wrong.
You used contraddictory assumptions, so it is no wonder that you get contraddictory results. You misunderstood my argument:
Eq.(1) is not the one used by me but it would have been used in the analysis of the Pioneer data. I used Eq.(3) instead.
Let my try to make the situation clearer:

Assume the spacecraft is at distance S. Consider first it is stationary relative to the earth and that one uses not light but particles with speed C for communication. These would reach the probe after time
T=S/C.
Now assume instead the spacecraft is receding with velocity V. The particles would then reach the probe after time
T=S/(C-V)
because the velocity of the spacecraft and the particles add vectorially.
Now exactly the same equations are assumed to hold also if one uses light for communication, but this violates the fact that the propagation of light has to be independent of the reference frame and the speed of light c can not be added vectorially to V. Instead on has to assume that the time to reach the spaceprobe does not depend on V at all, i.e.
T=S/c
as for the resting spacecraft.
Of course the spacecraft has travelled the additional distance V*T in the meanwhile, but the signal has nevertheless caught up with it after time T=S/c and not after T=S/(c-V). If you wrongly assume the latter (as NASA would do) you underestimate therefore the distance associated with time T by an amount V*T=S*V/c.

papageno
2004-Oct-25, 05:01 PM
What you have done is:
1) assume a=b (eq. (1));
2) assume a=c (eq. (3));
3) but b is not c, therefore the theory is wrong.
You used contraddictory assumptions, so it is no wonder that you get contraddictory results. You misunderstood my argument:
Eq.(1) is not the one used by me but it would have been used in the analysis of the Pioneer data. I used Eq.(3) instead.
Let my try to make the situation clearer:

Assume the spacecraft is at distance S. Consider first it is stationary relative to the earth and that one uses not light but particles with speed C for communication. These would reach the probe after time
T=S/C.
Now assume instead the spacecraft is receding with velocity V. The particles would then reach the probe after time
T=S/(C-V)
because the velocity of the spacecraft and the particles add vectorially.
Now exactly the same equations are assumed to hold also if one uses light for communication, but this violates the fact that the propagation of light has to be independent of the reference frame and the speed of light c can not be added vectorially to V. Instead on has to assume that the time to reach the spaceprobe does not depend on V at all, i.e.
T=S/c
as for the resting spacecraft.
Of course the spacecraft has travelled the additional distance V*T in the meanwhile, but the signal has nevertheless caught up with it after time T=S/c and not after T=S/(c-V). If you wrongly assume the latter (as NASA would do) you underestimate therefore the distance associated with time T by an amount V*T=S*V/c.


Let's see.

1) time = 0: probe is at distance = S from Earth and a signal is sent to the probe.

The probe is moving away from Earth with constant velocity V.

2) time = T: signal reaches S, but the probe is no longer there because it has moved.

3) time = T': signal reaches the probe.

The distance where the signal reaches the probe is S+S', where S' = V*T'.

In the frame of reference where the Earth is at rest, the distance probe-Earth increases while the signal is travelling towards the probe.
In the frame of reference where the probe is at rest, the same thing is observed.
The distance travelled by the signal is S+S' = c*T'.

So, S + S' = S + V*T' = c*T', which gives T' = S/(c-V).
We know that S = c*T, therefore T' = [c/(c-V)]*T > T.

Hence we have seen that the time necessary for the signal to reach the probe depends on the speed of the probe (because the distance is increasing).

What you said above is wrong (you said that T = T').

Thomas
2004-Oct-25, 05:24 PM
Hence we have seen that the time necessary for the signal to reach the probe depends on the speed of the probe (because the distance is increasing). Papageno, just think about it again:
Consider the problem, as you suggested, from the viewpoint of the probe which is supposed to be at distance S when the signal is emitted (t=0). In this case the earth is receding from the probe with velocity V which however is obviously irrelevant for the question when the signal reaches the probe (nobody cares about the motion of the earth after the signal has been emitted). Also, it is known that the speed of light must be independent of the state of motion of the emitter at t=0 (invariance of c). The signal will therefore reach the probe in any case after time T=S/c and does not depend on V (the only effect of the velocity would be a corresponding Doppler shift of the light frequency).

papageno
2004-Oct-25, 05:30 PM
Hence we have seen that the time necessary for the signal to reach the probe depends on the speed of the probe (because the distance is increasing). Papageno, just think about it again:
Consider the problem, as you suggested, from the viewpoint of the probe which is supposed to be at distance S when the signal is emitted (t=0). In this case the earth is receding from the probe with velocity V which however is obviously irrelevant for the question when the signal reaches the probe (nobody cares about the motion of the earth after the signal has been emitted). Also, it is known that the speed of light must be independent of the state of motion of the emitter at t=0 (invariance of c). The signal will therefore reach the probe in any case after time T=S/c and does not depend on V (the only effect of the velocity would be a corresponding Doppler shift of the light frequency).

#-o
It is late and I had a lot of brie at a party.

EDIT to add:
That particular statement is wrong, but not the rest of my post, since it is all observed from Earth.

Valiant Dancer
2004-Oct-25, 05:32 PM
I had figured out independently that the Newton gravitational 'constant' G grows at the rate of about 7.3x10^-11 per AU, Ivan, I am sure a corresponding variation in G would have been detected already long ago from the motion of planets for instance.

I think since the same sunward accelleration is not bourne out by the Voyager project that the possible interaction with an unkown Kuiper belt object is more likely.

ToSeek
2004-Oct-25, 05:55 PM
I had figured out independently that the Newton gravitational 'constant' G grows at the rate of about 7.3x10^-11 per AU, Ivan, I am sure a corresponding variation in G would have been detected already long ago from the motion of planets for instance.

I think since the same sunward accelleration is not bourne out by the Voyager project that the possible interaction with an unkown Kuiper belt object is more likely.

The Pioneers are going in very different directions but exhibit the same behavior - I don't think you can attribute it to a single Kuiper Belt object.

Valiant Dancer
2004-Oct-25, 06:03 PM
I had figured out independently that the Newton gravitational 'constant' G grows at the rate of about 7.3x10^-11 per AU, Ivan, I am sure a corresponding variation in G would have been detected already long ago from the motion of planets for instance.

I think since the same sunward accelleration is not bourne out by the Voyager project that the possible interaction with an unkown Kuiper belt object is more likely.

The Pioneers are going in very different directions but exhibit the same behavior - I don't think you can attribute it to a single Kuiper Belt object.

If memmory serves correctly, Pioneer 10 shows the more pronounced effect of the accelleration than 11 did (until contact was lost). This could be from the angle from ecliptic which has the possibility of dragging the Pioneer project down due to multiple Kuiper object interactions than the steeper angle out of the ecliptic that the Voyager project took.

I in no way suggested that they were both due to a single Kuiper object.

Jerry
2004-Oct-25, 06:04 PM
I think since the same sunward accelleration is not bourne out by the Voyager project that the possible interaction with an unkown Kuiper belt object is more likely.
Not.

The curves in Anderson's paper are hard to justify on the bases of interaction with a discrete object. It is possible this is an interaction with the entire Kepler belt in the region of the probes, but unless this function is nearly continuous, and that is not likely, the Kepler belt is not a good solution.

Lunatik
2004-Oct-25, 06:12 PM
I had figured out independently that the Newton gravitational 'constant' G grows at the rate of about 7.3x10^-11 per AU, Ivan, I am sure a corresponding variation in G would have been detected already long ago from the motion of planets for instance.
Thomas, you further responded to 'papageno' with:
Regarding your argument that we can still land spacecraft on other planets: all missions involve frequent corrections to the orbit in order to account for all kinds of known and unknown influences.
This is what I had always suspected, that there is some 'fudge' factor in how we reach our distant space destination, by frequent corrections to the orbit in order to account for all kinds of known and unknown influences, so our trajectoral computations in advance of launch are adjusted. This is not proof positive that something is wrong with our gavitational assumptions, but it is a clue.

The only way to make sense of this is that if the so-called constant G is higher for the outer planets, the inertial mass is also; the converse means that our planetary mass estimates are too high for local G conditions, though correct for the 'constant' G assumed, which is an Earth based assumption. If you use the orbital GM = Rv^2, then a higher G means a lower M, but you'll still get there! What this means is that the inertial mass on Earth is how the craft's mass was defined, but in a higher G region, as measured in local conditions, the craft's 'mass' becomes greater (locally only in terms of local G). This appears to be happening for Pioneers, and also noted to a lesser degree with Cassini. I realize this is a mind bender, but we never really looked for it, so merely adjusted the craft's progress along its trajectory, since the differences in G are fairly small over great distances, i.e., ~7.3e-11 Nm^2kg^-2 per AU, which yields a constant acceleration towards the Sun of about 7-8e-8 cm.s^-2, as mentioned above. The 'unknown influences' causing frequent in flight adjustments can be known, if this is so, though a whole new can of worms opens if G is different:

What would a non-constant G do to General Relativity's predictions, or present cosmology in general, if all of it assumes a constant G? So, if G is NOT constant... "Houston, we got a problem." :-?

Valiant Dancer
2004-Oct-25, 06:33 PM
I think since the same sunward accelleration is not bourne out by the Voyager project that the possible interaction with an unkown Kuiper belt object is more likely.
Not.

The curves in Anderson's paper are hard to justify on the bases of interaction with a discrete object. It is possible this is an interaction with the entire Kepler belt in the region of the probes, but unless this function is nearly continuous, and that is not likely, the Kepler belt is not a good solution.

It is clear that the way I phrased the response that people are interpreting it as a single Kuiper belt object. I meant no such interpretation and apologize for the misunderstanding. The reports that I have seen indicate a possible interaction with a Kuiper belt object and Pioneer 10. Both Pioneer project craft (10&amp;11) seem to be being retarded by multiple kuiper belt object interactions due to the slight angle of thier trajectory from the ecliptic. The Voyager project, having a much steeper angle from the ecliptic, has no such anomalyous sunward accelleration.

John Dlugosz
2004-Oct-25, 10:02 PM
If as we find and identify planatary systems they are found in the same periodic patterns we find in our own solar system, we should conclude there is a resonant causality.

So far every planetary system found is utterly unlike ours. It indicates that planets wander freely from their original point of formation.

So, I suggest that the reason our system has a nice pattern to the orbits is because the planets kept moving around until they fell into a configuration that was stable; and then stopped moving around and stayed the way we see.

Jerry
2004-Oct-26, 03:32 AM
The Voyager project, having a much steeper angle from the ecliptic, has no such anomalyous sunward accelleration.Are you certain this is correct? It is my understanding that course and antenna aiming corrections introduce vaguaries in the orbital path of the Voyagers that may include an acceleration of the same order as the Pioneer probes, and certainly do not rule it out.

papageno
2004-Oct-26, 08:48 AM
The only way to make sense of this is that if the so-called constant G is higher for the outer planets, the inertial mass is also; the converse means that our planetary mass estimates are too high for local G conditions, though correct for the 'constant' G assumed, which is an Earth based assumption. If you use the orbital GM = Rv^2, then a higher G means a lower M, but you'll still get there!

On the right-hand-side you have v^2.
If you change both G and M, this does not mean that the vectors R and V are the same.
And this does affect the motion of the probe.



What this means is that the inertial mass on Earth is how the craft's mass was defined, but in a higher G region, as measured in local conditions, the craft's 'mass' becomes greater (locally only in terms of local G).

The weight (i.e., the force) changes, why should the mass change?

Valiant Dancer
2004-Oct-26, 01:22 PM
The Voyager project, having a much steeper angle from the ecliptic, has no such anomalyous sunward accelleration.Are you certain this is correct? It is my understanding that course and antenna aiming corrections introduce vaguaries in the orbital path of the Voyagers that may include an acceleration of the same order as the Pioneer probes, and certainly do not rule it out.

http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/mystery_monday_041018.html

"He looked at the two Voyager spacecraft, also exiting the solar system, but says their design involved "numerous attitude-control maneuvers" that "can overwhelm the signal of a small external acceleration."" -- from the article.

I see your point. However, other probes with shallow ecliptic plane trajectories have shown the same anomalyous accelleration shift. There are several other probable reasons for that slow down than "the force of gravity is different over distance".

Lunatik
2004-Oct-26, 07:47 PM
The only way to make sense of this is that if the so-called constant G is higher for the outer planets, the inertial mass is also; the converse means that our planetary mass estimates are too high for local G conditions, though correct for the 'constant' G assumed, which is an Earth based assumption. If you use the orbital GM = Rv^2, then a higher G means a lower M, but you'll still get there!

On the right-hand-side you have v^2.
If you change both G and M, this does not mean that the vectors R and V are the same.
And this does affect the motion of the probe.
Yup, changes in G &amp; M will affect motion results, since mass in a higher G environment has greater inertial mass. The M reading in a higher G region is consequently lower in local inertial terms of G, but this is very confusing, since we measure all mass in Earth's G, so not used to thinking in terms of 'local kilograms' which are greater than Earth kilograms, for the outer solar system. The mass does not change in terms of Earth's G, only 'appears' lower in local G, if this G is higher than here.

I think the vector Rv^2 can be treated as scalars, but not totally sure about that, so don't quote me here.




What this means is that the inertial mass on Earth is how the craft's mass was defined, but in a higher G region, as measured in local conditions, the craft's 'mass' becomes greater (locally only in terms of local G).

The weight (i.e., the force) changes, why should the mass change?

The operative here is in local conditions.

I'm going here with Haisch and Rueda's "Inertial mass and gravitational mass may be identical because they have an identical source process..." (http://www.calphysics.org/mass.html), so inertial mass has G equivalence. Therefore, if G force changes, meaning the G 'constant' is greater, then inertial mass should be likewise greater.

The way I understand it is that the spacecraft's mass does not undergo any kind of change, except that if measured in local gravitational force, using local units, the mass is different in those units only. I realize we don't think this way because we never had to, but if G is a variable, then we have to do so now. Of course, this is all contingent on a rather big :roll: IF :roll:.

Jerry
2004-Oct-27, 12:52 AM
There are several other probable reasons for that slow down than "the force of gravity is different over distance".
True statement.

I'm looking at it from a very different prospective. If gravity and inertia are truly equivalent - the same force, whether or not it is electromagnetic (which I think it is), - then there is no zero point field: Objects exhibit inertia because the necessary tensor inequalities have been established, just as Einstein envisioned them.

But without the zero point field, the tensors on the very edges of the galaxy thin. Inertial energy is radiated and lost as the impedance of empty space increases. This not only explains the MOND effect, it explains why galaxies are radio loud: the energy radiated is the broadcast of an impedance challenged 'inertial' vector.

If this is the way space works, we shouldn't be surprised if gravity 'appears' stronger with increasing distance from the sun as the 'inertial' vector diminishes relative to the mass of these objects. However, if the pioneer probes are not following kepler orbits, neither should other relatively low mass objects, like pluto, and perhaps even neptune...

Lunatik
2004-Oct-27, 03:14 AM
Jerry: If this is the way space works, we shouldn't be surprised if gravity 'appears' stronger with increasing distance from the sun as the 'inertial' vector diminishes relative to the mass of these objects. However, if the pioneer probes are not following kepler orbits, neither should other relatively low mass objects, like pluto, and perhaps even neptune...
In particular: if the pioneer probes are not following kepler orbits... This may be a case of comparing a vehicle launched from Earth and 'vehicles' in orbit for millions of years, the distant planets. One would expect them to behave the same, but it does not have to be so. What Pluto is not doing is traveling along a path cutting through all these solar orbits, traveling out of the solar system, while the Pioneers are. So there is a fundamental difference.

Remember that we only estimate Pluto's mass, based on how it orbits, but we have no way of knowing what that mass really is, nor the planet's density. And now, even its gravitational description may be in doubt. But Pluto's, or Neptune's orbits are relatively stable, though some think Pluto is a former Neptune moon, but overall they are where their orbits settled them. This is why I said earlier that if G is a growing force out there, then very likely as Pioneers slow further they will find their stable orbits very far out. My guess is beyond the Kuiper Belt, out somewhere in the Oort cloud, which I also think is a kind of cosmic graveyard.

I don't follow, however: we shouldn't be surprised if gravity 'appears' stronger with increasing distance from the sun as the 'inertial' vector diminishes relative to the mass of these objects. Do you mean what Thomas is saying, that we are measuring it with a c-v signal?

papageno
2004-Oct-27, 12:27 PM
The only way to make sense of this is that if the so-called constant G is higher for the outer planets, the inertial mass is also; the converse means that our planetary mass estimates are too high for local G conditions, though correct for the 'constant' G assumed, which is an Earth based assumption. If you use the orbital GM = Rv^2, then a higher G means a lower M, but you'll still get there!

On the right-hand-side you have v^2.
If you change both G and M, this does not mean that the vectors R and V are the same.
And this does affect the motion of the probe.
Yup, changes in G &amp; M will affect motion results, since mass in a higher G environment has greater inertial mass. The M reading in a higher G region is consequently lower in local inertial terms of G, but this is very confusing, since we measure all mass in Earth's G, so not used to thinking in terms of 'local kilograms' which are greater than Earth kilograms, for the outer solar system. The mass does not change in terms of Earth's G, only 'appears' lower in local G, if this G is higher than here.

I think the vector Rv^2 can be treated as scalars, but not totally sure about that, so don't quote me here.

In order to describe the motion of the probe in the Solar System, you need the position (three coordinates = vector), the velocity (three components = vector) and the forces acting on it (all vectors).







What this means is that the inertial mass on Earth is how the craft's mass was defined, but in a higher G region, as measured in local conditions, the craft's 'mass' becomes greater (locally only in terms of local G).

The weight (i.e., the force) changes, why should the mass change?

The operative here is in local conditions.

I'm going here with Haisch and Rueda's "Inertial mass and gravitational mass may be identical because they have an identical source process..." (http://www.calphysics.org/mass.html), so inertial mass has G equivalence. Therefore, if G force changes, meaning the G 'constant' is greater, then inertial mass should be likewise greater.

Why?
By Increasing G (universal gravitational constant) you increase the gravitional force.
But to do it, there is no need to increase the mass.

The equivalence is between inertial mass (the mass that goes into Newton's second law) and gravitational mass (the mass that goes into Newton's law of gravitation), which does not depend on G (otherwise we would not call it "universal").



The way I understand it is that the spacecraft's mass does not undergo any kind of change, except that if measured in local gravitational force, using local units, the mass is different in those units only. I realize we don't think this way because we never had to, but if G is a variable, then we have to do so now. Of course, this is all contingent on a rather big :roll: IF :roll:.

You are talking about the weight, which is a force.

The weight of the probe is given by Newton's law:
w = (G*m*M)/r^2

where G is the universal gravitational constant, m is the mass of the probe, M is the mass of the planet, r is the distance between probe and center of the planet.

To get the mass of the probe, we can measure its weight (as force) if we know the local acceleration of gravity (g on Earth).

Lunatik
2004-Oct-27, 08:52 PM
Papageno: By Increasing G (universal gravitational constant) you increase the gravitional force. But to do it, there is no need to increase the mass.

The equivalence is between inertial mass (the mass that goes into Newton's second law) and gravitational mass (the mass that goes into Newton's law of gravitation), which does not depend on G (otherwise we would not call it "universal").
Try putting the words into equation form: inertial mass = iM, gravitational mass = gM, so that:

iM = gM

Now, both Ms are still the same, but g increases, then i increases, so that:

>iM = >gM

Therefore, if gM is greater, then iM has to increase also.

If Newton's G is "universal", then this makes no sense, since inertia cannot change, and mass M is only "weighed" in the gravitational field where it is measured: greatest on the surface of a planet-- and less either above the surface, per the inverse square law-- or less inside the planet, per its shorter distance from the center (from where gravity is measured). I'll ignore GR for this illustration.

What changes this is if G is NOT a "universal", then the "weight" of the mass still responds to "all of the above", but now with a new factor: that both its "inertial" mass and its "gravitational" mass are affected. So mass is still "heaviest" on the planet's surface, lesser above the planet, and lower inside the planet. So this is the same, only the 6.67E-11 Nm^2/kg^2 changes. Hence, let's say G is now 14.6E-11 Nm^2/kg^2 (somewhere between asteroid belt and Jupiter), iM = gM get readjusted higher, double what they were before, if divided by 6.67E-11. BUT! now they are exactly the same as before if measured in local G, if divided by 14.6E-11, so they are NOT double the mass when measured in local G. the iM = gM "appear" to be the same as if on Earth, so everything there revolves, orbits, falls, same as you'd expect, except that G, and thus inertial mass, are double (2 x 100 billionth is a very small adjustment!) what they were on Earth. But in LOCAL terms, they seem unaffected.

I know this is weird stuff, but think about it. This is why I earlier stressed "in local conditions" only. Now think of what this means to the mass estimates we have for the planets: If G is double (2 x 100 billionth times) then the "actual local mass" is 1/2 x 100 billionth times (of what we hitherto estimated mass as observed from Earth)... And how does this translate in local terms? It is LESS than we had estimated. So, who cares? In fact, it makes no difference to us except that with inertial mass higher, given constant momentum, velocity slows; it also will alter the planet's internal density composition, viz. gaseous planets can hold together better than in lower G.

Phew! I don't know if I can do better than this. But keep asking, maybe I'll make sense. :lol: #-o

Jerry
2004-Oct-28, 01:33 AM
I don't follow, however: we shouldn't be surprised if gravity 'appears' stronger with increasing distance from the sun as the 'inertial' vector diminishes relative to the mass of these objects. Do you mean what Thomas is saying, that we are measuring it with a c-v signal?
Think about how an inertial motion is generated: You jump by deflecting the earth downward. If there is an invisible connection between the earth and the space above you, there is a ‘dent’ in the springy space above you and you move up into that dent. You are pulled back to the earth as the deflection below you and above you return to a ‘spring’ equilibrium. As long as you are near a large mass (relative to your own), the tensor above you is able to equalize the tensor beneath you.

In the far reaches of a galaxy, or perhaps even our solar system, the tensor spring is much much weaker. If an object is accelerating towards this tensor but, the tensor is no longer able to support or contain the energy of the mass, the energy is radiated into space as an electromagnetic wave and the object “falls” toward the center of gravitational mass.

From an electromagnetic prospective, this is no different from forcing an oscillating wave out onto an antenna and watching the impedance drop in the circuit as the wave is broadcast into space. No wonder so many electrical engineers are proponents of plasma cosmology!

This is a very good explanation for what we observe at the edges of galaxies, they rotate faster than predicted by Newtonian mechanics, but they also generate radio waves from an unknown source – it is easy to see the entire plane of virtually all galaxies in the radio spectum. By assuming gravity is truly electromagnetic, two birds are killed by one stone.

papageno
2004-Oct-28, 08:50 AM
By Increasing G (universal gravitational constant) you increase the gravitional force. But to do it, there is no need to increase the mass.

The equivalence is between inertial mass (the mass that goes into Newton's second law) and gravitational mass (the mass that goes into Newton's law of gravitation), which does not depend on G (otherwise we would not call it "universal").
Try putting the words into equation form: inertial mass = iM, gravitational mass = gM, so that:

iM = gM

Now, both Ms are still the same, but g increases, then i increases, so that:

>iM = >gM

Therefore, if gM is greater, then iM has to increase also.

If Newton's G is "universal", then this makes no sense, since inertia cannot change, and mass M is only "weighed" in the gravitational field where it is measured: greatest on the surface of a planet-- and less either above the surface, per the inverse square law-- or less inside the planet, per its shorter distance from the center (from where gravity is measured). I'll ignore GR for this illustration.

G is universal in the sense that it does not depend on the masses involved or on their distance.



What changes this is if G is NOT a "universal", then the "weight" of the mass still responds to "all of the above", but now with a new factor: that both its "inertial" mass and its "gravitational" mass are affected. So mass is still "heaviest" on the planet's surface, lesser above the planet, and lower inside the planet. So this is the same, only the 6.67E-11 Nm^2/kg^2 changes. Hence, let's say G is now 14.6E-11 Nm^2/kg^2 (somewhere between asteroid belt and Jupiter), iM = gM get readjusted higher, double what they were before, if divided by 6.67E-11. BUT! now they are exactly the same as before if measured in local G, if divided by 14.6E-11, so they are NOT double the mass when measured in local G. the iM = gM "appear" to be the same as if on Earth, so everything there revolves, orbits, falls, same as you'd expect, except that G, and thus inertial mass, are double (2 x 100 billionth is a very small adjustment!) what they were on Earth. But in LOCAL terms, they seem unaffected.

This is the principle of equivalence (well supported experimentally).
The acceleration of the probe does not depend on its mass.



I know this is weird stuff, but think about it. This is why I earlier stressed "in local conditions" only. Now think of what this means to the mass estimates we have for the planets: If G is double (2 x 100 billionth times) then the "actual local mass" is 1/2 x 100 billionth times (of what we hitherto estimated mass as observed from Earth)... And how does this translate in local terms? It is LESS than we had estimated. So, who cares? In fact, it makes no difference to us except that with inertial mass higher, given constant momentum, velocity slows; it also will alter the planet's internal density composition, viz. gaseous planets can hold together better than in lower G.

I do not understand what you mean.

Lunatik
2004-Oct-28, 04:39 PM
Papageno: This is the principle of equivalence (well supported experimentally).
The acceleration of the probe does not depend on its mass.
Right. It is true for a constant G. What is being proposed is that G is not constant, so this equivalence principle likewise reflects a higher inertial mass.

Papageno: I do not understand what you mean.
I presume you're referring to my with inertial mass higher, given constant momentum, velocity slows; it also will alter the planet's internal density composition, viz. gaseous planets can hold together better than in lower G.? Gaseous planets may have their composition due to the higher G 'constant' in their orbital regions, which may mean that each molecule has a higher G component. If this is so, not yet established observationally however, then the greater G gives them greater 'stickiness' so that gases act as if they were denser, so hold together better. But this is pure speculation for now.

RE the rest on mass and velocity, per constant momentum: if p = mv, then for same p = if >m then &lt;v.

Jerry: In the far reaches of a galaxy, or perhaps even our solar system, the tensor spring is much much weaker.... (snip)... This is a very good explanation for what we observe at the edges of galaxies, they rotate faster than predicted by Newtonian mechanics, but they also generate radio waves from an unknown source – it is easy to see the entire plane of virtually all galaxies in the radio spectum.
Why? How did you arrive at the 'tensor spring' is weaker in the far reaches? Conversely, what is the connect between lower tensor spring and faster rotations on galaxy's edge? I must confess my ignorance here. :oops:

I'd be most interested in understanding this further. Any references I can see? Thanks.

papageno
2004-Oct-28, 05:04 PM
Papageno: This is the principle of equivalence (well supported experimentally).
The acceleration of the probe does not depend on its mass.
Right. It is true for a constant G. What is being proposed is that G is not constant, so this equivalence principle likewise reflects a higher inertial mass.

Unless G depends on the masses involved, the principle of equivalence holds even if G is not constant.
Which means that the acceleration of the probe depends on the mass of the planet and thedistance from it




Papageno: I do not understand what you mean.
I presume you're referring to my with inertial mass higher, given constant momentum, velocity slows; it also will alter the planet's internal density composition, viz. gaseous planets can hold together better than in lower G.? Gaseous planets may have their composition due to the higher G 'constant' in their orbital regions, which may mean that each molecule has a higher G component. If this is so, not yet established observationally however, then the greater G gives them greater 'stickiness' so that gases act as if they were denser, so hold together better. But this is pure speculation for now.

Actually I was referring to the whole paragraph I quoted (the one that starts with "I know this is weird stuff...").
I did not understand what you were trying to say.

What does it mean "a molecule has a G component"?

Also, I am not sure what would happen if G were higher far from the centre of a planet (besides, I do not see why that would happen).
But I doubt that it would make the gas molecule hold together better.



RE the rest on mass and velocity, per constant momentum: if p = mv, then for same p = if >m then &lt;v.

What makes you think that our probe has constant momentum?

Lunatik
2004-Oct-28, 06:18 PM
Papageno, I should preface this by saying that the possibility of G as a variable rather than universal constant should be treated more as a question. This is new thinking not yet confirmed, though I am told some new physics textbooks are already mentioning that Newton's G may not be a constant. That said, how would you measure the G of a molecule, for example? Via the equivalence principle, its G should be the same as its inertial mass. So if we go out into the far reaches of the solar system and measure a spaceraft's inertial mass out there, it should give us a reading on what is its G. Obviously, if a given thrust is given (since most of our distant crafts achieve cruise constant velocity once the rocket engines are shut off) then how the craft responds to this thrust would give us a measurable inertial mass value. If it is unchanged, then nothing else needs be said. But if it is different out there (my theorized that it would be more), then what does that mean to G in the outer solar system? Are you with me here?

If this 'constant' G is not constant, then doesn't it necessitate a revision of our thinking about mass, gravity, planetary density, trajectories, and orbital behaviors? Do you see why I am asking these questions? Do I have an answer? Maybe... or maybe someone else has better answers. But without having asked these questions before, we didn't bother to look. Now with Pioneers acting kinda funny, we're beginning to ask. But at this stage, it is more question than answer, for now. 8-[

Jerry
2004-Oct-29, 05:33 AM
Jerry: In the far reaches of a galaxy, or perhaps even our solar system, the tensor spring is much much weaker.... (snip)... This is a very good explanation for what we observe at the edges of galaxies, they rotate faster than predicted by Newtonian mechanics, but they also generate radio waves from an unknown source – it is easy to see the entire plane of virtually all galaxies in the radio spectum.
Why? How did you arrive at the 'tensor spring' is weaker in the far reaches? Conversely, what is the connect between lower tensor spring and faster rotations on galaxy's edge? I must confess my ignorance here.

I'd be most interested in understanding this further. Any references I can see? Thanks.No, you are not ignorant here, at least not any more than I am, because as far as I know this is an original concept, discussed for the first time here and on the gravity behaving badly thread.

The inertial framework was of course, what Michelson &amp; Morley were looking for, Einstein put the argument to rest by bending space and time, not that this solution assigned causality or provided the energy necessary for an inertial field.

I arrived at this possible solution while contemplating why binary neutron stars pulse, but we have not detected the gravity wave we should see emitted as they spiral into each other, releasing about the amount of energy predicted by general relativity. We don’t know why they pulse, and we can’t find the gravity wave - if the pulse is the gravity wave another two birds killed with the same stone.

McGaugh (http://lanl.arxiv.org/PS_cache/astro-ph/pdf/0403/0403610.pdf) describes the MOND effect, matter rotating at speeds that should place them further from the center of mass. It doesn’t make sense for gravity to suddenly get stronger at the edges of galaxies, but if the inertial energy field is a function of the galactic mass, radiation of energy by matter at the edges of the galaxy explains both the microwave background and the radio waves emitted by galaxies. Can your cosmology do that?

papageno
2004-Oct-29, 09:30 AM
Papageno, I should preface this by saying that the possibility of G as a variable rather than universal constant should be treated more as a question. This is new thinking not yet confirmed, though I am told some new physics textbooks are already mentioning that Newton's G may not be a constant. That said, how would you measure the G of a molecule, for example?

Unless G depends on the masses involved, a statement like "G of a molecule" is meaningless.
If you look at Newton's law of gravitation, the reason there is a G is that it does not depend on the masses and the distance, but gives the scale of the interaction strength.

(If you look at Coulomb's law for electrostatics, it involves charges, their distance and a constant which does not depend on distance and charge, but gives the scale of the interaction strength. What you say above is like saying that this constant depends on the charges involved.)



Via the equivalence principle, its G should be the same as its inertial mass.

This is the gravitational mass of the molecule, not G.



So if we go out into the far reaches of the solar system and measure a spaceraft's inertial mass out there, it should give us a reading on what is its G.

Only if we assume that we know the gravitational mass (which we do through the equivalence principle).


Obviously, if a given thrust is given (since most of our distant crafts achieve cruise constant velocity once the rocket engines are shut off) then how the craft responds to this thrust would give us a measurable inertial mass value. If it is unchanged, then nothing else needs be said. But if it is different out there (my theorized that it would be more), then what does that mean to G in the outer solar system? Are you with me here?

That works only if we know all the forces acting on the probe.




If this 'constant' G is not constant, then doesn't it necessitate a revision of our thinking about mass, gravity, planetary density, trajectories, and orbital behaviors?

In what sense "not constant"?
Depending on the masses involved, on their distance, on their position in the Solar System, on their speed, etc?



Do you see why I am asking these questions? Do I have an answer? Maybe... or maybe someone else has better answers. But without having asked these questions before, we didn't bother to look. Now with Pioneers acting kinda funny, we're beginning to ask. But at this stage, it is more question than answer, for now.

The problem is asking the right questions.

TravisM
2004-Oct-29, 06:57 PM
Yup, papa's always right :wink: ... go papa

Prolly posted in this thread before, but let's recap...

Ga = Gn * m1 * m2 / r^2

Where:
Ga = gravitational acceleration
Gn = Newton's Gravitational CONSTANT
m1 = one of two masses being considered
m2 = the other of the two masses being considered
r = the distance between the two centers of mass...

According to the data, the Pioneer craft are accelerating TOWARD the sun, which would mean they're "slowing" down. You try coasting uphill forever and tell me how far you stay the same velocity..

papageno
2004-Oct-30, 11:23 AM
Yup, papa's always right :wink: ... go papa


Let's not get carried away now. :)

JMB
2004-Oct-31, 07:34 AM
I prefer using standard physics.

It is usually assumed that several electromagnetic waves which cross a refracting medium do not interact. Laser experiments show that this usual hypothesis is wrong, it may be exchanges of energy allowed by thermodynamics, which produce changes of frequency without change of the wave surfaces (coherent interactions).
The refracting medium must obey conditions which were set by G. L. Lamb and verified using lasers (ISRS effect). They are : the time-coherence of the light must be shorter than the collisional time and the period of, at least, an electric quadrupolar, or magnetic resonance. Using ordinary light (CREIL), this last condition is verified by few gases; in the astrophysical practice only atomic hydrogen works, in the state of principal quantum n=2 (called H* here) which has spin recoupling resonances at convenient frequencies.

The radio signals from the probes, mixed with the noise which introduces a modulation, have a low Planck's temperature, so that they can receive energy from the solar light. The protons and electrons of the Solar wind may combine partly into H* at the limits of the solar system which are reached by the Pioneers. Therefore the Pioneer signals are blue-shifted while the signals of the other probes are not.

Jerry
2004-Oct-31, 11:16 PM
Jacques and Thomas both propose solutions to the Pioneer Anomaly that are essentially predictions of measurement errors rather than 'gravity behaving badly.' I hate to admit to straddling both sides of this line, and I don't know which is right, or if the thermal heating effect proposed by Ned Wright and others is the correct solution.

What is unambiguous is we do not know. I do not understand why resolving this curious problem is not a central issue to NASA and other scientific funding agencies. If there is a valid complaint that in any way resembles a conspiracy, it is the failure of astrophysicists to verify the tests of gravity and GR that dwell in the blind corners of our detection limits.

Lunatik
2004-Nov-01, 01:57 AM
Papageno, I should preface this by saying that the possibility of G as a variable rather than universal constant should be treated more as a question. This is new thinking not yet confirmed, though I am told some new physics textbooks are already mentioning that Newton's G may not be a constant. That said, how would you measure the G of a molecule, for example?

Unless G depends on the masses involved, a statement like "G of a molecule" is meaningless.
If you look at Newton's law of gravitation, the reason there is a G is that it does not depend on the masses and the distance, but gives the scale of the interaction strength.
..snip...

Do you see why I am asking these questions? Do I have an answer? Maybe... or maybe someone else has better answers. But without having asked these questions before, we didn't bother to look. Now with Pioneers acting kinda funny, we're beginning to ask. But at this stage, it is more question than answer, for now.

The problem is asking the right questions.

The G of a molecule is not meaningless, if the same mass is in a region where G is different, then F=GMm/r^2 takes on a different value for that molecule. Why is this so difficult?

Is the problem with the definition for "mass"? Several come to mind:

1. For the common people, mass is bulk, volume, matter.
2. Gravitationally mass is weight.
3. Inertia mass is gravitational mass.
4. E/c^2 = mass
5. Mass as 'affected' by gravity vs. mass as 'effect' of energy.
6. (mine) Mass is always =1 = E/c^2 = h/cL(proton m), where L is lambda, (minus its gravity component of proton coupling constant), to be multiplied by whatever measures we choose.

So what exactly is mass? Many different answers, so the problem is in part semantics, if not outright epistemological.

The first five should be a piece of cake. It's the last one that should have everyone stumped, scratching their heads, shouting 'foul', because we do not think of it this way. This is simply a rewriting of E = hf = hc/L(proton m) = mc^2, only if m = 1, = (1-g)c^2, where g is the proton to proton gravitational coupling constant. I don't expect any lights to go on here, for now, but there may be a new way to think of this. That's why I am asking these questions, and the Pioneers anomalies fit this last one very well. Am I asking the right questions? That depends upon the model used to answer them! Obviously, with GR, I am asking the wrong questions, since G is constant, and how can you ask about a non-constant in a universe that is modeled on a constant? I can see why you, and others, are having trouble with this!

Of course, it is all 'philosophy' until proven otherwise. :lol:

JMB
2004-Nov-01, 08:08 AM
What is unambiguous is we do not know. I do not understand why resolving this curious problem is not a central issue to NASA and other scientific funding agencies. If there is a valid complaint that in any way resembles a conspiracy, it is the failure of astrophysicists to verify the tests of gravity and GR that dwell in the blind corners of our detection limits.

Physics has two taboos : the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics and the big bang.

papageno
2004-Nov-01, 10:32 AM
Papageno, I should preface this by saying that the possibility of G as a variable rather than universal constant should be treated more as a question. This is new thinking not yet confirmed, though I am told some new physics textbooks are already mentioning that Newton's G may not be a constant. That said, how would you measure the G of a molecule, for example?

Unless G depends on the masses involved, a statement like "G of a molecule" is meaningless.
If you look at Newton's law of gravitation, the reason there is a G is that it does not depend on the masses and the distance, but gives the scale of the interaction strength.
..snip...

Do you see why I am asking these questions? Do I have an answer? Maybe... or maybe someone else has better answers. But without having asked these questions before, we didn't bother to look. Now with Pioneers acting kinda funny, we're beginning to ask. But at this stage, it is more question than answer, for now.

The problem is asking the right questions.

The G of a molecule is not meaningless, if the same mass is in a region where G is different, then F=GMm/r^2 takes on a different value for that molecule. Why is this so difficult?

This is a G that depends on position (the "region") not on the masses involved. You can change the molecule without changing G.
In this sense "the G of a molecule" is meaningless, because it is not a property of the molecule, but of the region of space.



Is the problem with the definition for "mass"? Several come to mind:

1. For the common people, mass is bulk, volume, matter.
2. Gravitationally mass is weight.
3. Inertia mass is gravitational mass.
4. E/c^2 = mass
5. Mass as 'affected' by gravity vs. mass as 'effect' of energy.
6. (mine) Mass is always =1 = E/c^2 = h/cL(proton m), where L is lambda, (minus its gravity component of proton coupling constant), to be multiplied by whatever measures we choose.

So what exactly is mass? Many different answers, so the problem is in part semantics, if not outright epistemological.

The first five should be a piece of cake. It's the last one that should have everyone stumped, scratching their heads, shouting 'foul', because we do not think of it this way. This is simply a rewriting of E = hf = hc/L(proton m) = mc^2, only if m = 1, = (1-g)c^2, where g is the proton to proton gravitational coupling constant. I don't expect any lights to go on here, for now, but there may be a new way to think of this. That's why I am asking these questions, and the Pioneers anomalies fit this last one very well. Am I asking the right questions? That depends upon the model used to answer them! Obviously, with GR, I am asking the wrong questions, since G is constant, and how can you ask about a non-constant in a universe that is modeled on a constant? I can see why you, and others, are having trouble with this!

Why the proton?
Why not the neutron? Why not the quarks?
Why not the muon?

Lunatik
2004-Nov-01, 10:57 PM
papageno: Why the proton?
Why not the neutron? Why not the quarks?
Why not the muon?
Why not leptons? Indeed why not any of the strange colorful up down particles out there? If protons are made up of quarks, then why not quarks? I think Ockham's razor should be the answer here.

I knew I was looking for a nucleonic relationship that interacts with electromagnetic energy. The proton seemed to be the best choice, because it has charge, it has much more stability than the neutron, which ghas a limited life span of a few minutes. Neutron also fails the e.m. light test because it is charge neutral. Electron was considered, as I had mentioned before, but rejected. So proton came up as having the least objections, since it is a charge stable long lasting particle with mass. It also fits the conceptual idea I had of a nucleus to nucleus interaction, though on a very small scale the proton to proton force is the Strong force, with a value of one. I liked this very much, because it fit nicely into what I was looking for, something that powerful within the nucleus but totally dilutted once outside the atom. So this was an aesthetic reason for choosing the proton. Lastly, I needed a value for the right side of the equation that when multiplied by c^2 gave me gravity. The proton-to-proton gravitational coupling constant does not do this directly, but I thought it could be usable. Later I discovered the function G^2*m = gc^2pi^2 works, though I have no reason why it does. (In fact, it comes in slightly above Newton's G, which this G would be if it were not adjusted for centrifugal planetary spin on Earth. Note! Newton's G is not gravity per se, but only a constant function which when applied to mass yields gravity, as I understand it.) So proton was chosen because it fit all these needs with the least fuss, though this is not to say that the quarks making up the proton may not also qualify/ Like I said, Ockham's razor left me with proton.

Was it the right choice? Is G a variable? Does cosmic light redshfit over great distances naturally? Can electromagnetic energy be used to modify gravity? Are the Pioneers really slowing down? These are all questions, as these boards have discussed at length. That said, I should point out that I really do not know the right answers, only more questions.

Thanks for askin' good questions! =D>

papageno
2004-Nov-02, 09:51 AM
papageno: Why the proton?
Why not the neutron? Why not the quarks?
Why not the muon?
Why not leptons? Indeed why not any of the strange colorful up down particles out there? If protons are made up of quarks, then why not quarks? I think Ockham's razor should be the answer here.

I knew I was looking for a nucleonic relationship that interacts with electromagnetic energy. The proton seemed to be the best choice, because it has charge, it has much more stability than the neutron, which ghas a limited life span of a few minutes. Neutron also fails the e.m. light test because it is charge neutral. Electron was considered, as I had mentioned before, but rejected. So proton came up as having the least objections, since it is a charge stable long lasting particle with mass. It also fits the conceptual idea I had of a nucleus to nucleus interaction, though on a very small scale the proton to proton force is the Strong force, with a value of one. I liked this very much, because it fit nicely into what I was looking for, something that powerful within the nucleus but totally dilutted once outside the atom. So this was an aesthetic reason for choosing the proton. Lastly, I needed a value for the right side of the equation that when multiplied by c^2 gave me gravity. The proton-to-proton gravitational coupling constant does not do this directly, but I thought it could be usable. Later I discovered the function G^2*m = gc^2pi^2 works, though I have no reason why it does. (In fact, it comes in slightly above Newton's G, which this G would be if it were not adjusted for centrifugal planetary spin on Earth. Note! Newton's G is not gravity per se, but only a constant function which when applied to mass yields gravity, as I understand it.) So proton was chosen because it fit all these needs with the least fuss, though this is not to say that the quarks making up the proton may not also qualify/ Like I said, Ockham's razor left me with proton.

Was it the right choice? Is G a variable? Does cosmic light redshfit over great distances naturally? Can electromagnetic energy be used to modify gravity? Are the Pioneers really slowing down? These are all questions, as these boards have discussed at length. That said, I should point out that I really do not know the right answers, only more questions.

Thanks for askin' good questions! =D>

A free neutron decays.
Neutrons bound to protons in a nucleus do not necessarily decay.
Also, a neutron has an intrinsic magnetic moment, and since it is composed of charged particles (quarks), its electric quadrupole moment is not zero (it comes from the distribution of charge in the neutron).

Aesthetics might not be enough for choosing one particle over another.
How is aesthetic to choose as fundamental a particle which is composed of other particles?
The electron is more fundamental than the proton.

"Later I discovered the function G^2*m = gc^2pi^2 works, though I have no reason why it does."
Maybe it is just a coincidence.
Newton's G does not depend on the Earth (it is not g the gravitational acceleration at the surface of Earth).

Lunatik
2004-Nov-02, 06:20 PM
Ask the Scientist's Earth's Revolution and Gravity (http://www.newton.dep.anl.gov/askasci/phy00/phy00336.htm) says of the Earth's spin effect: "the acceleration is very small -- around 0.006 m/s/s, compared to 9.8 m/s/s from gravity," as to how the planet's spin affects our measure of gravity on the surface.

Is this small difference automatically included in our measurement of gravity with the G constant set at 6.67e-11 Nm^2/kg^2? In other words, if the planet were NOT spinning, would this G be measured as greater than now? :-?

papageno
2004-Nov-02, 06:26 PM
Ask the Scientist's Earth's Revolution and Gravity (http://www.newton.dep.anl.gov/askasci/phy00/phy00336.htm) says of the Earth's spin effect: "the acceleration is very small -- around 0.006 m/s/s, compared to 9.8 m/s/s from gravity," as to how the planet's spin affects our measure of gravity on the surface.

Is this small difference automatically included in our measurement of gravity with the G constant set at 6.67e-11 Nm^2/kg^2? In other words, if the planet were NOT spinning, would this G be measured as greater than now? :-?

No.
Experiments can be devised where the centrifugal acceleration has no effect.
This acceleration depends also on the latitude: at the poles it is zero.
Not to mention that experiments can be done far from surface of Earth (space stations, for example).

Jerry
2004-Nov-02, 06:30 PM
Is this small difference automatically included in our measurement of gravity with the G constant set at 6.67e-11 Nm^2/kg^2? In other words, if the planet were NOT spinning, would this G be measured as greater than now? :-?
Yes, and this is why we launch rockets near the equater - the rotational energy significantly effects the total amount of energy necessary to reach escape velocity - figure the mass of the space shuttle on platform (squared), times the rotational velocity of the earth at the Cape - what is it? ~ 1,000 kph?

So you are lighter at the equater than at the poles...however, the mass of the earth at the equater is slightly greater due to this same effect, so the net effect is...somewhere inbetween.

Lunatik
2004-Nov-02, 08:37 PM
Thanks, Yes.
Thanks, No. :wink:

I really do understand how it can be both, especially given that at the pole the planet's spin is null.

Well, gotta go and vote, with 15 referendum items on the ballot, I hope I can make sense of it all! :P

Jerry
2004-Nov-03, 06:15 AM
Experiments can be devised where the centrifugal acceleration has no effect.Not quite correct - the acceleration increases the mass slightly, if you still believe in Einstein.

In an atomic nucleus, it is not necessarily possible to distinguish a neutron from a proton - 'covalent' sharing of the positive charge if you will, and the masses are similar enough Lunatic can get from here to there with either particle...but you really should be thinking in terms of solitons, as Jacques taught me.

papageno
2004-Nov-03, 09:39 AM
Experiments can be devised where the centrifugal acceleration has no effect.Not quite correct - the acceleration increases the mass slightly, if you still believe in Einstein.

Experiments can be devised where the effects of the centrifugal acceleration are effectively cancelled.
(If it does not, we would observe a violation of the principle of equivalence.)



In an atomic nucleus, it is not necessarily possible to distinguish a neutron from a proton - 'covalent' sharing of the positive charge if you will, and the masses are similar enough Lunatic can get from here to there with either particle...but you really should be thinking in terms of solitons, as Jacques taught me.

As far as I know, the nucleon-nucleon bond is nothing like the interaction between atoms or molecules.
Since the quarks are tightly bound to each other within each nucleon (see this (http://nobelprize.org/physics/laureates/2004/index.html), for example), how would they "covalently share" the positive charge?

Jerry
2004-Nov-11, 03:46 AM
Experiments can be devised where the effects of the centrifugal acceleration are effectively cancelled.
(If it does not, we would observe a violation of the principle of equivalence.)I can see our problem..I am treating rotational acceleration and gravimetric acceleration as a single (net) vector...we get to do that when we launch a rocket.



In an atomic nucleus, it is not necessarily possible to distinguish a neutron from a proton -

As far as I know, the nucleon-nucleon bond is nothing like the interaction between atoms or molecules.
Since the quarks are tightly bound to each other within each nucleon (see this (http://nobelprize.org/physics/laureates/2004/index.html), for example), how would they "covalently share" the positive charge?[/quote]...strange...this article i would have sited as evidence charges within an atom get to go out and play. In any case, list was a loose and perhaps careless analogy, and as you know by now, particle physics are not my turf 8-[

papageno
2004-Nov-11, 10:07 AM
Experiments can be devised where the effects of the centrifugal acceleration are effectively cancelled.
(If it does not, we would observe a violation of the principle of equivalence.)
I can see our problem..I am treating rotational acceleration and gravimetric acceleration as a single (net) vector...we get to do that when we launch a rocket.

The two accelerations are indeed added as vectors.
The rockets take advantage of the rotation of the Earth to have an higher initial speed (reaching escape velocity requires then less work).







In an atomic nucleus, it is not necessarily possible to distinguish a neutron from a proton -

As far as I know, the nucleon-nucleon bond is nothing like the interaction between atoms or molecules.
Since the quarks are tightly bound to each other within each nucleon (see this (http://nobelprize.org/physics/laureates/2004/index.html), for example), how would they "covalently share" the positive charge?
...strange...this article i would have sited as evidence charges within an atom get to go out and play. In any case, list was a loose and perhaps careless analogy, and as you know by now, particle physics are not my turf 8-[

Nor it is mine.
But I understand that the strong interaction does not behave like the electromagnetic interaction in normal circumstances.

What do you mean by "charges within an atom get to go out and play"?

Jerry
2004-Nov-11, 09:46 PM
What do you mean by "charges within an atom get to go out and play"?


The interpretation of their mathematical result was that the closer the quarks are to each other, the weaker is the 'colour charge'. When the quarks are really close to each other, the force is so weak that they behave almost as free particles...With the aid of QCD physicists can at last explain why quarks only behave as free particles at extremely high energies.
So I am postulating (meaning, grabbing numbers out of my butt) that within an atomic nucleus, before we shatter it and start looking for individual components, the stablility neutrons within an atomic structure is enhanced by proximal charge sharing.

I need this to explain why nuclear clocks, atomic decay occurs slower in very high density and highly accelerated enviroments, in contrast to time &amp; space varying interpretations of GR. Please note that I am not questioning the experimental evidence of GR, only scaling the variences against absolute time, and assigning causality.

papageno
2004-Nov-12, 09:37 AM
What do you mean by "charges within an atom get to go out and play"?


The interpretation of their mathematical result was that the closer the quarks are to each other, the weaker is the 'colour charge'. When the quarks are really close to each other, the force is so weak that they behave almost as free particles...With the aid of QCD physicists can at last explain why quarks only behave as free particles at extremely high energies.
So I am postulating (meaning, grabbing numbers out of my butt) that within an atomic nucleus, before we shatter it and start looking for individual components, the stablility neutrons within an atomic structure is enhanced by proximal charge sharing.

I need this to explain why nuclear clocks, atomic decay occurs slower in very high density and highly accelerated enviroments, in contrast to time &amp; space varying interpretations of GR. Please note that I am not questioning the experimental evidence of GR, only scaling the variences against absolute time, and assigning causality.

But you are questioning Special Relativity.
Which is contradictory if you want to use the results of Quantum Chromodynamics (because the theories in Particle Physics incorporate SR).

What has nuclear decay to do with atomic clocks (these do not work because of some decay in the nucleus)?

Jerry
2004-Nov-13, 02:25 PM
What has nuclear decay to do with atomic clocks (these do not work because of some decay in the nucleus)?Decay of radiation is one type of atomic clock used in the past to confirm special relativity. If time and space are not dilated, a mechanism is needed that consistently creates the illusion time is slowing in all GR venues.


But you are questioning Special Relativity.
Which is contradictory if you want to use the results of Quantum Chromodynamics (because the theories in Particle Physics incorporate SR).Yes, if I am correct, QCs will have to be totally rewritten, and I am not going to do that. They were created in the first place to connect the puzzling observations found in the subatomic world with GR. A substitute hypothesis has to produce the same, or nearly the same results as QC, therefore explaining causality in the contest of QC is a backdoor shortcut.

Copernicus did the same thing, when he used epicycles to correct for the elliptical orbits of the planets, so they appeared round.

papageno
2004-Nov-13, 03:19 PM
What has nuclear decay to do with atomic clocks (these do not work because of some decay in the nucleus)?Decay of radiation is one type of atomic clock used in the past to confirm special relativity. If time and space are not dilated, a mechanism is needed that consistently creates the illusion time is slowing in all GR venues.

See atomic clocks (http://science.howstuffworks.com/atomic-clock1.htm).

There are many tests whose results support SR.
How about the success of Quantum Electrodynamics (the theory with the most accurate predictions)?





But you are questioning Special Relativity.
Which is contradictory if you want to use the results of Quantum Chromodynamics (because the theories in Particle Physics incorporate SR).
Yes, if I am correct, QCs will have to be totally rewritten, and I am not going to do that. They were created in the first place to connect the puzzling observations found in the subatomic world with GR. A substitute hypothesis has to produce the same, or nearly the same results as QC, therefore explaining causality in the contest of QC is a backdoor shortcut.

Not only QCD, but all the others theories that rely on SR, such as QED and GR.
You cannot accept GR, without accepting SR.
You cannot accept QED, without accepting SR.



Copernicus did the same thing, when he used epicycles to correct for the elliptical orbits of the planets, so they appeared round.

As far as I remember, Copernicus assumed circular orbits.
The orbits do not appear "round", that's why all that mess with epicycles and excentrics was necessary.
Kepler introduced elliptical orbits.

Jerry
2004-Nov-13, 06:03 PM
See atomic clocks (http://science.howstuffworks.com/atomic-clock1.htm).
There are many tests whose results support SR.]
How about the success of Quantum Electrodynamics (the theory with the most accurate predictions)?
Vibration-based clocks are easy to explain within the causal substitutions to SR and GR that I have proposed: The effective "viscosity" (permittivity and permeability) of space change as the electromagnetic density changes - exactly as in SR &amp; GR, the changes are neglectably small when the changes in speed and density are small, but balloon when conditions are near saturation (very dense environments, and when matter moves near the speed of light). Atomic decay is more difficult to assign causality to - so clocks that are based upon atomic decay must also be explained in the context of a new basic theory.



You cannot accept GR, without accepting SR.
You cannot accept QED, without accepting SR.
If you are following the “Twisting gravity” thread you know I have also called into question the absolute boundary of Planck’s constant – that is how basic the level is at which I think our current perceptions are misguided.

The fact that existing theories so closely model our universe means that they are at least good mathematical approximations. So if I assign a new causality and change the basic equations, I better be able to, at least conceptually explain how Quantum Chromodynamics and the other subset of GR would function within a new model. To do this, I have to conceptualize it how this phenomenon should be interpreted within the context of the current model.

It has taken 100 years to develop all of the existing theory built around GR - it will take many people at least a significant fraction of that time to replace it.

A different form of the QD equations needs to be worked out, but it must be at least very similar to the model that now exists, so using the existing model to demonstrate how the conceptual changes will produce almost identical results is permissible.

By adding epicycles to his circular orbits, Copernicus was basically doing what I am doing with both QC and QT; These extensions of general relativity provide a lot of predictive power, just as adding epicycles to the circular model improved the predictive power of circular orbits. Just because it worked, didn't make it right, but it was 'more' right than the Ptolemic model.

Mathematical models are always phenomenological - they can have predictive powers without being truly representitive of the underlying physical causes.

papageno
2004-Nov-13, 06:15 PM
See atomic clocks (http://science.howstuffworks.com/atomic-clock1.htm).
There are many tests whose results support SR.]
How about the success of Quantum Electrodynamics (the theory with the most accurate predictions)?

Vibration-based clocks are easy to explain within the causal substitutions to SR and GR that I have proposed: The effective "viscosity" (permittivity and permeability) of space change as the electromagnetic density changes - exactly as in SR &amp; GR, the changes are neglectably small when the changes in speed and density are small, but balloon when conditions are near saturation (very dense environments, and when matter moves near the speed of light). Atomic decay is more difficult to assign causality to - so clocks that are based upon atomic decay must also be explained in the context of a new basic theory.

You are not talking about practical clocks, are you?
(Atomic clocks are not based on nuclear decay.)





You cannot accept GR, without accepting SR.
You cannot accept QED, without accepting SR.
If you are following the “Twisting gravity” thread you know I have also called into question the absolute boundary of Planck’s constant – that is how basic the level is at which I think our current perceptions are misguided.

The fact that existing theories so closely model our universe means that they are at least good mathematical approximations. So if I assign a new causality and change the basic equations, I better be able to, at least conceptually explain how Quantum Chromodynamics and the other subset of GR would function within a new model. To do this, I have to conceptualize it how this phenomenon should be interpreted within the context of the current model.

It has taken 100 years to develop all of the existing theory built around GR - it will take many people at least a significant fraction of that time to replace it.

A different form of the QD equations needs to be worked out, but it must be at least very similar to the model that now exists, so using the existing model to demonstrate how the conceptual changes will produce almost identical results is permissible.

In the limit for v &lt;&lt; c Reltivity gives the same equations as classical mechanics.
Considering the predictive power of QED, why would you need to change the equations?



By adding epicycles to his circular orbits, Copernicus was basically doing what I am doing with both QC and QT; These extensions of general relativity provide a lot of predictive power, just as adding epicycles to the circular model improved the predictive power of circular orbits. Just because it worked, didn't make it right, but it was 'more' right than the Ptolemic model.

Mathematical models are always phenomenological - they can have predictive powers without being truly representitive of the underlying physical causes.

Or the other way 'round as well.
Mathematical models can truly represent the underlying physical causes, in which case they yield successful predictions.

Anyway, I was addressing very specific points.
It was not my intention to discuss something general.

Jerry
2004-Nov-14, 06:50 PM
You are not talking about practical clocks, are you?No I am talking about the timing function of nuclear decay, but the principle must also apply to mechanical or optical clocks. Morris Anderson has demonstrate that a simple mechanical clock will naturally slow in a relativistic enviroment - and I think this is true of all clocks - literally slow down, not suffer from time dilation.



Considering the predictive power of QED, why would you need to change the equations?QED successfully couples gravitational and magnetic energy, and the mechanisms are very similar, if not identical to electromagnetic/magnetic coupling. So why are gravity and EMF not literal as well as mathematical equivalents? Even the inverse functionality of the 'gravitons' in the atomic nucleus is consistent with the slowing of light as it approaches an electromagnetically dense object.



Mathematical models are always phenomenological - they can have predictive powers without being truly representitive of the underlying physical causes.

Or the other way 'round as well.
Mathematical models can truly represent the underlying physical causes, in which case they yield successful predictions.
Then modifying QED to vary the speed of light, rather than contort space and time, should yield the same answers as existing theory, with the exception of the nature of inertia, and the observed phenomena in places like the centers and edges of galaxies, and in the orbits of objects in the far parimeter of the solar system, causing both unexplained acceleration and very low frequency radiation (undetectable) from the pioneer probes.

papageno
2004-Nov-15, 09:59 AM
You are not talking about practical clocks, are you?No I am talking about the timing function of nuclear decay, but the principle must also apply to mechanical or optical clocks. Morris Anderson has demonstrate that a simple mechanical clock will naturally slow in a relativistic enviroment - and I think this is true of all clocks - literally slow down, not suffer from time dilation.

Considering that I never heard of Morris Anderson, I need more details about this.





Considering the predictive power of QED, why would you need to change the equations?QED successfully couples gravitational and magnetic energy,

Are you sure?
Are we talking about the same Quantum Electrodynamics?



and the mechanisms are very similar, if not identical to electromagnetic/magnetic coupling. So why are gravity and EMF not literal as well as mathematical equivalents? Even the inverse functionality of the 'gravitons' in the atomic nucleus is consistent with the slowing of light as it approaches an electromagnetically dense object.

What theory are you talking about now?





Mathematical models are always phenomenological - they can have predictive powers without being truly representitive of the underlying physical causes.

Or the other way 'round as well.
Mathematical models can truly represent the underlying physical causes, in which case they yield successful predictions.
Then modifying QED to vary the speed of light, rather than contort space and time, should yield the same answers as existing theory, with the exception of the nature of inertia, and the observed phenomena in places like the centers and edges of galaxies, and in the orbits of objects in the far parimeter of the solar system, causing both unexplained acceleration and very low frequency radiation (undetectable) from the pioneer probes.

I am afraid that this is beyond my expertise.

Jerry
2004-Nov-15, 03:31 PM
Considering that I never heard of Morris Anderson, I need more details about this.Morris (http://www.badastronomy.com/phpBB/viewtopic.php?t=17372) uses the deBroglie wavelength of Atoms to calculate the orbits of the planets. To factor in GR effects, he varies the speed of light rather than slowing time or compressing space. The calculations are much more simple, allow the assignment of causality, and it works!



QED successfully couples gravitational and magnetic energy,


Are you sure? Yes, the gyromagnetic ratio (http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/physics/GyromagneticRatio.html) couples the magnetic dipole moment to the angular momentum of an atomic system. Admittedly you can look at this and say it is an incidental or secondary (mechanical) link, but I can also argue it is fundamental: The ~300 volt/meter of elevation atmospheric potential can be traced directly to the gravitational contribution to the magnetic vector potential. (Model plane designers have used this potential in a simple autopilot that works quite well…except in a lightening storm.)


Even the inverse functionality of the 'gravitons' in the atomic nucleus is consistent with the slowing of light as it approaches an electromagnetically dense object.

What theory are you talking about now?

This is the asymptotic freedom in the theory of the strong interaction of Gross &amp; Co.

papageno
2004-Nov-15, 04:00 PM
Considering that I never heard of Morris Anderson, I need more details about this.Morris (http://www.badastronomy.com/phpBB/viewtopic.php?t=17372) uses the deBroglie wavelength of Atoms to calculate the orbits of the planets. To factor in GR effects, he varies the speed of light rather than slowing time or compressing space. The calculations are much more simple, allow the assignment of causality, and it works!

Now I remember the thread.
To be honest, I was not really impressed by Morris' work.





QED successfully couples gravitational and magnetic energy,


Are you sure? Yes, the gyromagnetic ratio (http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/physics/GyromagneticRatio.html) couples the magnetic dipole moment to the angular momentum of an atomic system.

And how does this link to gravity?




Admittedly you can look at this and say it is an incidental or secondary (mechanical) link, but I can also argue it is fundamental: The ~300 volt/meter of elevation atmospheric potential can be traced directly to the gravitational contribution to the magnetic vector potential. (Model plane designers have used this potential in a simple autopilot that works quite well…except in a lightening storm.)

So, you jump from atoms to planets.
How does this work?
Why would the potential gradient in the atmosphere be linked to a gyromagnetic factor of the planet, rather than to the fact that the planet is constantly bombarded by charged particles?





Even the inverse functionality of the 'gravitons' in the atomic nucleus is consistent with the slowing of light as it approaches an electromagnetically dense object.

What theory are you talking about now?

This is the asymptotic freedom in the theory of the strong interaction of Gross &amp; Co.

A theory that does not deal at all with gravity.
Where do these "gravtons" come from?

Jerry
2004-Nov-17, 06:12 AM
…gyromagnetic ratio couples the magnetic dipole moment to the angular momentum of an atomic system.
And how does this link to gravity?
Gravity is one several tensors necessary to figure angular momentum.


The ~300 volt/meter of elevation atmospheric potential can be traced directly to the gravitational contribution to the magnetic vector potential.



So, you jump from atoms to planets.
How does this work?
Why would the potential gradient in the atmosphere be linked to a gyromagnetic factor of the planet, rather than to the fact that the planet is constantly bombarded by charged particles?
The ionosphere traps and channel the sporadic bombardments from the sun toward the poles – it is difficult to see why this would set up a nearly linear and fairly reliable gradient, whereas the gravimetric gradient is more like the voltage potential we observe. Speaking of the ionic bombardment – what causes it? Mass loss in the sun?


Even the inverse functionality of the 'gravitons' in the atomic nucleus is consistent with the slowing of light as it approaches an electromagnetically dense object.


What theory are you talking about now?
This is the asymptotic freedom in the theory of the strong interaction of Gross &amp; Co.


A theory that does not deal at all with gravity. Sure it does! Quantum Chromodynamics rely upon the interactionns of quarks behaving like unbound entities. Asymptotic freedom is what allows energy transfer between quarks in strong force environments. If this interaction includes a high energy mass conversion, a graviton must announce this.

Jerry
2004-Nov-17, 07:31 AM
Slava G. Turyshev (http://lanl.arxiv.org/PS_cache/gr-qc/pdf/0409/0409117.pdf),, Michael Martin Nieto and John D. Anderson have released another summary of the pioneer probes, lessons learned, ect.

papageno
2004-Nov-17, 10:30 AM
Gravity is one several tensors necessary to figure angular momentum.
In an atomic system?


The ionosphere traps and channel the sporadic bombardments from the sun toward the poles – it is difficult to see why this would set up a nearly linear and fairly reliable gradient, whereas the gravimetric gradient is more like the voltage potential we observe. Speaking of the ionic bombardment – what causes it? Mass loss in the sun?
Sporadic bombardments?
The solar wind does not seem to be that sporadic.
The atmoshpere is thin compared to the size of the planet.
I am not exactly surprised that over relatively short distances a potential gradient is nearly linear.





This is the asymptotic freedom in the theory of the strong interaction of Gross &amp; Co.


A theory that does not deal at all with gravity. Sure it does! Quantum Chromodynamics rely upon the interactionns of quarks behaving like unbound entities. Asymptotic freedom is what allows energy transfer between quarks in strong force environments. If this interaction includes a high energy mass conversion, a graviton must announce this.
Where do they talk about gravitons?
What high enrgy mass conversion?
Besides, quarks have an electric charge, which s comparatively stronger than gravity.

Jerry
2004-Nov-17, 09:05 PM
Gravity is one several tensors necessary to figure angular momentum.
In an atomic system?Absolutely. Most of the time it can be ignored, because it is incredibly small, but not when the masses or velocities are great.


The ionosphere traps and channel the sporadic bombardments from the sun toward the poles – it is difficult to see why this would set up a nearly linear and fairly reliable gradient, whereas the gravimetric gradient is more like the voltage potential we observe. Speaking of the ionic bombardment – what causes it? Mass loss in the sun?

Sporadic bombardments?
The solar wind does not seem to be that sporadic.
The atmoshpere is thin compared to the size of the planet.
I am not exactly surprised that over relatively short distances a potential gradient is nearly linear.I will concede the electrical potential of the atmosphere is effected by solar winds, but one still must explain the very existence of the ionosphere/magnetiosphere. My freshman text attributes these fields to the flow of magna. This theory has big holes in it, such as molten iron is well beyond the Curie point. A recent astronomy text carries this unusual warning:


Warning: The dynamo model has yet to be worked out in detail. For instance, little agreement has developed to date on how the fluid core flows, what drives these motions, and how these flows generate the complex field at the surface.

Contrast this unproven 'mainstream speculative' explanation with the concept that the earth’s electromagnetic fields are generated by wave action induced by tides: since most of the coastlines on the earth run north-south and tidal action is primarily east-west, the magnetic alignment should be north south. It is much easier to explain and model.

It would be interesting to try to match the inversion of the earth's magnetic poles that occurs about once every million years with continental drift: If the wave/emf theory is correct, there should be a correlation between the net north/south alignment of the tidal zones and the direction and even the offset of the magnetic poles. There are a lot of good science projects out there.






This is the asymptotic freedom in the theory of the strong interaction of Gross &amp; Co.
A theory that does not deal at all with gravity. Sure it does! …If this interaction includes a high energy mass conversion, a graviton must announce this.
Where do they talk about gravitons?
What high enrgy mass conversion?
Besides, quarks have an electric charge, which is comparatively stronger than gravity.
They don’t mention gravitons. ‘Asymptotic freedom’ is the principle that allows the entire family of strong force interactions to take place – quarks bound by the strong force can still participate in virtually any color transformation. (This is not limited to high energy applications as I implied above) any time mass is redistributed ‘gravity waves’ must broadcast the necessary tensor changes. Agreed, these usually can be ignored, but not always.

While pondering this application of gravity as an emf, I came across this statement in Zeilic:

“Basically, almost any fluid motions in a conductor will generate a magnetic field.”

Why is that? If gravity is really high frequency electromagnetic waves, atoms flowing in a fluid will absorb and generate high frequency impulses with each change in speed or direction. The fluid motion will occasionally align the phase angle of these undetectable waves in significantly long chains that allow chemical bonds to absorb the wave summations at much much lower frequencies.

Let me see if I can use sound to explain what I am talking about: If I line up 1,000 sopranos with perfect pitch a half step behind each other, and queue them all to hit a high ‘C’, each of these perfect notes will hit the conductor at a slightly different phase angle, and if he has a good ear, he will hear the ‘beat’ frequency as a low b flat. If that happens to be the fundamental sonic frequency of the building, the whole building will vibrate at a these low frequency and the energy of the ‘c’ heard in the building will be highly attenuated at a periodic rate. (And you thought the 'Tabernacle Choir' sopranos warble because they are old.)

If a gang of atoms in a flowing liquid form a shear plane that align the phases and siphons off inertial/gravitational energy into the chemical bonds of the atoms, the momentum is lost and the atoms stop moving. This heretofore unexplained causal relationship between fluid motion and gravity is one of the primary causes of turbulent flow…another science project. See how much you are helping?

Thanks!

papageno
2004-Nov-18, 10:35 AM
Gravity is one several tensors necessary to figure angular momentum.
In an atomic system?Absolutely. Most of the time it can be ignored, because it is incredibly small, but not when the masses or velocities are great.
But you have to compare it to the other interactions present in the system.


I will concede the electrical potential of the atmosphere is effected by solar winds, but one still must explain the very existence of the ionosphere/magnetiosphere. My freshman text attributes these fields to the flow of magna. This theory has big holes in it, such as molten iron is well beyond the Curie point. A recent astronomy text carries this unusual warning:


Warning: The dynamo model has yet to be worked out in detail. For instance, little agreement has developed to date on how the fluid core flows, what drives these motions, and how these flows generate the complex field at the surface.
That current theories are not satisfactory does not mean that the principle is entirely wrong and that the Earth can be treated as an atomic system.



Contrast this unproven 'mainstream speculative' explanation with the concept that the earth’s electromagnetic fields are generated by wave action induced by tides: since most of the coastlines on the earth run north-south and tidal action is primarily east-west, the magnetic alignment should be north south. It is much easier to explain and model.
Water producing the magnetic field of the Earth?
I think we would have already seen these magnetic effects on smaller scales in a lab.



It would be interesting to try to match the inversion of the earth's magnetic poles that occurs about once every million years with continental drift:
Why should continental drift have anything to do with the Earth's magnetosphere?
It is something that happens on the surface, and from what we know the magnetosphere's origin is not in the Earth's surface.



If the wave/emf theory is correct, there should be a correlation between the net north/south alignment of the tidal zones and the direction and even the offset of the magnetic poles. There are a lot of good science projects out there.
The correlation stems from the conservation of angular momentum in the Solar System.
Whatever is rotating or revolving has something to do with this.
This does not mean that tides generate the magnetic field.

(Basically my idea is: the Earth's magnetic field is produce by something rotating inside the Earth; the tides are produce by the Earth rotating and the Moon being in a plane roughly perpendicular to the axis of rotation.
The axis of rotation and the axis of the magnetic field are approximately aligned, because their direction is determined by conservation of angular momentum.)



They don’t mention gravitons. ‘Asymptotic freedom’ is the principle that allows the entire family of strong force interactions to take place – quarks bound by the strong force can still participate in virtually any color transformation. (This is not limited to high energy applications as I implied above) any time mass is redistributed ‘gravity waves’ must broadcast the necessary tensor changes. Agreed, these usually can be ignored, but not always.

Then you should specify when they are expected to be important.



While pondering this application of gravity as an emf, I came across this statement in Zeilic:

“Basically, almost any fluid motions in a conductor will generate a magnetic field.”

Why is that?
Charges in motion.
And we know that currents produce magnetic fields.
It is not really exotic.



If gravity is really high frequency electromagnetic waves, atoms flowing in a fluid will absorb and generate high frequency impulses with each change in speed or direction. The fluid motion will occasionally align the phase angle of these undetectable waves in significantly long chains that allow chemical bonds to absorb the wave summations at much much lower frequencies.
People have been trying to blame electromagnetism for gravity, without much success.



Let me see if I can use sound to explain what I am talking about: If I line up 1,000 sopranos with perfect pitch a half step behind each other, and queue them all to hit a high ‘C’, each of these perfect notes will hit the conductor at a slightly different phase angle, and if he has a good ear, he will hear the ‘beat’ frequency as a low b flat. If that happens to be the fundamental sonic frequency of the building, the whole building will vibrate at a these low frequency and the energy of the ‘c’ heard in the building will be highly attenuated at a periodic rate. (And you thought the 'Tabernacle Choir' sopranos warble because they are old.)

If a gang of atoms in a flowing liquid form a shear plane that align the phases and siphons off inertial/gravitational energy into the chemical bonds of the atoms, the momentum is lost and the atoms stop moving. This heretofore unexplained causal relationship between fluid motion and gravity is one of the primary causes of turbulent flow…another science project. See how much you are helping?


What makes you think the there is an unexplained causal relationship between fluid motion and gravity?
What makes you think that there is a causal relationship?

Lunatik
2004-Nov-18, 06:28 PM
Jerry: The ionosphere traps and channel the sporadic bombardments from the sun toward the poles – it is difficult to see why this would set up a nearly linear and fairly reliable gradient, whereas the gravimetric gradient is more like the voltage potential we observe. Speaking of the ionic bombardment – what causes it? Mass loss in the sun?
Does this mean there is more ionic energy directed towards the poles per square meter than other parts of the planet? The causality may go either way then: Magnetic poles attract ionic energy? Or does ionic energy attracted by the magnetic poles cause magnetic field generated along the line of ionic intake? We know the planet's magnetic bow field deflects ions towards the poles, but can this same process reinforce the magnetic field? I will not go into how ionic energy may also affect Newton's G value at the (non-spinning) poles by lowering it, but new thinking of what is gravity may play here too, though beyond current gravity theory as it stands now.

Thanks for the latest "Pioneer Anomaly" paper link! :)


papageno: Sporadic bombardments?
The solar wind does not seem to be that sporadic.
I believe the solar wind at times stops entirely, and it has variable velocity, so is this perhaps why some think it "sporadic"? And where does the ionic mass come from? Are we being peppered by these ions, adding to our planetary mass, and by how much?

I too must agree that tidal waters causing magnetic field is "physhing" for a theory. :lol:

[Edited for shpelling]

Jerry
2004-Nov-19, 05:58 AM
We know the planet's magnetic bow field deflects ions towards the poles, but can this same process reinforce the magnetic field?If I had to put money on this, I would really spread the chips. I suspect prevailing winds, currents, tides, molten iron, and the solar wind are all contributing factors...and clouds, and rain and...


That current theories are not satisfactory does not mean that the principle is entirely wrong…I think it means just that.
Thousands of great minds have tried to work within this framework for almost a century. Every time we refocus our telescopes, we get a rude awakening and a new batch of ad hoc parameters. Our model does not work at any scale.



…and that the Earth can be treated as an atomic system. I’m not doing that – other than to point out wave mechanics, based upon deBroglie waves, correctly predict the orbits of the planets.

This relationship is actually trivial, since all gravimetric effects are, by definition, proportional to the dB wavelength. What is interesting in Morris’s paper, is that he is able to correctly predict the effects of general relativity upon the orbit of Mercury by modifying the speed of light in a Lorentz transform, rather than contracting space or time.

Even this is somewhat trivial, because it demonstrates the equivalence of the two mathematical interpretations. It is not trivial if you assume Einstein was wrong when he bent space and time, rather than assigning causality by slowing the speed of light as it enters an electromagnetic system.



Water producing the magnetic field of the Earth?
I think we would have already seen these magnetic effects on smaller scales in a lab.
We have: Stick a powerful magnet next to a thin stream flowing from a tap, and the stream will be attracted or repelled – you have to have a thin stream, and be far enough from the source that eddies are starting to form in the stream, usually about 30 cm. mmm I just tried it, and it didn't work...I saw this on tv once - was this a hoax? Does the water have to be distilled?????



Then you should specify when they are expected to be important.
Sorry 8-
They are important because on a particle level, they establish a causal linkage between gravity and emf. Backing up just a little, In my opinion, the entire field of quantum mechanics is phenomenological: We have equations that predict but do not assign causality, or as Feyman put it: “Shut up and calculate”.

If causality is important, and assignable, then at some point our quantum mechanics must reduce down to more direct causal relationship between EMF and gravity.



Why [do flowing conductive liquids create a magnetic field?


Charges in motion.
And we know that currents produce magnetic fields.
It is not really exotic.No one have ever had a good explanation for static electricity - I remember pulling the encyclopedia out and insisting to my dad that he had to explain to me why my sleepers shocked me everytime I slid down the stairs. I must have been four years old, I still don't like the answer we have been stuck with since the 1800's.


People have been trying to blame electromagnetism for gravity, without much success.Yes, I don’ t think they have taken the theory far enough. They have not created an inertial/gravimetric shell, they have not said Einstein, Planck and Newton all have parts of it wrong.


What makes you think the there is an unexplained causal relationship between fluid motion and gravity? What makes you think that there is a causal relationship? There is a physicist who sits near me who has been trying to model fluid motion for three decades. Everyone in the field knows atoms suddenly stop moving when there is a shear action, no one has really explained why.

We have never detected celestial gravity waves, although we are confident they exist. I think we do see them, at reduced frequencies as electromagnetic waves.

Supernovae emit powerful gamma rays with a knee in the energy spectrum – I can explain the knee as the boundary condition that exists because the inertial field is collapsing as the supernova expanse at relativistic speeds. As far as I know, no other mechanism successfully explains this phenomena, and many, many others:

Why does Pluto, at half the mass and density of the moon, have a detectable atmosphere? (An inertial/gravity field calculates a much greater density for Pluto,)

How can Saturn hang together with a density of only 0.6 g/cc? (Again, using Newtonian mass estimates in the far galaxy underestimates the mass.

papageno
2004-Nov-19, 10:19 AM
papageno: Sporadic bombardments?
The solar wind does not seem to be that sporadic.
I believe the solar wind at times stops entirely, and it has variable velocity, so is this perhaps why some think it "sporadic"? And where does the ionic mass come from? Are we being peppered by these ions, adding to our planetary mass, and by how much?


I am not an expert in the physics of the Sun.
I do not think that the solar wind is perfectly homogeneous, but I doubt it would stop.
"Sporadic" means that it happens every now and then, which is not the case for the solar wind.
The particles expelled by the Sun, come from the Sun (after all, there are nuclear fusion processes going on in there).
But I doubt they increase significantly the mass of the Earth (but it depends on the time-scale you consider).

papageno
2004-Nov-19, 10:54 AM
That current theories are not satisfactory does not mean that the principle is entirely wrong…I think it means just that.
Thousands of great minds have tried to work within this framework for almost a century. Every time we refocus our telescopes, we get a rude awakening and a new batch of ad hoc parameters. Our model does not work at any scale.
At this point, you better provide something to support this.





…and that the Earth can be treated as an atomic system. I’m not doing that – other than to point out wave mechanics, based upon deBroglie waves, correctly predict the orbits of the planets.
De Broglie wave-length works for microscopic particles, not for planets.
Your claim that "wave mechanics, based upon deBroglie waves, correctly predict the orbits of the planets" needs to be supported.



This relationship is actually trivial, since all gravimetric effects are, by definition, proportional to the dB wavelength.
WHere did you find this?



What is interesting in Morris’s paper, is that he is able to correctly predict the effects of general relativity upon the orbit of Mercury by modifying the speed of light in a Lorentz transform, rather than contracting space or time.

Even this is somewhat trivial, because it demonstrates the equivalence of the two mathematical interpretations. It is not trivial if you assume Einstein was wrong when he bent space and time, rather than assigning causality by slowing the speed of light as it enters an electromagnetic system.
Based on the experimental evidence, there is no reason to believe that Einstein's theories are incorrect.






Water producing the magnetic field of the Earth?
I think we would have already seen these magnetic effects on smaller scales in a lab.
We have: Stick a powerful magnet next to a thin stream flowing from a tap, and the stream will be attracted or repelled – you have to have a thin stream, and be far enough from the source that eddies are starting to form in the stream, usually about 30 cm. mmm I just tried it, and it didn't work...I saw this on tv once - was this a hoax? Does the water have to be distilled?????
A powerful magnet affecting a thin stream of tap water: this is not water producing a magnetic field.
And clearly this is nothing like tides producing the Earth's magnetic field.






Then you should specify when they are expected to be important.
Sorry 8-
They are important because on a particle level, they establish a causal linkage between gravity and emf.

Two theories (QED and QCD) that do not mention gravity, because at those levels gravitational forces are negligibly small, establish a "causal linkage" between gravity and electromagnetism.
Can you explain how?



Backing up just a little, In my opinion, the entire field of quantum mechanics is phenomenological: We have equations that predict but do not assign causality, or as Feyman put it: “Shut up and calculate”.
The lack of a satisfactory interpretation of the theory does not make the whole theory phenomenological.
"Phenomenological theory" has a clear meaning in physics: can you explain how it applies to Quantum Mechanics?

As an anecdote, I had a lecturer that showed us that Quantum Mechanics and Classical Mechanics have basically the same mathematrical constructs.
The difference between them is that in QM Planck constant is non-zero, while in CM it is zero.



If causality is important, and assignable, then at some point our quantum mechanics must reduce down to more direct causal relationship between EMF and gravity.
What makes you think that there is a direct causal relationship?






Why do flowing conductive liquids create a magnetic field?


Charges in motion.
And we know that currents produce magnetic fields.
It is not really exotic.No one have ever had a good explanation for static electricity - I remember pulling the encyclopedia out and insisting to my dad that he had to explain to me why my sleepers shocked me everytime I slid down the stairs. I must have been four years old, I still don't like the answer we have been stuck with since the 1800's.
What makes you think that the explanation has not been updated?






People have been trying to blame electromagnetism for gravity, without much success.Yes, I don’ t think they have taken the theory far enough. They have not created an inertial/gravimetric shell, they have not said Einstein, Planck and Newton all have parts of it wrong.
They have taken the theories far enough to see that it leads nowhere.
What do you mean with the last sentence?






What makes you think the there is an unexplained causal relationship between fluid motion and gravity? What makes you think that there is a causal relationship? There is a physicist who sits near me who has been trying to model fluid motion for three decades. Everyone in the field knows atoms suddenly stop moving when there is a shear action, no one has really explained why.
Please explain the relevance of this reply.
(What does fluid motion have to do with a causal relationship between gravity and electromagnetism?)



We have never detected celestial gravity waves, although we are confident they exist. I think we do see them, at reduced frequencies as electromagnetic waves.
You think? Based on what?



Supernovae emit powerful gamma rays with a knee in the energy spectrum – I can explain the knee as the boundary condition that exists because the inertial field is collapsing as the supernova expanse at relativistic speeds. As far as I know, no other mechanism successfully explains this phenomena, and many, many others:
Since I am not an expert in supernovae, I cannot comment on this.




Why does Pluto, at half the mass and density of the moon, have a detectable atmosphere? (An inertial/gravity field calculates a much greater density for Pluto,)
What kind of atmosphere?
How far from the Sun is Pluto?



How can Saturn hang together with a density of only 0.6 g/cc? (Again, using Newtonian mass estimates in the far galaxy underestimates the mass.
Are you mixing up galaxy with Saturn?

To be honest, I think you tend to be a bit vague in your posts.
I am not sure I understand what you intend to say.
I would suggest that you focus on a few points and explain how you reached certain conclusions.

iantresman
2004-Nov-19, 10:56 AM
I do not think that the solar wind is perfectly homogeneous, but I doubt it would stop.

See the Web page The Day the Solar Wind Disappeared (http://science.nasa.gov/newhome/headlines/ast13dec99_1.htm)

Regards,
Ian Tresman

papageno
2004-Nov-19, 11:00 AM
I do not think that the solar wind is perfectly homogeneous, but I doubt it would stop.

See the Web page The Day the Solar Wind Disappeared (http://science.nasa.gov/newhome/headlines/ast13dec99_1.htm)


Form the link:


Dropping to a fraction of its normal density and to half its normal speed, the solar wind died down enough to allow physicists to observe particles flowing directly from the Sun's corona to Earth. This severe change in the solar wind also changed the shape of Earth's magnetic field and produced an unusual auroral display at the North Pole.

A fraction (or a couple of orders of magnitude) is still not zero.
It is not like there were not particles at all coming from the Sun.
This is what I meant.

Lunatik
2004-Nov-19, 06:26 PM
Jerry: Why does Pluto, at half the mass and density of the moon, have a detectable atmosphere? (An inertial/gravity field calculates a much greater density for Pluto,)

How can Saturn hang together with a density of only 0.6 g/cc? (Again, using Newtonian mass estimates in the far galaxy underestimates the mass.
This was exactly what I was refering to in my http://www.badastronomy.com/phpBB/viewtopic.php?p=362663&amp;highlight=#362663 , posted on the Einstein 100 thread, Nov. 9, 2004.

Pluto at about 39 AU is in a higher gravity region (viz., higher inertia and G-mass-density region), so that though smaller than our Moon, it can retain an atmosphere. The gas giants can hang together the way they do because at 5.2 AU Jupiter, to Saturn's 9.5 AU, Uranus 19.2 AU, and Neptune ~30 AU, they all "live" in a higher density gravity region than Earth's, so that gas molecules bind together more easily than here. Conversely, on Mercury, at about 0.5 AU, gravity density is very low, meaning only heavy molecules can hang together, mostly, which is why its composition is largely metallic. Venus, Earth, and Mars are in the rocky region, based on our "middling" gravity density. So it all boils down to a variable Newton's G affecting how molecules hang together in their respective regions of the solar system, which affects their planetary density. The relationship computes at a linear growth rate of delta G = ~7e-11 Nm^2kg^-2 per AU distance from the Sun.

So, why did Newton think his gravitational G is a constant? My guess is that he never had any reason to think otherwise, and neither did Einstein et al, nor all of us until now. It took the Pioneers Anomaly to give hint that something was wrong, though at present no one out there in the hallowed halls of Science is willing to concede the possibility that G is a (calculable) variable. Curious, but once a mis-conception enters the pillared halls of acceptance, it really has a hard time exiting again. Why is that? :wink:


(Please note that my vocabulary on this variable G is tenuous (i.e., "G-mass-density region"), because none of this has entered physics parlance, at least not yet.) [-X

Celestial Mechanic
2004-Nov-19, 06:53 PM
[Snip!]... at present no one out there in the hallowed halls of Science is willing to concede the possibility that G is a (calculable) variable. Curious, but once a mis-conception enters the pillared halls of acceptance, it really has a hard time exiting again. Why is that? :wink:

(Please note that my vocabulary on this variable G is tenuous (i.e., "G-mass-density region"), because none of this has entered physics parlance, at least not yet.) [-X
The notion of a variable G has been around for a long time. Dirac proposed it in the 1930's. A more fully developed theory of variable G goes back to papers published in the early 1960's by Jordan, Brans, and Dicke. Do a Google search on "Brans-Dicke" and you'll see what I mean. This is what I can think of off the top of my head for the twentieth century, there may have been speculation on variable G in the nineteenth century, I just don't know.

Lunatik
2004-Nov-19, 07:36 PM
[Snip!]... at present no one out there in the hallowed halls of Science is willing to concede the possibility that G is a (calculable) variable. Curious, but once a mis-conception enters the pillared halls of acceptance, it really has a hard time exiting again. Why is that? :wink:

(Please note that my vocabulary on this variable G is tenuous (i.e., "G-mass-density region"), because none of this has entered physics parlance, at least not yet.) [-X
The notion of a variable G has been around for a long time. Dirac proposed it in the 1930's. A more fully developed theory of variable G goes back to papers published in the early 1960's by Jordan, Brans, and Dicke. Do a Google search on "Brans-Dicke" and you'll see what I mean. This is what I can think of off the top of my head for the twentieth century, there may have been speculation on variable G in the nineteenth century, I just don't know.
Thanks CM!

I read up on it, especially liked Gravitational Radiation (http://www.davis-inc.com/relativity/), where it says:
The essential feature of the Brans-Dicke theory is that the gravitational "constant" G is in fact not a constant but is determined by the totality of matter in the universe through an auxiliary scalar field equation. G expresses the ability of mass-energy to interact gravitationally. The non-universality of G means that the effective interaction strength of a quantity of mass-energy is determined by the local value of the scalar G field. To make an analogy with electromagnetic theory, the effective gravitational "charge-to-mass" ratio is not a constant.
This is pretty much what came up in mine, that the "gravitational 'charge-to-mass' ratio is not a constant". From this I was able to calculate the Newton's G equivalent for each of the planets, which plots linearly on the x-axis for delta G, and y-axis for AU, where the rate of growth is about delta G = ~7e-11 N (per AU :^o ) .

Thanks again, nice references. :)

Jerry
2004-Nov-20, 05:25 AM
Jerry: Why does Pluto, at half the mass and density of the moon, have a detectable atmosphere? (An inertial/gravity field calculates a much greater density for Pluto,)

How can Saturn hang together with a density of only 0.6 g/cc? (Again, using Newtonian mass estimates in the far galaxy underestimates the mass.
This was exactly what I was refering to in my http://www.badastronomy.com/phpBB/viewtopic.php?p=362663&amp;highlight=#362663 , posted on the Einstein 100 thread, Nov. 9, 2004. Oh, I finally get it...I'm a little slow on the uptake.


...So it all boils down to a variable Newton's G affecting how molecules hang together in their respective regions of the solar system, which affects their planetary density. The relationship computes at a linear growth rate of delta G = ~7e-11 Nm^2kg^-2 per AU distance from the Sun.

So, why did Newton think his gravitational G is a constant? My guess is that he never had any reason to think otherwise, and neither did Einstein et al, nor all of us until now. It took the Pioneers Anomaly to give hint that something was wrong.This is a very similar concept to the MOND explanation for the excessive rotational velocities of galaxies. Either 'pushing gravities' that are greatest at the edges of the system, or treating inertia as a function of gravitational force, (rather than as an independent property of matter) that weakens with distance would explain these anomalies. I prefer the inertial explanation because 1) It explains why galaxies or radio loud. 2) Provides a causal basis for the Tully-Fisher relationship. 3) Explains why galaxies are not colliding much more often than they do. 4) Provides a synthesis for the cosmic microwave background.

I am trying to work up an answer to Pap's posts. He asked a lot of poignant questions that must be answered, but I am not quite certain how much detail to go into in the answers. We have discussed some of these points at length on other threads, mostly with Cougar and Gerbil, so it is going to take some time to sort this all out.

Lunatik
2004-Nov-20, 05:03 PM
Jerry: I am trying to work up an answer to Pap's posts. He asked a lot of poignant questions that must be answered, but I am not quite certain how much detail to go into in the answers.
I think Pap's question seem to zero in on this:

papageno: De Broglie wave-length works for microscopic particles, not for planets.
Your claim that "wave mechanics, based upon deBroglie waves, correctly predict the orbits of the planets" needs to be supported.
This is a crucial point, to bring the micro-macro into line, which of course in any unified theory of physics it has to be. To bring these together will take a lot of baby-steps, such as started by Toivo Jaakkola and Morris Anderson, to a lesser degree by Harold Aspden and Lyndon Ashmore and others, but much more needs to be done, in my humble opinion. Pap's questions are very valid, because this is the big nut that needs to be cracked. I suspect there is an easier solution than MOND or Brans-Dicke models, though none has yet come forward with any conviction; including my own via DeBroglie-Einstein's equation relationship between total orbital Energy of the planets and their proton mass. But this is only another baby-step clue. :lol:

Jerry
2004-Nov-22, 01:16 AM
Every time we refocus our telescopes, we get a rude awakening and a new batch of ad hoc parameters. Our model does not work at any scale.
At this point, you better provide something to support this….To be honest, I think you tend to be a bit vague in your posts.

Sorry. Sometimes I loose track of which thread I am posting too, and I say things that are out of context.

In the Astrophysical world found in freshmen texts, there is no reason to question that the ‘Big Bang’ is the primary source of the known universe. But the real situation is much more complex. The extent of galactic depth and structure has been an amazing surprise, requiring many systemic revisions of the big bang theory.

‘Blue’ galaxies, once thought to dominate the early universe are no longer considered predecessors to the ‘red’ population. Quasar populations, once thought to be precursors to all galaxies, now appear to blossom and peak a few short eons ago, then disappear completely.

To accommodate all these new parameters, the “Einstein de-Sitter model has been replaced with the Friedman -Lemaitre-Robertson-Walker model.

The latest revision includes a prior “inflation” epic and a phantom population of iron-producing (pop III) stars. The measured anisotropy in the cosmic microwave background is only a small fraction of the value needed to account for the massive, complex structure we observe, so a dark energy parameter has been added. This cosmology assumes the existence of dark matter and dark energy components are responsible for all but 4% of the mass functionality.

In one breath we are told we are entering the age of ‘precision cosmology’, and in the next we are told 96% of the universe is dark energy and dark matter that we know nothing about, only that they are both necessary to explain what we do know.

In spite of this double speak:

There is no explanation for cosmic rays, in terms of explaining the spectral attributes, power function or synthesis.

We have no explanation for why the ‘transfers proximity effect’ cannot be detected in foreground quasars. (This is a necessary observation if the spectral interpretation of ‘Lyman forest’ spectra is correct).

No explanation for Butcher-Oemler effects. This ‘evolutionary’ trend places ‘blue’ galaxies in cluster cores, disperses them as field galaxies in later epics and dismisses them from the cosmological scene completely in the current era. A comparison of this curious trait with the glaring lack of evidence of evolution in heavy metal content begs for a realistic solution.

No acceptable model for the ‘dark matter’ component of galaxies. (No explanation for why the ‘dark matter and light matter’ components of galaxies have remained so completely segregated over eons of cosmic development).

No mechanism for collimated jets that span light years.

No detection of gravity waves.

No detection of the Higgs Boson.

No explanation for why we have not found any peculiar supernovae at higher redshifts, whereas peculiars make up ~10% of the brightest supernova in the local population.

The cosmological principle essentially states that all interpretations of observed phenomena must conform to known physical laws. Explanations that require alternative dimensions or new laws must be regarded with extreme skepticism. We should always look for causal relationships we can compare with local observations. In my opinion, cosmologies that rely upon dark energy and inflation are not in harmony with the cosmological principle. Something very basic is wrong.

Jerry
2004-Nov-22, 01:41 AM
This relationship is actually trivial, since all gravimetric effects are, by definition, proportional to the dB wavelength.
Where did you find this?The deBroglie wavelength is a simple mass/Planck’s constant ratio, so all Newtonian gravitational laws can be calculated using deBroglie wavelengths, then converted back to mass.

Again, Morris Anderson demonstrates the correct relativistic procession in Mercury’s orbit can be predicted by calculating the “deBroglie orbit” of the planet and varying the speed of light near the sun, rather than contracting space and time. This is just evidence there is mathematical equivalence between the space-time contraction and varying the speed of light interpretations of the Michelson Morley experiment. I am saying that varying the speed of light provides a causal mechanism, “stretching space and time” does not.



Based on the experimental evidence, there is no reason to believe that Einstein's theories are incorrect.The evidence in hand that GR is correct in almost every prediction should tell us either his theories are right, or very close to a correct mathematical interpretation. I argue the failure to detect gravity waves, and the anomalies in acceleration we observe should be considered a significant failure of general relativistic and Newtonian predictions. We do not understand gravity.



The lack of a satisfactory interpretation of the theory does not make the whole theory phenomenological. "Phenomenological theory" has a clear meaning in physics: can you explain how it applies to Quantum Mechanics?

As an anecdote, I had a lecturer that showed us that Quantum Mechanics and Classical Mechanics have basically the same mathematrical constructs.
The difference between them is that in QM Planck constant is non-zero, while in CM it is zero.
QM does not give us a physical model of the strong force, only a mathematical description of how it works. (This might be the best we can ever hope for.) I like your anecdote. I am not taking issue with quantum mechanical solutions. I am looking for evidence gravity may express itselft in the quantum world as an EMF.





If causality is important, and assignable, then at some point our quantum mechanics must reduce down to more direct causal relationship between EMF and gravity.
What makes you think that there is a direct causal relationship?In the ‘Gravity Behaving Badly’ thread, I pointed out that everywhere we expect to find gravity waves, we see electromagnetic waves that have all the characteristics we expect to find in gravity waves.

A very good example is in the microwave signatures of binary stars during eclipses: When star ‘A” passes behind star “B”, the signal is heterodyned in a hysteresis at the beginning and ending of the eclipse that is very similar to the hysteresis seen in the movement of a pendulum at the beginning and end of a total eclipse. I do not think this is coincidental: I think the radiowave is what a gravity wave broadcast should look like from a distant place.



Why do flowing conductive liquids create a magnetic field? ...
I still don't like the answer we have been stuck with since the 1800's.

What makes you think that the explanation has not been updated?The definition of static electricity hasn’t changed much – we understand a little more about how high frequency currents are transmitted, but the basic idea, friction ‘brushing off’ electrons has always been a very weak explanation for static effects.







People have been trying to blame electromagnetism for gravity, without much success.Yes, I don’ t think they have taken the theory far enough. They have not created an inertial/gravimetric shell, they have not said Einstein, Planck and Newton all have parts of it wrong.
They have taken the theories far enough to see that it leads nowhere...
What do you mean with the last sentence?
They have generally been trying to associate Newtonian or GR gravity with known electromagnetic principles. I am hypothesizing Newton was wrong: inertia is not an inherent property of matter, but a property found only in an electromagnetic framework that weakens with increasing distance from the source of the electromagnetic field.

For example: Under this hypothesis, the outer planets are much more massive than Newtonian predictions; they do not ‘fly out’ of their orbits because the inertial field strength is not great enough to move them further from the sun, so they radiate ‘gravitational’ energy instead.

This is completely consistent with Maxwell’s equations, and is exactly analogous to the impedance of a radio antenna that broadcasts an electromagnetic wave at a predictable frequency. This in turn, makes the orbital paths of the planets fairly stable - they will not decay until enough energy has been broadcast to allow the planet to slow into a reduced orbit.



(What does fluid motion have to do with a causal relationship between gravity and electromagnetism?)If gravity is truly a very high frequency electromagnetic force, there should be naturally occurring events where this frequency is reduced, just as scintillating detectors convert cosmic waves to visible wavelengths.

I think the piezo electric effect is a manifestation of this frequency reduction/multiplication phenomena. The gravitational effects in a conductive flowing liquid are clearly non-linear, so similar frequency shifts should also be possible, both adding to and subtracting from the kinetic energy of flowing molecules.





We have never detected celestial gravity waves, although we are confident they exist. I think we do see them, at reduced frequencies as electromagnetic waves.
You think? Based on what?The deterioration in the orbits of binary pairs of neutron stars degrade just as predicted by the GR gravity wave theory. The evidence of frame dragging is also consistent with gravity waves existing.

Star Pilot
2004-Nov-22, 04:33 AM
[quote=papageno]
If causality is important, and assignable, then at some point our quantum mechanics must reduce down to more direct causal relationship between EMF and gravity.
What makes you think that there is a direct causal relationship?

Here a page about that who can blow your mind :D
http://www.electrogravityphysics.com/html/axioms.html

papageno
2004-Nov-22, 10:27 AM
The deBroglie wavelength is a simple mass/Planck’s constant ratio, so all Newtonian gravitational laws can be calculated using deBroglie wavelengths, then converted back to mass.
The De Broglie wavelength of an object is inversely proportional to the momentum.
For macroscopic objects such as an apple or a planet, the wavelength is insignificantly small, meaning that a QM description of a macroscopic object is pointless.
Hence a classical description is used.

The De Broglie wavlength makes sense only for microscopic objects.



Again, Morris Anderson demonstrates the correct relativistic procession in Mercury’s orbit can be predicted by calculating the “deBroglie orbit” of the planet and varying the speed of light near the sun, rather than contracting space and time.
If "De Broglie wavelength" has the usual meaning, the wavelength associated to planets are many orders of magnitude smaller than the accuracy of their size, position and mass.
I really doubt that any reasonable prediction can be made (or, one can fiddle around with the parameters until one gets the result wanted).






Based on the experimental evidence, there is no reason to believe that Einstein's theories are incorrect.The evidence in hand that GR is correct in almost every prediction should tell us either his theories are right, or very close to a correct mathematical interpretation. I argue the failure to detect gravity waves, and the anomalies in acceleration we observe should be considered a significant failure of general relativistic and Newtonian predictions. We do not understand gravity.
One or two things that are not understood, or that do not work as expected, as opposed to many direct and indirect tests that have been succesful.
This is not enough to declare the Theory of General Relativity as a failure.
And this for the same reasons Newtonian Mechanics was not declared a failure when GR came along.
Many succesful test show that GR works. Failed tests help in defining the range where the theory works.

With GR, we understand gravity better than before, but there is no pretension that we understand it completely.





The lack of a satisfactory interpretation of the theory does not make the whole theory phenomenological. "Phenomenological theory" has a clear meaning in physics: can you explain how it applies to Quantum Mechanics?

As an anecdote, I had a lecturer that showed us that Quantum Mechanics and Classical Mechanics have basically the same mathematrical constructs.
The difference between them is that in QM Planck constant is non-zero, while in CM it is zero.
QM does not give us a physical model of the strong force, only a mathematical description of how it works.
Mechanics, be it classical or quantum, tells how the motion of an object changes with the forces acting on it.
It is not meant to explain the origin of those forces.





(This might be the best we can ever hope for.) I like your anecdote. I am not taking issue with quantum mechanical solutions. I am looking for evidence gravity may express itselft in the quantum world as an EMF.
And so far many people, brighter than me, have not found a connection.

(How do you imagine garvity expressing itself as electromagnetism?)



In the ‘Gravity Behaving Badly’ thread, I pointed out that everywhere we expect to find gravity waves, we see electromagnetic waves that have all the characteristics we expect to find in gravity waves.
It is easier to observe EM waves, rather than gravity waves.
Gravity waves are hard to detect in principle, and in practice.



A very good example is in the microwave signatures of binary stars during eclipses: When star ‘A” passes behind star “B”, the signal is heterodyned in a hysteresis at the beginning and ending of the eclipse that is very similar to the hysteresis seen in the movement of a pendulum at the beginning and end of a total eclipse. I do not think this is coincidental: I think the radiowave is what a gravity wave broadcast should look like from a distant place.
They are both waves, as such there are similarities.




The definition of static electricity hasn’t changed much – we understand a little more about how high frequency currents are transmitted, but the basic idea, friction ‘brushing off’ electrons has always been a very weak explanation for static effects.
Why do you think so?
Personally, I do not find it that weak.









People have been trying to blame electromagnetism for gravity, without much success.Yes, I don’ t think they have taken the theory far enough. They have not created an inertial/gravimetric shell, they have not said Einstein, Planck and Newton all have parts of it wrong.
They have taken the theories far enough to see that it leads nowhere...
What do you mean with the last sentence?
They have generally been trying to associate Newtonian or GR gravity with known electromagnetic principles. I am hypothesizing Newton was wrong: inertia is not an inherent property of matter, but a property found only in an electromagnetic framework that weakens with increasing distance from the source of the electromagnetic field.
They already tried to blame electromagnetism for the inertia of an object.
It did not work out (see Feynman's Lectures, vol. 2).




For example: Under this hypothesis, the outer planets are much more massive than Newtonian predictions; they do not ‘fly out’ of their orbits because the inertial field strength is not great enough to move them further from the sun, so they radiate ‘gravitational’ energy instead.
What about the equilvalence principle?
In what sense are they more massive than Newtonian predictions (As far as I remember, Neptune and Uranus were discovered because Newtonian Mechanics works)?
Couldn't you argue the same for the inner planets and the satellites?




This is completely consistent with Maxwell’s equations, and is exactly analogous to the impedance of a radio antenna that broadcasts an electromagnetic wave at a predictable frequency.
This in turn, makes the orbital paths of the planets fairly stable - they will not decay until enough energy has been broadcast to allow the planet to slow into a reduced orbit.
I do not think that comparing the orbit of a planet to an antenna is a good analogy.
Can you explain more about this analogy?






(What does fluid motion have to do with a causal relationship between gravity and electromagnetism?)If gravity is truly a very high frequency electromagnetic force, there should be naturally occurring events where this frequency is reduced, just as scintillating detectors convert cosmic waves to visible wavelengths.

I think the piezo electric effect is a manifestation of this frequency reduction/multiplication phenomena. The gravitational effects in a conductive flowing liquid are clearly non-linear, so similar frequency shifts should also be possible, both adding to and subtracting from the kinetic energy of flowing molecules.
Piezoelectric effects are found in solids, as far as I know.
And I do not quite understand the rest.








We have never detected celestial gravity waves, although we are confident they exist. I think we do see them, at reduced frequencies as electromagnetic waves.
You think? Based on what?The deterioration in the orbits of binary pairs of neutron stars degrade just as predicted by the GR gravity wave theory. The evidence of frame dragging is also consistent with gravity waves existing.
My question was: Why do you think that we see gravity waves "at reduced frequencies as electromagnetic waves"?


About the other post, I have not enough experience in astrophysics and cosmology to comment. :oops:

Lunatik
2004-Nov-22, 04:45 PM
[quote=papageno]
If causality is important, and assignable, then at some point our quantum mechanics must reduce down to more direct causal relationship between EMF and gravity.
What makes you think that there is a direct causal relationship?

Here a page about that who can blow your mind :D
http://www.electrogravityphysics.com/html/axioms.html
Hmmm... interesting. I don't understand why Rognerud thinks there's a connect between the charged particle and gravity, so don't understand why he thinks the electron produces an Electrogravity Field. Does it mean, for example, that an ionized proton has no gravity effect? How about a half life independent neutron? Also, why would a neutron star, devoid of electrons, have gravity? Spin due to solar implosion? Also, the Tampere experimentresults had failed to be duplicated by others. [-(

Otherwise, it blew my mind!

Star Pilot
2004-Nov-22, 10:59 PM
[quote=papageno]
If causality is important, and assignable, then at some point our quantum mechanics must reduce down to more direct causal relationship between EMF and gravity.
What makes you think that there is a direct causal relationship?

Here a page about that who can blow your mind :D
http://www.electrogravityphysics.com/html/axioms.html
Hmmm... interesting. I don't understand why Rognerud thinks there's a connect between the charged particle and gravity, so don't understand why he thinks the electron produces an Electrogravity Field.
He talks about the gravity force between two hydrogen atoms
http://www.electrogravityphysics.com/html/sec_5.html
I let you appreciate the maths whose are way over my head.

The crux of his theory...
http://www.electrogravityphysics.com/html/contents.html

Edited to delete copyrighted material.

Star Pilot
2004-Nov-23, 03:02 PM
About the other post, I have not enough experience in astrophysics and cosmology to comment. :oops:
Dont worry, nobody is perfect! 8)

Jerry
2004-Nov-23, 10:25 PM
He talks about the gravity force between two hydrogen atoms
http://www.electrogravityphysics.com/html/sec_5.html
I let you appreciate the maths whose are way over my head.

The crux of his theory...
http://www.electrogravityphysics.com/html/contents.html
Gravity as a standing wave does not necessarily require an inner-atomic charge differential, and not allow the "DC" offset found in 'lifters' and other psuedo-gravimetric devices...

Jerry
2004-Nov-23, 11:26 PM
The deBroglie wavelength is a simple mass/Planck’s constant ratio, so all Newtonian gravitational laws can be calculated using deBroglie wavelengths, then converted back to mass.
The De Broglie wavelength of an object is inversely proportional to the momentum.
(For macroscopic objects such as an apple or a planet, the wavelength is insignificantly small, meaning that a QM description of a macroscopic object is pointless.)Momentum is a function of mass and relative velocity. If you assign a small angular momentum to the sun relative to the orbit of a planet, it is possible to use iterative solutions to calculate the orbit on this bases – this is what Morris Anderson did. This is a mathematically equivalent solution to classical orbital mechanics. (All you have to do is substitute the mass for the deBroglie wavelengths.)

What is not trivial, is that the procession of Mercury can be predicted by varying the speed of light proportional to the mass, via very small changes in the deBroglie wavelength. This tells us there is (or may be) a much more simple mathematical solution to this complex GR problem. Simple is good. A valid interpretation of this solution is that both the mass and the momentum of objects can vary the speed of light.

What is almost frightening, is that Morris Anderson and I showed up at the same meeting of the APS, and working independently from completely different observational data sets and prospectives, and arrived at the almost the same conclusion.

(Morris was interpreting the results of his equations differently, but the equations completely validate the thesis I was presenting: The results of the Michelson Morley experiment can be interpreted as a variation in the speed of light that is a Lorentz transformation of system momentum.)


The De Broglie wavlength makes sense only for microscopic objects.Wrong! It can be used in the manner I describe above, whether or not you accept the interpretation. It is like demonstrating mathematical equivalence between epicycles and Keplar orbital mechanics, neither system necessarily assigns causality.


…or, one can fiddle around with the parameters until one gets the result wanted.Iterative solutions, using successive approximations to determine the momentum ratios between objects of different masses is completely valid, and this does not introduce ‘waggable” parametric assumptions. Ballisticians use these techniques to determine Mach numbers, which are a function of the Mach number. There is only one real solution set, and the successive approximations increase the accuracy of the initial “guesstimate”.



…Many successful test show that GR works. Failed tests help in defining the range where the theory works. With GR, we understand gravity better than before, but there is no pretension that we understand it completely.
The cosmology that is based upon GR is not working, and the parametric patches cosmologists are applying to it are unreasonable and unscientific.

When I started looking for alternative solutions, my only guideline was that I would stay within Einstienian constrants. This does not work, and if it did, someone like Feynman would have figured this out years ago. It does not work to stay within the Newtonian description of gravity, either.





"Phenomenological theory" has a clear meaning in physics: can you explain how it applies to Quantum Mechanics?Actually, I think you have done that quite well yourself:


Mechanics, be it classical or quantum, tells how the motion of an object changes with the forces acting on it.
It is not meant to explain the origin of those forces.
The ‘strong force’ can be conceptualized as a loosely hanging bungie cord, but no one would accept this interpretation as literal, it is phenomenological.


(…How do you imagine gravity expressing itself as electromagnetism?)
As a high frequency wave, as a soliton, or as a composite soliton matrix. I don't know whether the effects we attribute to gravity have a narrow or wide band of wavelengths.

Imagine that the sun is surrounded standing wave, extending beyond the orbit of Pluto, but weakening with increased distance.

Our solar system becomes a spider web, just as GR equations predict, but the web is made up of standing electromagnetic waves that decrease in strength with increasing distance from the sun, or the earth. When I exert a force down on the earth, it pulls on the web above me, that I am also tied to. I am accelerated upward as this deflection recoils, but all these forces are capacitive/inductively coupled, so the ‘potential’ or inertial energy I have gained is drained off and I fall back to my lowest potential state. (Unless I capture this potential by positioning myself on a step or chair – these are stable emf wells.)

But if I exert enough force to accelerate me to a speed greater than the capacity of the ‘gravimetric’ web, a funny thing happens. I do not break through the web or fall through the chair, but radiate energy instead. Since Newton, we have assumed what we call momentum is intrinsic to the mass of the object. This is not true: Momentum is actually a displacement of a standing wave. When my inertia is too great, I lose momentum by radiating the energy instead. This is exactly what is happening to the Pioneer probes: In electromagnetic terms, their velocity, their deBroglie wavelength hits a wall of high impedance and they slow and radiate.

Dumb Idea? Look what else it explains:

Particles leaving the sun must have near relativistic velocities. Since the gravitational shell near the sun is decreasing in strength by 1/r^2, the velocities of these particles quickly reach the inertial limits, where they slow down immediately and radiate away the energy. This is why the corona of the Sun is much hotter than the surface. (This does not mean the complex GR heat transfer solutions used explain corona temperatures are completely wrong, only that there are more simple solutions.)

At the edges of all galaxies the rotational velocity exceeds the predicted Newtonian values. The current explanation for this, is dark matter forms ‘cuspy’ shells about the edges of galacies. Screw on your head and think about this explanation for a minute: why wouldn’t stars gradually migrate into these shells? Everything we know about energy tells us the older a galaxy gets, the more diffused galaxies should be about these edges. Why doesn’t this happen?

Imagine what you would think if you were walking along the base of the Grand Canyon, and there was not one single evidence of erosion. You would be forced to conclude the Grand Canyon is brand new. And yet this is the type of scenario the current cosmology is presenting us with: Dark matter has been hanging out in the edges of galaxies since the Big Bang and there has been no evidence of aging, material mixing in this relationship.

The fact is, there is no dark non-baryonic matter. Gravity is not what Newton described. It is closer to the field tensors of Einstein, but even Einstein did not realize the causal relationship between inertia and gravity. Bending space and time is an epicyclic description of a very real event. Einstein did not realize the principle of equivalence means a ‘train’ with velocity relative an approaching ‘train’ will change the speed of the light as a function of both the speed and the mass of the train. It is the slowing of the speed of light that is real, not the bending of space and time.




…everywhere we expect to find gravity waves, we see electromagnetic waves that have all the characteristics we expect to find in gravity waves.
It is easier to observe EM waves, rather than gravity waves.
Gravity waves are hard to detect in principle, and in practice. What I mean is this: We see electromagnetic radiation we did not expect to see instead of gravity waves we should see. In supernova explosion, in binary stars and in the galactic center, we see radiation, but we have not detected gravity waves.

Look at the motion of jets as they leave galactic cores: they tie themselves up in knots, and broadcast radio waves like a sinking ship. These knots will never be modeled using current mechanical models. Even jets without knots are much too collimated to model with kinetic theory: Jets should expand like gas from a rocket nozzle. They don’t. They can’t. So they radiate.

This is why Cosmic rays created in the collapse of a supernova have a “knee” in the energy curve: The during a supernova explosion, the conversion of massive amounts of mass into energy also collapses the inertial ‘web’ about the supernova, but the speed of this collapse is limited to the speed of light.

When relativists particles are screaming out from the core of a supernova collapse, they have to emit copious amounts of radiation because the energy of expansion is greater than the inertial field strength. When the collapsing inertial field collides with these energetic particles, the radiation increases at a double exponential rate, and we see this as the knee in cosmic ray spectra.





A very good example is in the microwave signatures of binary stars during eclipses: When star ‘A” passes behind star “B”, the signal is heterodyned in a hysteresis at the beginning and ending of the eclipse that is very similar to the hysteresis seen in the movement of a pendulum at the beginning and end of a total eclipse. I do not think this is coincidental: I think the radio wave is what a gravity wave broadcast should look like from a distant place.
They are both waves, as such there are similarities.True!



They already tried to blame electromagnetism for the inertia of an object.
It did not work out (see Feynman's Lectures, vol. 2).
I don’t have vol. 2, but I will get it. If Feyman assumes Planck limits on wavelengths and energies, it will not work out. Planck’s constant was determined using blackbody data. It is a real limit on what wavelengths baryonic matter can emit at a given speed, but the limit is artificial if it is assumed to be the highest wavelength at which energy exists…I think I can prove that.




For example: Under this hypothesis, the outer planets are much more massive than Newtonian predictions; they do not ‘fly out’ of their orbits because the inertial field strength is not great enough to move them further from the sun, so they radiate ‘gravitational’ energy instead.
What about the equivalence principle?Not a problem, once motion has been redefined. The mass predictions are much higher because the inertial field has less strength.

The rings of Saturn and Jupiter are assumed to stay ‘gathered’ due to a complex herding process involving the moons of these planets. However, no such relationship can possibly exist for the rings of Neptune, even though they also exist in a ‘gathered’ state. Why? Even though kinetic collisions should scatter them, their inertial energy is too weak. If they collide, they radiate, rather than scatter.



In what sense are they more massive than Newtonian predictions (As far as I remember, Neptune and Uranus were discovered because Newtonian Mechanics works)?The discovery is now regarded as primarily coincidental, although the ballpark Newtonian solutions were close.


Couldn't you argue the same for the inner planets and the satellites?Yes. This would decrease the density of Venus and Mercury, but increase the density of Mars, giving Mars about the same density as the Earth, and make Venus quite a bit lighter, putting it in the ballpark density of the moon.



This is completely consistent with Maxwell’s equations, and is exactly analogous to the impedance of a radio antenna that broadcasts an electromagnetic wave at a predictable frequency.


I do not think that comparing the orbit of a planet to an antenna is a good analogy.
Can you explain more about this analogy?Newtonian mechanics are wrong. They work ok on the Earth, and near the Earth as long as the energy in the system does not exceed the inertial capacity of the system, which as close as we are to the sun, is very high.

Try this analogy: The field strength of a magnet follows the 1/r^2 rule, and as long as the mass of an iron filing is less than the field strength of the magnet, it will also align itself in the field.

But if the magnetic field is weak, the filing may fall out of alignment and toward the ground. In the process, as it falls through the magnetic field, it will emit a weak radio signal. This is what I think is happening to stars at the edges of galaxies, and also to the Pioneer probes, when the inertial field strength is less than the kinetic energy in the system, they “fall out” of the predicted orbit, and emit radiation instead.




Piezoelectric effects are found in solids, as far as I know.
And I do not quite understand the rest.Piezo electric crystals vibrate at a resonant wavelength that is proportional to the thickness of the crystal. Reduce the thickness to one molecule and what do you have? A device that moves exactly as you would predict if gravity is the net effect of an extremely high frequency standing electromagnetic wave. The fluid solution is similar, but extremely complex.


My question was: Why do you think that we see gravity waves "at reduced frequencies as electromagnetic waves"?
There are two cases:

1) Assume gravity is electromagnetic: It should be subject to the same redshifting effects we interpret as Doppler shifts. As the frequency of the gravity waves is reduced through this process, gravity becomes detectable at very high frequencies. Cosmic Rays, Xrays near the galactic core, and Xrays we observe in collapsing binaries fall into this category of events.

2) When matter is accelerated beyond the capacity of an inertial field, the motion of the object relative to the field slows and it emits electromagnetic radiation. The frequency of this radiation is inversely proportional to the velocity of the object perpendicular to the field strength: Stars at the edges of galaxies emit radio waves, the frequency can be predicted by the speed of the objects tangent to the field strength.


And so far many people, brighter than me, have not found a connection.It takes an insane amount of confidence in ones own ability to read, decipher, and analyzed data; and concluded Einstein, Feynman and Newton were at least as wrong as they were right. I don’t recommend it. :-?

papageno
2004-Nov-24, 05:31 PM
Momentum is a function of mass and relative velocity. If you assign a small angular momentum to the sun relative to the orbit of a planet, it is possible to use iterative solutions to calculate the orbit on this bases – this is what Morris Anderson did. This is a mathematically equivalent solution to classical orbital mechanics. (All you have to do is substitute the mass for the deBroglie wavelengths.)
The De Broglie wavelength for a macroscopic object is many orders of magnitude smaller than the size of the object itself.
That is why the De Broglie wavelength for a macroscopic object is irrelevant (for the Earth it is about 10^-60 m, 25 orders of magnitude smaller than the Planck length).




What is not trivial, is that the procession of Mercury can be predicted by varying the speed of light proportional to the mass, via very small changes in the deBroglie wavelength. This tells us there is (or may be) a much more simple mathematical solution to this complex GR problem. Simple is good.
Only if it is right.



A valid interpretation of this solution is that both the mass and the momentum of objects can vary the speed of light.
Why would that happen?




[...]


The De Broglie wavlength makes sense only for microscopic objects.Wrong!
Alright, prove it.



It can be used in the manner I describe above, whether or not you accept the interpretation. It is like demonstrating mathematical equivalence between epicycles and Keplar orbital mechanics, neither system necessarily assigns causality.
You did not describe the procedure (I do not even know if we use the same formula for the De Broglie wavelength).




…or, one can fiddle around with the parameters until one gets the result wanted.Iterative solutions, using successive approximations to determine the momentum ratios between objects of different masses is completely valid, and this does not introduce ‘waggable” parametric assumptions.
Since you have not described how the calculations involving the De Broglie wavelength work, I would not know how to comment about these iterative approximations.



Ballisticians use these techniques to determine Mach numbers, which are a function of the Mach number. There is only one real solution set, and the successive approximations increase the accuracy of the initial “guesstimate”.
What does this have to do with orbital mechanics?





…Many successful test show that GR works. Failed tests help in defining the range where the theory works. With GR, we understand gravity better than before, but there is no pretension that we understand it completely.
The cosmology that is based upon GR is not working, and the parametric patches cosmologists are applying to it are unreasonable and unscientific.
Cosmology is not the only test of GR.
And there are many more tests for Special Relativity.



When I started looking for alternative solutions, my only guideline was that I would stay within Einstienian constrants. This does not work, and if it did, someone like Feynman would have figured this out years ago. It does not work to stay within the Newtonian description of gravity, either.
We already knew that Newtonian mechanics and gravity are not complete, but that did not stop us from sending men to the Moon and probes all around the Solar System (by using the Newtonian thoeries).





"Phenomenological theory" has a clear meaning in physics: can you explain how it applies to Quantum Mechanics?Actually, I think you have done that quite well yourself:


Mechanics, be it classical or quantum, tells how the motion of an object changes with the forces acting on it.
It is not meant to explain the origin of those forces.
The ‘strong force’ can be conceptualized as a loosely hanging bungie cord, but no one would accept this interpretation as literal, it is phenomenological. [/quote]
What do you mean with "phenomenological", because "my" meaning of phenomenological does not apply to Classical or Quantum Mechanics.




(…How do you imagine gravity expressing itself as electromagnetism?)
As a high frequency wave, as a soliton, or as a composite soliton matrix.
Wave of what?



I don't know whether the effects we attribute to gravity have a narrow or wide band of wavelengths.

Imagine that the sun is surrounded standing wave, extending beyond the orbit of Pluto, but weakening with increased distance.

Our solar system becomes a spider web, just as GR equations predict, but the web is made up of standing electromagnetic waves that decrease in strength with increasing distance from the sun, or the earth.
Don't you think that these electromagnetic fields would have been observed by now?
The solar wind (which is not constant and is composed of charged particles) does not seem to affect the orbits of planets and satellites.



When I exert a force down on the earth, it pulls on the web above me, that I am also tied to. I am accelerated upward as this deflection recoils, but all these forces are capacitive/inductively coupled, so the ‘potential’ or inertial energy I have gained is drained off and I fall back to my lowest potential state. (Unless I capture this potential by positioning myself on a step or chair – these are stable emf wells.)

But if I exert enough force to accelerate me to a speed greater than the capacity of the ‘gravimetric’ web, a funny thing happens. I do not break through the web or fall through the chair, but radiate energy instead. Since Newton, we have assumed what we call momentum is intrinsic to the mass of the object.
Since Newton we know that the momentum depends on the frame of reference used to observe the motion.




This is not true: Momentum is actually a displacement of a standing wave.
Standing wave of what?



When my inertia is too great, I lose momentum by radiating the energy instead. This is exactly what is happening to the Pioneer probes: In electromagnetic terms, their velocity, their deBroglie wavelength hits a wall of high impedance and they slow and radiate.
What about the planets? They have definitely more inertia than the Pioneer probes.



Dumb Idea? Look what else it explains:

Particles leaving the sun must have near relativistic velocities.
Why?



Since the gravitational shell near the sun is decreasing in strength by 1/r^2, the velocities of these particles quickly reach the inertial limits, where they slow down immediately and radiate away the energy. This is why the corona of the Sun is much hotter than the surface. (This does not mean the complex GR heat transfer solutions used explain corona temperatures are completely wrong, only that there are more simple solutions.)
Simplicity does not make them right?



At the edges of all galaxies the rotational velocity exceeds the predicted Newtonian values. The current explanation for this, is dark matter forms ‘cuspy’ shells about the edges of galacies. Screw on your head and think about this explanation for a minute: why wouldn’t stars gradually migrate into these shells? Everything we know about energy tells us the older a galaxy gets, the more diffused galaxies should be about these edges. Why doesn’t this happen?
Why are the planets still around the Sun?



Imagine what you would think if you were walking along the base of the Grand Canyon, and there was not one single evidence of erosion. You would be forced to conclude the Grand Canyon is brand new. And yet this is the type of scenario the current cosmology is presenting us with: Dark matter has been hanging out in the edges of galaxies since the Big Bang and there has been no evidence of aging, material mixing in this relationship.
Galaxies are not exactly like a gas.
Why would you expect such "mixing".



The fact is, there is no dark non-baryonic matter. Gravity is not what Newton described. It is closer to the field tensors of Einstein, but even Einstein did not realize the causal relationship between inertia and gravity.
WHat about the principle of equivalence?



Bending space and time is an epicyclic description of a very real event. Einstein did not realize the principle of equivalence means a ‘train’ with velocity relative an approaching ‘train’ will change the speed of the light as a function of both the speed and the mass of the train.
Where did you find this?



It is the slowing of the speed of light that is real,
not the bending of space and time.
Yet the experiments say otherwise.
Remember that the secon postulate of Special Relativity is based on experimental evidence.






…everywhere we expect to find gravity waves, we see electromagnetic waves that have all the characteristics we expect to find in gravity waves.
It is easier to observe EM waves, rather than gravity waves.
Gravity waves are hard to detect in principle, and in practice. What I mean is this: We see electromagnetic radiation we did not expect to see instead of gravity waves we should see. In supernova explosion, in binary stars and in the galactic center, we see radiation, but we have not detected gravity waves.
And that is enough for you to say that somehow gravity waves transfoprm into electromagnetic waves?



Look at the motion of jets as they leave galactic cores: they tie themselves up in knots, and broadcast radio waves like a sinking ship. These knots will never be modeled using current mechanical models. Even jets without knots are much too collimated to model with kinetic theory: Jets should expand like gas from a rocket nozzle. They don’t. They can’t. So they radiate.
I do not know enough about astrophysics to comment on this.



This is why Cosmic rays created in the collapse of a supernova have a “knee” in the energy curve: The during a supernova explosion, the conversion of massive amounts of mass into energy also collapses the inertial ‘web’ about the supernova, but the speed of this collapse is limited to the speed of light.

When relativists particles are screaming out from the core of a supernova collapse, they have to emit copious amounts of radiation because the energy of expansion is greater than the inertial field strength.
And not because they are charged particles accelerating?



When the collapsing inertial field collides with these energetic particles, the radiation increases at a double exponential rate, and we see this as the knee in cosmic ray spectra.

[...]



They already tried to blame electromagnetism for the inertia of an object.
It did not work out (see Feynman's Lectures, vol. 2).
I don’t have vol. 2, but I will get it. If Feyman assumes Planck limits on wavelengths and energies, it will not work out. Planck’s constant was determined using blackbody data.
It is not limited to black body radiation.



It is a real limit on what wavelengths baryonic matter can emit at a given speed, but the limit is artificial if it is assumed to be the highest wavelength at which energy exists…I think I can prove that.
:-s





What about the equivalence principle?Not a problem, once motion has been redefined. The mass predictions are much higher because the inertial field has less strength.
Redefine motion?
Why?



The rings of Saturn and Jupiter are assumed to stay ‘gathered’ due to a complex herding process involving the moons of these planets. However, no such relationship can possibly exist for the rings of Neptune, even though they also exist in a ‘gathered’ state. Why?
Why do you say they do not?
How many satellites has Neptune?



Even though kinetic collisions should scatter them, their inertial energy is too weak. If they collide, they radiate, rather than scatter.

They radiate what?





In what sense are they more massive than Newtonian predictions (As far as I remember, Neptune and Uranus were discovered because Newtonian Mechanics works)?The discovery is now regarded as primarily coincidental, although the ballpark Newtonian solutions were close.
"Ballpark"?
The discovery of Uranus was considered the pinnacle of classical orbiatl mechanics.
What make you think that the predictions were "coincidental"?




Couldn't you argue the same for the inner planets and the satellites?Yes. This would decrease the density of Venus and Mercury, but increase the density of Mars, giving Mars about the same density as the Earth, and make Venus quite a bit lighter, putting it in the ballpark density of the moon.
And does this happen?





This is completely consistent with Maxwell’s equations, and is exactly analogous to the impedance of a radio antenna that broadcasts an electromagnetic wave at a predictable frequency.


I do not think that comparing the orbit of a planet to an antenna is a good analogy.
Can you explain more about this analogy?Newtonian mechanics are wrong. They work ok on the Earth, and near the Earth as long as the energy in the system does not exceed the inertial capacity of the system, which as close as we are to the sun, is very high.
You have not explained the analogy.
Anyway, Newtonian Mechanics seems fine for the probes we sent towards the gas giants.
And it seem fine for their satellites.




Try this analogy: The field strength of a magnet follows the 1/r^2 rule, and as long as the mass of an iron filing is less than the field strength of the magnet, it will also align itself in the field.
Comparing gravity to magneitc dipoles is not very helpful.



But if the magnetic field is weak, the filing may fall out of alignment and toward the ground. In the process, as it falls through the magnetic field, it will emit a weak radio signal. This is what I think is happening to stars at the edges of galaxies, and also to the Pioneer probes, when the inertial field strength is less than the kinetic energy in the system, they “fall out” of the predicted orbit, and emit radiation instead.
Why just the Pioneer probes?





Piezoelectric effects are found in solids, as far as I know.
And I do not quite understand the rest.Piezo electric crystals vibrate at a resonant wavelength that is proportional to the thickness of the crystal. Reduce the thickness to one molecule and what do you have?
Well, no crystal. Just a layer of atoms.
Piezoelectricity is found in ionic crystals (each cell has has a positive and a negative ion).



A device that moves exactly as you would predict if gravity is the net effect of an extremely high frequency standing electromagnetic wave. The fluid solution is similar, but extremely complex.
:-s
Can you explain this "connection"?




My question was: Why do you think that we see gravity waves "at reduced frequencies as electromagnetic waves"?
There are two cases:

1) Assume gravity is electromagnetic: It should be subject to the same redshifting effects we interpret as Doppler shifts. As the frequency of the gravity waves is reduced through this process, gravity becomes detectable at very high frequencies. Cosmic Rays, Xrays near the galactic core, and Xrays we observe in collapsing binaries fall into this category of events.
"Assume gravity is electromagnetic"?
What happens if it is not?



2) When matter is accelerated beyond the capacity of an inertial field, the motion of the object relative to the field slows and it emits electromagnetic radiation. The frequency of this radiation is inversely proportional to the velocity of the object perpendicular to the field strength: Stars at the edges of galaxies emit radio waves, the frequency can be predicted by the speed of the objects tangent to the field strength.
What is this "inertial field you keep talking about?



NOTE: can you focus on a few points?
You seem to go off a tangent a bit too often?

Lunatik
2004-Nov-24, 05:41 PM
Jerry: The ‘strong force’ can be conceptualized as a loosely hanging bungie cord, but no one would accept this interpretation as literal, it is phenomenological.
The loosely hanging bungie cord may be an in-radiating gravitic force with a maximum value of F(gravity)=1, declining from there in proportion to the electro-magnetic energy received, so that at E = 9E+16 J, F(gravity) = 5.9E-39 N. This can also be illustrated as F(gravity) = 1 = g, when plugged into the conversion equation G^2 *m = gc^2pi^2, it results in G^2 *(1) = (1)c^2pi^2, so taking the square root, G = c*pi. (This conversion equation was derived from E=mc^2, per m = ~(1-g), so only approximately: E = ~mc^2 = ~E-gc^2; but it's a long story, a paper I still have in mind to finish, though it already handily describes the Pioneers Anomaly.) Regardless, Strong Force = 1 = F(gravity) = max.g, is a maximum value for gravity, what you'll find inside a black hole. This maximum is achieved either because Energy E = 0, or because all symmetrical-ambient-energy is cancelled on zero. Stretch this bungie from any nucleonic-gluonic relationship and it only gets stronger, back towards F = 1. In effect, E and G are inversely proportional, both sides of the same thing: Mass.


Jerry: But if I exert enough force to accelerate me to a speed greater than the capacity of the ‘gravimetric’ web, a funny thing happens. I do not break through the web or fall through the chair, but radiate energy instead. Since Newton, we have assumed what we call momentum is intrinsic to the mass of the object. This is not true: Momentum is actually a displacement of a standing wave. When my inertia is too great, I lose momentum by radiating the energy instead. This is exactly what is happening to the Pioneer probes: In electromagnetic terms, their velocity, their deBroglie wavelength hits a wall of high impedance and they slow and radiate.
Is this a reference to orbital escape velocity? Are you thinking that if the inertial mass becomes too great, the vehicle radiates energy, so it slows and cannot escape its orbit? It could be one way of looking at what's happening to the Pioneers, as per your example. However, it does not explain how this inertial mass becomes greater, if I understand this correctly.

On momentum: Does Momentum is actually a displacement of standing wave, mean also the same for p = mc of photons? Is this why non-massive photons still exhibit momentum? Interesting idea... but I must admit I still do not understand this... Does it mean to say that "lose momentum = radiate energy"? But I still don't understand why...

The planetary densities ideas are right on, at least from my calculations in terms of local inertial-G-mass, lighter density for inner planets, but heavier density for outer planets, with Pluto at half of our Moon's size is dense enough to hold an atmosphere, though it may be an all water ice body! I would word this differently: When my inertia is too great, I lose momentum by radiating the energy instead. This is exactly what is happening to the Pioneer probes: In electromagnetic terms, their velocity, their deBroglie wavelength hits a wall of high impedance and they slow and radiate. Mine equivalent would be: "When inertial mass enters a higher G region, its inertial-G-mass increases, which increases the deBroglie proton mass [viz., E = hc/L(proton mass)], which slows its momentum." I am not yet clear in my head about how this process "radiates" energy, so am forced to leave it there.

Lastly.
Jerry: The rings of Saturn and Jupiter are assumed to stay ‘gathered’ due to a complex herding process involving the moons of these planets. However, no such relationship can possibly exist for the rings of Neptune, even though they also exist in a ‘gathered’ state. Why? Even though kinetic collisions should scatter them, their inertial energy is too weak. If they collide, they radiate, rather than scatter.
There may be another way to view this: Planets radiate black-body heat, which acts in a very small way the Energy is radiated from our Sun, so that this has an influence on the inertial-G-mass locally. The result is that matter close in to the planet has a lower (relative) inertial-G-mass, hence it takes "heavier" molecules to gather, while far from the planet there is higher inertial-G-mass, so "lighter" gather; hence the inner rings are dirty while the outer rings are water ice. This requires an adjustment to our thinking, since we think of closer to planet as being more gravity, but that is not what actually determines the ring composition though it does pull in dirt from space, which sticks in a "lighter" G field, so the inner rings are dirtier. By the same process, the inner black-body heat radiation will affect "gathering" and "clumping", since this planetary heat may radiate in non-uniform fashion. So there may be two processes at work here, what radiates from the planet's black-body heat to affect dirt density, but also what affects non-uniform distribution. This is how the inverse relationship of E and G works out, to my mind. #-o

Caveat, this is still physics as nobody knows it, so don't use it in school, at least not for another few decades! [-X

Ps: Upon looking over Pap's posts above, I feel I should add something about "inertial frames". NOT all inertial frames are equally valid, since different Energy levels will affect the inertial-G-mass density of the inertial frame where this is measured. This puts in question Einstein's first postulate, if it is so.

Jerry
2004-Nov-27, 03:25 AM
Papageo

The De Broglie wavlength makes sense only for microscopic objects.

Wrong!
Alright, prove it.
For a circular orbit,

F=G(m1m2)/r^2

Where m1, m2 are the masses of the objects, r is the distance between the two masses, and G is the Gravitational constant.

deBroglie Wavelength (y) =h/(mv) where m=mass, v=velocity and h = Planck’s constant

m=h/(yv); for the orbital velocity h/v =constant

so m1, m2 = cy1, cy2

As I said, the solution is trivial, and even though this is working with extremely small units, they are just scalars.






A valid interpretation of this solution is that both the mass and the momentum of objects can vary the speed of light.
Why would that happen?

Let me turn the question around: Einstein argued space contracts and time slows down. Why would that happen?

Tesla argued the correct interpretation of the Michelson Morley results is that ALL electromagnetic forces interacted with each other, and this includes photons.

Tesla’s solution assigns causality, Einstein’s does not. In this sense, Einstein’s solution is phenomenological: It tells us what happens, it does not explain why. Tesla never published his theory - I surmise because he was clearly wrong about mc^2. I think they were both half right.






Ballisticians use these techniques to determine Mach numbers, which are a function of the Mach number. There is only one real solution set, and the successive approximations increase the accuracy of the initial “guesstimate”.
What does this have to do with orbital mechanics?It is rather difficult to calculate the momentum of your rocket if you do not know the Mach number of the nozzle. Likewise, the momentum in a gravimetric system is a function of the each of the individual momentums, and the solutions to these problems are solved the same way.



…Many successful test show that GR works. Failed tests help in defining the range where the theory works…
Cosmology is not the only test of GR.
And there are many more tests for Special Relativity.
Yes, GR has been very successful, and any and all theoretical development must demonstrate equivalence in all working solutions, in addition to addressing conditions where GR is not right.

There are at least three theories that do a better job of predicting orbital velocities at the edges of galaxies than Newtonian/GR solutions: MOND, Lunatic’s “increasing gravity” and this ‘field limited inertia/gravity”. None of these are completely developed, none have a particle equivalent, but if GR is conceptually challenged, we have to start somewhere.



(…How do you imagine gravity expressing itself as electromagnetism?)

As a high frequency wave, as a soliton, or as a composite soliton matrix.
Wave of what? Ultra High Frequency Electromagnetic standing waves.


Don't you think that these electromagnetic fields would have been observed by now?
These standing waves are at frequencies we can only weakly detect using atomic nuclei as antenna. We call this gravity.

Whenever this frequency is reduced, through processes such as the piezo electric effect, static electricity, cosmic rays in supernova explosions, lightening, Alfvenic pulses, Mossbauer effects, turbulent flow, galactic radio sources, earthquakes, tides, neutron-neutron star mergers, we have failed to make what is becoming an embarrassingly obvious connection.

I am arguing gravimetric energy is reduced to observable wavelengths in these processes and in cosmic redshifting, and this is why we will never directly observe gravity waves in very distant objects with earth-based gravity detectors.


The solar wind (which is not constant and is composed of charged particles) does not seem to affect the orbits of planets and satellites.Of course it does, but only minutely.



Why are the planets still around the Sun?
The Newtonian explanation not withstanding, it makes at least as much sense for the planets close to the Sun to be less massive, and planets further than the earth to be more massive with a g-factor that increases with distance, as in Lunatic’s solution.

Or if, as in ‘jerry’s’ solution, the orbital paths are limited because inertial motion is not intrinsic: When the inertial field strength is less than the momentum of the object, the momentum is lost as radiation. Since we don't know this is happening, we underestimate the masses of the more distant planets. (We also wonder why their surface temperatures are soo warm, and this is at least a part of the solution to this conundrum.)





…Dark matter has been hanging out in the edges of galaxies since the Big Bang and there has been no evidence of aging, material mixing in this relationship.
Galaxies are not exactly like a gas.
Why would you expect such "mixing".
When a supernova explodes, it should scatter and disrupt galactic flow for eons, and when supernova explode near the edges of galaxies, there should be evidence of extended debris fields into the ‘tuffs’ of dark matter at the edges of galaxies. The amount of scatter should be proportional to the age of the galaxies. There is no evidence anywhere of this ‘blown tire’ effect.

The supernova 1987A explosion in the Large Magellanic cloud started a debris field, then curiously settled into an oblong ‘ring’ that sporatically glows as more stuff collides with it. If this ring (it is not a shell) is in the plane of the LMC, It is exactly what the field-limited inertia hypothesis predicts. (There should also be a much smaller debris ‘shell’ in the non-planer directions).




Bending space and time is an epicyclic description of a very real event. Einstein did not realize the principle of equivalence means a ‘train’ with velocity relative an approaching ‘train’ will change the speed of the light as a function of both the speed and the mass of the train.
Where did you find this?
This is in the cosmology I am trying to develop on the BABB “Against the Mainstream” pages. As Lunatik said, don't expect anything here to be gospel, and I have been wrong a few times, but so far, so good.

I hope you will hang around - your questions are excellent=D>, very helpful thanks, sorry I am not more clear and succinct.

papageno
2004-Nov-27, 12:56 PM
The De Broglie wavlength makes sense only for microscopic objects.

Wrong!
Alright, prove it.
For a circular orbit,

F=G(m1m2)/r^2

Where m1, m2 are the masses of the objects, r is the distance between the two masses, and G is the Gravitational constant.

deBroglie Wavelength (y) =h/(mv) where m=mass, v=velocity and h = Planck’s constant

m=h/(yv); for the orbital velocity h/v =constant

so m1, m2 = cy1, cy2

As I said, the solution is trivial, and even though this is working with extremely small units, they are just scalars.
Sorry, but this is not good enough.
I gave you a numerical example: the De Broglie wavelength of the Earth in its orbit around the Sun is of the order of 10^-60 m, 25 orders of magnitude smaller than the Planck length.
How can you argue that this quantity is meaningful for a macroscopic object?

(By the way, m = c y? Shouldn't it be m = c / y, where c = h / v?)








A valid interpretation of this solution is that both the mass and the momentum of objects can vary the speed of light.
Why would that happen?
Let me turn the question around: Einstein argued space contracts and time slows down. Why would that happen?
Look at where Einstein starts.
The principle of relativity (both special and general) is physically reasonable (and got rid of some embarassing inconsistencies in classical physics).
The other postulates are based on experiments (speed of light in vacuum independent of the speed of the source; principle of equivalence).




Tesla argued the correct interpretation of the Michelson Morley results is that ALL electromagnetic forces interacted with each other, and this includes photons.
What about interference?
Interference works because EM waves do not interact.

Also, the Michelson-Morley experiment is not the only and decisive test.



Tesla’s solution assigns causality, Einstein’s does not. In this sense, Einstein’s solution is phenomenological: It tells us what happens, it does not explain why. Tesla never published his theory - I surmise because he was clearly wrong about mc^2. I think they were both half right.

What do you mean with "causality"?
WHat do you mean with "why it happens"?
If you look at Special Relativity, the speed of light in vacuum is an upper limit for the transfer of information, because otherwise there would be a violation of causality.








Ballisticians use these techniques to determine Mach numbers, which are a function of the Mach number. There is only one real solution set, and the successive approximations increase the accuracy of the initial “guesstimate”.
What does this have to do with orbital mechanics?It is rather difficult to calculate the momentum of your rocket if you do not know the Mach number of the nozzle. Likewise, the momentum in a gravimetric system is a function of the each of the individual momentums, and the solutions to these problems are solved the same way.
This Mach number seems to be more of an engineering problem.
(JayUtah would be handy here.)
What does this have to do with orbits interpreted in terms of De Broglie wavelengths?





[...]


(…How do you imagine gravity expressing itself as electromagnetism?)

As a high frequency wave, as a soliton, or as a composite soliton matrix.
Wave of what? Ultra High Frequency Electromagnetic standing waves.


Don't you think that these electromagnetic fields would have been observed by now?
These standing waves are at frequencies we can only weakly detect using atomic nuclei as antenna. We call this gravity.
With atoms we can detect EM waves from light to X-rays (remember the emission spectra of gases?).
How are gravity waves converted into EM waves?
"Ultra High Frequency Electromagnetic waves" detected with atoms: that means the frequency is not even as high as gamma rays



Whenever this frequency is reduced, through processes such as the piezo electric effect, static electricity, cosmic rays in supernova explosions, lightening, Alfvenic pulses, Mossbauer effects, turbulent flow, galactic radio sources, earthquakes, tides, neutron-neutron star mergers, we have failed to make what is becoming an embarrassingly obvious connection.
"Obvious connection"?
Please provide some evidence.



I am arguing gravimetric energy is reduced to observable wavelengths in these processes and in cosmic redshifting, and this is why we will never directly observe gravity waves in very distant objects with earth-based gravity detectors.
How is it reduced?






The solar wind (which is not constant and is composed of charged particles) does not seem to affect the orbits of planets and satellites.Of course it does, but only minutely.
So minutely that Newtonian Mechanics can predict eclipses decades in advance.





Why are the planets still around the Sun?
The Newtonian explanation not withstanding, it makes at least as much sense for the planets close to the Sun to be less massive, and planets further than the earth to be more massive with a g-factor that increases with distance, as in Lunatic’s solution.
Why should this make sense?



Or if, as in ‘jerry’s’ solution, the orbital paths are limited because inertial motion is not intrinsic: When the inertial field strength is less than the momentum of the object, the momentum is lost as radiation. Since we don't know this is happening, we underestimate the masses of the more distant planets. (We also wonder why their surface temperatures are soo warm, and this is at least a part of the solution to this conundrum.)
What is this "inertial field"?







…Dark matter has been hanging out in the edges of galaxies since the Big Bang and there has been no evidence of aging, material mixing in this relationship.
Galaxies are not exactly like a gas.
Why would you expect such "mixing".
When a supernova explodes, it should scatter and disrupt galactic flow for eons, and when supernova explode near the edges of galaxies, there should be evidence of extended debris fields into the ‘tuffs’ of dark matter at the edges of galaxies. The amount of scatter should be proportional to the age of the galaxies. There is no evidence anywhere of this ‘blown tire’ effect.

How many supernovae happen in a galaxy?
Why would we be able to observe the effects after a long time?



The supernova 1987A explosion in the Large Magellanic cloud started a debris field, then curiously settled into an oblong ‘ring’ that sporatically glows as more stuff collides with it. If this ring (it is not a shell) is in the plane of the LMC, It is exactly what the field-limited inertia hypothesis predicts. (There should also be a much smaller debris ‘shell’ in the non-planer directions).

I am not an expert of supernovae, but doesn't it look like an explosion in an "atmosphere"?







Bending space and time is an epicyclic description of a very real event. Einstein did not realize the principle of equivalence means a ‘train’ with velocity relative an approaching ‘train’ will change the speed of the light as a function of both the speed and the mass of the train.
Where did you find this?
This is in the cosmology I am trying to develop on the BABB “Against the Mainstream” pages. As Lunatik said, don't expect anything here to be gospel, and I have been wrong a few times, but so far, so good.

Let me try gain:
What makes you think that "the principle of equivalence means a ‘train’ with velocity relative an approaching ‘train’ will change the speed of the light as a function of both the speed and the mass of the train. "

One more thing:
I really would like to know what you mean when you say that a theory is "phenomenological".

Jerry
2004-Nov-27, 11:31 PM
… E and G are inversely proportional, both sides of the same thing: Mass.Cool! Except I think E &amp; G are the same thing so I need to figure out if what you said is even applicable.

If I understand correctly, you are describing the acceleration in terms of increasing gravimetric strength with increasing distance – I am looking at this as weakening inertia. I think the mathematics are equivalent, and I like the causality can be assigned via weakening inertia, whereas I don't see what would be the limiting case if G is increasing.


…their deBroglie wavelength hits a wall of high impedance and they slow and radiate.
Is this a reference to orbital escape velocity?[/quote]No. Time for another analogy:

A clever but bad designer could build a circular model train with a battery in the engine connected to a coil of wire suspended above rails of the track, and with each rail containing a coil of it’s own.

With carefully switching of the rail coils, it would be feasible to keep the train in motion by distributing the magnetic attraction induced in the ‘track’ coils by the engine’s own battery. As long as the train is moving at a constant speed dictated by resonant switching of the coils, there will be a impedance limiting the current in the Train’s DC battery circuit. (A really clever engineer could accomplish this without switches, using the circuit’s natural resonant frequency.)

But if I give the engine a push, placing it out of sinc with the switching in the coils, the spacing between the engine and the inductive loading would be thrown out of phase, the impedance in the engine’s coil would decrease, and the energy normally producing motion would be radiated as heat loss in the engine’s DC coil. With the coupling lost, the train would slow quickly until it was back in-sinc with the driving circuit.

This is exactly what I think is happening at the edges of galaxies, and in the pioneer probes: The motion we call the inertia of a planet is a resonant inductive coupling of the standing waves of the sun with the standing waves of the planets.

With increasing distance from the Sun, the inductive coupling of the energy necessary to maintain that motion weakens and the “inertial” energy transfer becomes less efficient. Energy that cannot be expressed as motion is radiated as microwaves, the fundamental frequency of which is proportional to the ‘speed’ of the planet to the fixed position of the sun and the speed of light.

This also explains how the sun captured the planets and stuffed them into such highly circular orbits. If you try capture a planet wandering close to a system, it should have a highly eliptical orbit - planets do not have retrorockets.

If there is a resonant frequency dependance in the orbits of the planets, they are emitting radation during the periods of acceleration, and absorbing some kinetic energy while the relative speed of the planet is falling below its optimum orbital velocity.

Lunatik
2004-Nov-28, 07:17 PM
Jerry: Or if, as in ‘Jerry's’ solution, the orbital paths are limited because inertial motion is not intrinsic: When the inertial field strength is less than the momentum of the object, the momentum is lost as radiation. Since we don't know this is happening, we underestimate the masses of the more distant planets. (We also wonder why their surface temperatures are so warm, and this is at least a part of the solution to this conundrum.)
I had not thought of the planets' surface temperature before, but that is most interesting! It may be an important clue to how lost momentum in greater 'g' space is converted to radiation. Very nice addendum theory to my proposal, since both can work together well. I like it! :lol:

Jerry: ...snip.... If there is a resonant frequency dependence in the orbits of the planets, they are emitting radation during the periods of acceleration, and absorbing some kinetic energy while the relative speed of the planet is falling below its optimum orbital velocity.
This echoes mine where at the perihelion planets accelerate in their orbital velocity as their inertial-G-mass falls off, and in the aphelion their orbital velocity slows as their inertial-G-mass increases, so we have the Newtonian-Keplerian results of elliptical orbital velocities observed. I had not thought of it in terms of resonant frequency model, but I see what you mean, and a similar effect results. Food for thought on how this translates into converting kinetic energy into radiant energy, viz. planetary heat. This would imply that planets in their effectively optimum orbits are heat regulating their black-body interior heat, which I had worked out elsewhere that this heat differential between the total orbital Energy and interior heat has some relationship to the rate of a planet's spin, which is spooky. It means the planets either accelerate or slow in their spin per the energy locked inside them, though this is for now merely a conjecture. If anyone is interested in seeing how this looks, though it is not a proof, see "Does Gravity Zero-point Energy Explain Spin" at: http://www.humancafe.com/cgi-bin/discus/show.cgi?70/145.html , in the posts dated: July 28 to August 7, 2004, in particularly the last. However, I could take it no further, so I let it rest for now.

Keep on thinkin', the answers are out there.

Jerry
2004-Nov-28, 08:01 PM
You seem to go off a tangent a bit too often.
NOTE: can you focus on a few points?

1) Newton’s description of inertia is wrong. If you study the fluid dynamics of a ship cutting through the water you will find that once a ship is up to speed, much of the energy used to part and slid through the water is recovered as the water on trailing contours of the ship ‘push it forward’. All of our experience is based in electromagnetic fields that behave exactly like this fluid example. All motion is due to electromagnetic imbalances. The ship is not only cutting through the ocean, it is also moving within a displaced electromagnetic field exhibiting a force we call inertia.

2) Einstein’s description of relativity is wrong. Space does not contract and expand, Time is not variable. The speed of light varies in any and every electromagnetic environment, not due to some classical ether, but because all motion in an electromagnetic world is interactive. A “photon’s” movement through space is slowed when the “gravitational” field strength it encounters increases.



What do you mean with "causality"?
What do you mean with "why it happens"?
I really would like to know what you mean when you say that a theory is "phenomenological".

When Newton launched his award-winning theory of planetary motion, he was quite apologetic. He was careful to explain his method of calculating this action-at-a-distance was phenomenological, meaning, a mathematical solution that describes the motions we observe, but not the cause. He wasn’t comfortable with the answer, disclaiming in his paper that the door was open for further study and correction.

If Newton had held in his hands the observational data we hold today, he would not have been bound by his own prior assumptions. He would have included considerations for the peculiar orbits of galaxies and the Pioneer probes. He would have incorporated relativity, he might have even assigned causality, but he would not have invoked dark matter to make the observational data fit the theory. The scientific community in 1750 would never have accepted an answer that included 'dark stuff'. Neither should we.



…How are gravity waves converted into EM waves?...
"Ultra High Frequency Electromagnetic waves" detected with atoms: that means the frequency is not even as high as gamma rays. …"…Obvious connection"?????
Please provide some evidence. I showed a very poor choice of words in that post, implying gravity is in the UHF bandwidth - in prior posts, I have said "ultra ultra ultra high frequency', because I am not certain of the band width of 'gravity'. I can only state 'gravity waves' start at gamma wavelengths.

If this is true, there should be naturally occurring phenomena where the frequency of this electromagnetic field is reduced to observable wavelengths.

I am arguing everything from nuclear detonations to cat hair reduce gravitational frequencies to where we can observe them:

When there are earthquakes and when volcanoes erupt, there are electromagnetic disturbances in the ionosphere. This is why.

When rain falls over dry air, there is lightening. This is why.

When supernovae explode, they emit tremendous ‘gamma rays from hell”. The frequency of this radiation cannot be explained using mainstream physical interpretations, especially the ‘knee’ in the power function. Supernovae expansion ‘brakes’ too quickly, no known mechanism can explain supernova gamma ray afterglows. This is why.

The rotational curves of galaxies cannot be explained with conventional physics. Each of these phenomena, and many others I have touched upon, are direct evidence of this alternative theory of gravity, applying direct causal relationships.

The best evidence (outside of supernovae) may be in the explosion of a Pershing II rocket motor:

In 1985, in Germany, a Pershing II missile was being loaded into a wooden crate for shipping when an intense static spark ignited the motor in an explosion that killed three people. There is a video of the event, and many rocket scientists spent hundreds of hours trying to make sense out of it.

In the video, the rocket motor is suspended above the crate by two Kevlar straps attached to a crane. It is easy to see how a static potential could exist: Kevlar is a very good insulator, and a round conductive missile case is a nearly ideal surface for storing a static charge.

What was mystifying was how such a powerful charge was induced into the motor. It was capped on both ends, and nothing touch the motor from the time it was hoisted from the shipping container until it exploded.

It is a somewhat mistaken notion that solid rocket fuels are easily ignited. The energy build-up necessary to cause a power electric arc to the case, heating it to a temperature hot enough to ignite the propellant seemed impossible – there did not appear to be nearly enough “rubbing” motion in the entire process to produce more than a whisker of static charge.

I watched that film a dozen times before concluding somehow that charge had to be induced in the isolated propellant grain inside the motor, and there is no known physical mechanism for building a static charge imbalance inside a faraday shield.

But now the mechanism is very obvious. Propellant contains small particles of aluminum trapped in non-conductive plastic. As the crane operator slowly adjusted the motor up and down with a small series of motions, each start and stop made slight displacements of the gravitational field.

It is a well known, but poorly understood fact that starting the motion of any object, even on a very slick surfaces, takes more energy than the ‘inertial’ force and the coefficient of drag combined. This ‘initial force’ is assumed to be a type of hydrogen bonding, but this does not really explain why this bonding only occurs in a stationary system.

What really happens is like this:
The string of a violin must first be displaced by the low frequency motion of the musician's arm pulling the bow across the string and inducing tension. Because of this, the first pitch of the string is extremely low, then energy is released at the characteristic frequency of the string.

The initial movement of a high frequency system should also induce energy at a much lower frequency. When the crane operator started and stopped lifting the case, This low frequency deflection is ‘picked up’ as a charge in the individual aluminum grains isolated inside the propellant. The charges on each grain repel away from each other and bleed onto the outside circumference of the case. Each starting and stopping of the crane motor repeated this process, and the net result was a highly charged outer surface of the case.

It is very difficult to explain how this charge became so powerful, unless this starting and stopping motion was converted directly into static electricity. Similar scenarios can easily be constructed for landsides, earthquakes, grit blasting - any time we see static events.



I gave you a numerical example: the De Broglie wavelength of the Earth in its orbit around the Sun is of the order of 10^-60 m, 25 orders of magnitude smaller than the Planck length.
How can you argue that this quantity is meaningful for a macroscopic object?

(By the way, m = c y? Shouldn't it be m = c / y, where c = h / v?) :oops: That depends upon how late at night the answer is posted.

The De Broglie wavelength of interest is the atomic wavelength, not the DB wavelength of the entire system. It is a way to express the energy/mass of a system such that wave mechanics can be used to calculate orbits, as Morris Anderson has demonstrated (http://anderson.morris.home.att.net).





Tesla argued the correct interpretation of the Michelson Morley results is that ALL electromagnetic forces interacted with each other, and this includes photons.
What about interference?
Interference works because EM waves do not interact.
The predicted level of interaction between two “photons” is immeasurably small. Photon-photon interaction is only a factor over cosmic distances. As we all know, it takes an extremely dense or massive object, or relativistic speed to appreciably alter the attributes of a photon.





I am arguing gravimetric energy is reduced to observable wavelengths…and this is why we will never directly observe gravity waves in very distant objects with earth-based gravity detectors.
How is it reduced?
Cosmic redshifting, which is not caused by “expansion of space”, but has a number of assignable causes, the most important of which may be extremely small increments of energy lost through ‘photon-photon’ interactions...



…This Mach number seems to be more of an engineering problem…
What does this have to do with orbits interpreted in terms of De Broglie wavelengths?
Nothing. You implied Morris was smuggling in fudge factors to make the wave equations work. I was only stating iterative solutions are both valid and necessary in approximating orbital periods.







Why are the planets still around the Sun?
The Newtonian explanation not withstanding, it makes at least as much sense for the planets close to the Sun to be less massive, and planets further than the earth to be more massive with a g-factor that increases with distance, as in Lunatic’s solution...
Why should this make sense? Because it fits the observational data and assigns causality. Strictly Newtonian/Einsteinian solutions do not.


What is this "inertial field"?
Another poor choice of words. I am trying to conceptualize momentum as an imbalance in electromagnetic fields. Since the physical descriptions are new, so is the terminology.






…Dark matter has been hanging out in the edges of galaxies since the Big Bang and there has been no evidence of aging, material mixing in this relationship.
Galaxies are not exactly like a gas.
Why would you expect such "mixing".
When a supernova explodes, it should scatter and disrupt galactic flow for eons, and when supernova explode near the edges of galaxies, there should be evidence of extended debris fields into the ‘tuffs’ of dark matter at the edges of galaxies. The amount of scatter should be proportional to the age of the galaxies. There is no evidence anywhere of this ‘blown tire’ effect.





How many supernovae happen in a galaxy?
Why would we be able to observe the effects after a long time?
I am not an expert of supernovae, but doesn't it look like an explosion in an "atmosphere"? Yes. Supernova occur in our galaxy every few hundred years. There should be supernova debris all over the place. It is as if each galaxy has it’s own can of ‘fix a flat’.



What makes you think that "the principle of equivalence means a ‘train’ with velocity relative an approaching ‘train’ will change the speed of the light as a function of both the speed and the mass of the train. "
Did I say that? Let me try gain:

In Einstein’s realization of the equivalence principle, there is no discernable difference in the acceleration of an inertial system, and acceleration due to gravity.

But “Inertia” as Newton describes it, does not exist, and neither does gravity: Tesla is right: all motion is governed by electromagnetic imbalances, and the equivalence principle is true because gravity and inertia are the same force, not because they are equivalent. Notice that with this definition, there is never truly ‘constant’ motion. All motion involves accelerations.


Caveat, this is still physics as nobody knows it, so don't use it in school, at least not for another few decades! [-X This is why this discussion is on the ‘against the mainstream’ thread. If it turns out to be true, the BA gets credit for helping rewrite physics, if it is debunked – well, that is what this webpage is for: Fun, isn’t it?

Jerry
2004-Nov-28, 08:32 PM
I had not thought of the planets' surface temperature before, but that is most interesting! It may be an important clue to how lost momentum in greater 'g' space is converted to radiation. Very nice addendum theory to my proposal, since both can work together well. I like it! :lol:
Of course, we can, and the more we disagree, the better.

I decided many months ago I was not getting anywhere soon enough arguing with publishers and astrophysical departments. Peer review means at least a reasonable portion of what you are stating should fall within the body of accepted physical laws. This is unreasonable :-?


Energy and interior heat has some relationship to the rate of a planet's spin, which is spooky. It means the planets either accelerate or slow in their spin per the energy locked inside them, though this is for now merely a conjecture.

No,This is not surprising.

Take a few steps back and look at the entire galaxy: Hell, we know the mass and kinetic energy are related by e=mc^2, so we should expect the average kinetic energy of each galaxy to be function of the total mass. We should also know that the Pioneer probes are bending into an orbit about the sun, and emitting energy to do so.

Now assume every star with enough kinetic energy to go zinging towards the outer edge of the galaxy emits energy as it 'tries" to seek a lower orbit. The average rotational velocity of these stars should reflect the mass/energy function of the galaxy the same way a thermometer reflects the kinetic energy of a pot of boiling chocolate. What we have just described here is the Tully-Fisher relationship! The rotational energy at the edges of galaxies is proportional to the total mass and the total energy of the system!

The Tully-Fisher relationship is 'tight over at least 7 magnitudes (a factor of 600 in luminosity!)' {Simard (http://lanl.arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/9902147)}. With the morphological corrections of Bell (http://lanl.arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0407591) &amp; Russell and if you include H2 cloud corrections of http://lanl.arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0411521, it is even tighter.

Can anyone else explain that with your cosmology?

papageno
2004-Nov-29, 10:37 AM
1) Newton’s description of inertia is wrong. If you study the fluid dynamics of a ship cutting through the water you will find that once a ship is up to speed, much of the energy used to part and slid through the water is recovered as the water on trailing contours of the ship ‘push it forward’.
I am sure that there is an expert of fluid dynamics on this board.
Maybe he can tell us whether fluid dynamics uses mostly classical mechanics or not.
I am pretty sure that it does.
But you have still to explain why we managed to put a man on the Moon and send plenty of probes throughout the Solar System, not to mention predict ecplipses decades in advance.
And all this using Newtonian Mechanics.



All of our experience is based in electromagnetic fields that behave exactly like this fluid example. All motion is due to electromagnetic imbalances. The ship is not only cutting through the ocean, it is also moving within a displaced electromagnetic field exhibiting a force we call inertia.
And after two centuries we still cannot describe gravity and inertia purely in terms of electromagnetic fields (not to mention that two other interactions have been discovered).



2) Einstein’s description of relativity is wrong.
Please provide some evidence.
So far it agrees fairly well with experimental results, and is theoretically solid.



Space does not contract and expand, Time is not variable. The speed of light varies in any and every electromagnetic environment, not due to some classical ether, but because all motion in an electromagnetic world is interactive.
The world is not purely electromagnetic.
For example, what keeps the protons bound in a nucleus?



A “photon’s” movement through space is slowed when the “gravitational” field strength it encounters increases.

I think that this is a result in GR.





What do you mean with "causality"?
What do you mean with "why it happens"?
I really would like to know what you mean when you say that a theory is "phenomenological".

When Newton launched his award-winning theory of planetary motion, he was quite apologetic. He was careful to explain his method of calculating this action-at-a-distance was phenomenological, meaning, a mathematical solution that describes the motions we observe, but not the cause. He wasn’t comfortable with the answer, disclaiming in his paper that the door was open for further study and correction.
Classical mechanics did not stop with Newton.
What about the Lagrangian formulation or the Hamiltonian formulation of Classical Mechanics?



If Newton had held in his hands the observational data we hold today, he would not have been bound by his own prior assumptions. He would have included considerations for the peculiar orbits of galaxies and the Pioneer probes. He would have incorporated relativity, he might have even assigned causality, but he would not have invoked dark matter to make the observational data fit the theory. The scientific community in 1750 would never have accepted an answer that included 'dark stuff'. Neither should we.
Have you experimental evidence that supports your rejection of "dark stuff"?






…How are gravity waves converted into EM waves?...
"Ultra High Frequency Electromagnetic waves" detected with atoms: that means the frequency is not even as high as gamma rays. …"…Obvious connection"?????
Please provide some evidence. I showed a very poor choice of words in that post, implying gravity is in the UHF bandwidth - in prior posts, I have said "ultra ultra ultra high frequency', because I am not certain of the band width of 'gravity'. I can only state 'gravity waves' start at gamma wavelengths.
Why should they?
What happens for a pendulum oscillating at one cycle per second?



If this is true, there should be naturally occurring phenomena where the frequency of this electromagnetic field is reduced to observable wavelengths.
And why not increased?



I am arguing everything from nuclear detonations to cat hair reduce gravitational frequencies to where we can observe them:

When there are earthquakes and when volcanoes erupt, there are electromagnetic disturbances in the ionosphere. This is why.

When rain falls over dry air, there is lightening. This is why.

When supernovae explode, they emit tremendous ‘gamma rays from hell”. The frequency of this radiation cannot be explained using mainstream physical interpretations, especially the ‘knee’ in the power function. Supernovae expansion ‘brakes’ too quickly, no known mechanism can explain supernova gamma ray afterglows. This is why.

The rotational curves of galaxies cannot be explained with conventional physics. Each of these phenomena, and many others I have touched upon, are direct evidence of this alternative theory of gravity, applying direct causal relationships.
So, are you saying that since the current theories cannot explain everything, they are wrong?
How does any of your examples disprove the current theories, especially considering all the experimental evidence that supports them?



The best evidence (outside of supernovae) may be in the explosion of a Pershing II rocket motor...

[...]

But now the mechanism is very obvious. Propellant contains small particles of aluminum trapped in non-conductive plastic. As the crane operator slowly adjusted the motor up and down with a small series of motions, each start and stop made slight displacements of the gravitational field.
So, why did it happen only once?
And why do you exclude other (unintentional) ways for charging the system?



It is a well known, but poorly understood fact that starting the motion of any object, even on a very slick surfaces, takes more energy than the ‘inertial’ force and the coefficient of drag combined. This ‘initial force’ is assumed to be a type of hydrogen bonding, but this does not really explain why this bonding only occurs in a stationary system.
Are you saying that since we do not perfectly understand friction, our theories are wrong?



[...]

It is very difficult to explain how this charge became so powerful, unless this starting and stopping motion was converted directly into static electricity. Similar scenarios can easily be constructed for landsides, earthquakes, grit blasting - any time we see static events.
Yet, only one of these rockets exploded.
How come it does not happen every time such a rocket is moved around?





I gave you a numerical example: the De Broglie wavelength of the Earth in its orbit around the Sun is of the order of 10^-60 m, 25 orders of magnitude smaller than the Planck length.
How can you argue that this quantity is meaningful for a macroscopic object?


The De Broglie wavelength of interest is the atomic wavelength, not the DB wavelength of the entire system.
WHY?
You are talking about the orbit of a planet.
It is like applying Quantum Mechanics to the Solar System.




It is a way to express the energy/mass of a system such that wave mechanics can be used to calculate orbits, as Morris Anderson has demonstrated (http://anderson.morris.home.att.net).
And why wouldn't you use the De Broglie wavelength of a planet?







Tesla argued the correct interpretation of the Michelson Morley results is that ALL electromagnetic forces interacted with each other, and this includes photons.
What about interference?
Interference works because EM waves do not interact.
The predicted level of interaction between two “photons” is immeasurably small. Photon-photon interaction is only a factor over cosmic distances. As we all know, it takes an extremely dense or massive object, or relativistic speed to appreciably alter the attributes of a photon.
But the Michelson-Morley experiment was performed here on Earth and employed interference of light.
Why should the experiment be interpreted in terms of photon-photon scattering?







I am arguing gravimetric energy is reduced to observable wavelengths…and this is why we will never directly observe gravity waves in very distant objects with earth-based gravity detectors.
How is it reduced?
Cosmic redshifting, which is not caused by “expansion of space”, but has a number of assignable causes, the most important of which may be extremely small increments of energy lost through ‘photon-photon’ interactions...
Above you were saying "everything from nuclear detonations to cat hair reduce gravitational frequencies".
But you still have to explain why gravity waves are converted into EM waves.






…This Mach number seems to be more of an engineering problem…
What does this have to do with orbits interpreted in terms of De Broglie wavelengths?
Nothing. You implied Morris was smuggling in fudge factors to make the wave equations work. I was only stating iterative solutions are both valid and necessary in approximating orbital periods.


If "De Broglie wavelength" has the usual meaning, the wavelength associated to planets are many orders of magnitude smaller than the accuracy of their size, position and mass.
I really doubt that any reasonable prediction can be made (or, one can fiddle around with the parameters until one gets the result wanted).

After three posts you finally told me that it is not the De Broglie wavelength of the whole planet.
I am under the impression that you do not read carefully my posts.



Because it fits the observational data and assigns causality. Strictly Newtonian/Einsteinian solutions do not.
How come we managed to send a man to the Moon and several probes throughout the Solar System.
Not to mention all the succesful tests (direct and indirect) of Special Relativity.





What is this "inertial field"?
Another poor choice of words. I am trying to conceptualize momentum as an imbalance in electromagnetic fields. Since the physical descriptions are new, so is the terminology.
The idea of explaining inertia in terms of electromagnetic fields is not exactly new.






How many supernovae happen in a galaxy?
Why would we be able to observe the effects after a long time?
I am not an expert of supernovae, but doesn't it look like an explosion in an "atmosphere"? Yes. Supernova occur in our galaxy every few hundred years. There should be supernova debris all over the place. It is as if each galaxy has it’s own can of ‘fix a flat’.
One supernova every few hundred years?
Is that enough to have an observable effect on large scale after a long time?
Why should we be able to observe the debris after a long time?





What makes you think that "the principle of equivalence means a ‘train’ with velocity relative an approaching ‘train’ will change the speed of the light as a function of both the speed and the mass of the train. "
Did I say that? Let me try gain:

In Einstein’s realization of the equivalence principle, there is no discernable difference in the acceleration of an inertial system, and acceleration due to gravity.

But “Inertia” as Newton describes it, does not exist, and neither does gravity: Tesla is right: all motion is governed by electromagnetic imbalances, and the equivalence principle is true because gravity and inertia are the same force, not because they are equivalent. Notice that with this definition, there is never truly ‘constant’ motion. All motion involves accelerations.
Inertia is not a force.
What happens to motion of particles that involves the strong interaction?

JMB
2004-Nov-29, 04:18 PM
Drag from striking dust particles on a spin stabilized craft may explain why the anomilies only affect the Pioneer project measurably. The Voyager project would be less affected due to their steeper angle out of the ecliptic. (less dust to create drag on a thruster stabilized craft.)


The solution is very simple if the CREIL is taken into account:
The CREIL is an interaction between electromagnetic beams which propagate in excited atomic hydrogen. It produces transfers of energy allowed by thermodynamics, in the practice from high frequency beams whose frequency is decreased to low frequency beams whose frequency is increased. Generally, the low frequency are thermal (2.7K). Here, the thermal radiation is mixed with the radio emission, and it gets energy from the Solar light where there is exciited atomic hydrogen. This hydrogen is provided by the combination of the protons and electrons of the solar wind where this wind is cold enough, at the limits of the Solar system reached by the Pioneers.

Jerry
2004-Nov-30, 06:26 PM
Newton’s description of inertia is wrong… Einstein’s description of relativity is wrong.
Please provide some evidence. So far it agrees fairly well with experimental results, and is theoretically solid.

Both General Relativity and Newtonian mechanics describe an unstable universe: it should be expanding or contracting, and for about a hundred years now, theorists have been trying to satisfy these criteria with the Big Bang model.

When the Big Bang theory was established, there were three critical observations:

1) Light element content: with +95% of the known matter of the universe being composed of hydrogen and helium, it seemed to be a simple task to extrapolate backward to a primal event.

2) Once a primal event had been described, it was apparent there should be evidence the universe was expanding outward…or if the density of the universe was greater than a critical value, it should be contracting. The cosmic redshift appeared to be evidence of continued expansion.

3) If the physics of the primal event have been correctly modeled, a uniform remnant in the form of a highly redshifted cosmic background should remain in a uniform microwave black-body: The Cosmic Microwave Background.

In addition to these key elements, a vast amount of cosmic aging data has been assembled.

What’s wrong with this picture?

1: Light element ratios. The most distant quasars we have observed have the same ratio of iron to hydrogen as our own solar system. While light/heavy element ratios vary dramatically in different types of star clusters within our own galaxy, there is simply no evidence of chemical aging in the universe.

2:The scale of the universe, the size and number of distant galaxy clusters, far out-paces the predictions made in the 1960’s. To explain how this could happen, it has been theorized a single ‘reflective’ event occurred, and evidence of this appear in the cosmic microwave background. A search for this secondary peak yielded a peak in the power spectrum of the Cosmic Microwave background that is one-hundredth of the predicted magnitude.

3: If the universe is expanding, the distance between galaxies, and the spacing between galactic clusters should also be increasing. There is no evidence of this. The Doppler interpretation of redshift should show a timing delay in the light-curves of supernova. But the most distant supernova we observe have light-curves of the same length as the brightest supernova in the local population. There is no evidence of expansion.

To work around this fact, supernova researchers are applying a free parameter, the ‘stretch factor’ to these distant supernova to correct for time dilation that is not there. This causes the rise times to decrease with increasing distance and assigns relatively low magnitudes to the most distant events – an unnatural reverse selection bias.

On top of all this, the Hubble Ultra deep-field, the radio and the X-ray surveys all reveal a constant barrage of more distant point sources.

To compensate for these gross modeling failures, many major revisions have been made to the big bang model. These include dark energy and dark matter, an earlier population of iron enriching stars and an inflationary period.

In spite of the failure of all three of the core evidences of the Big Bang, cosmologist have been pacified in making these assumptions by an almost endless body of evidence of cosmic evolution. This includes peaks in the populations of quasars, blue galaxies, supernova and evolution of galaxy clusters.

The problem with this evidence is all of these peaks occur in rings, and in the fairly recent past. This geocentric trend is not natural and therefore not real.

If these trends were real, we should expect to find the evolutionary trends in the metal content and in the morphologies of galaxy families as they age, and this is just not happening. Beyond the local ring freatures, we find the same ratio of galaxy types, the same metallicity trends in all galaxies.

What is going on?

The apparently recent peak in cosmic evolutionary trends can be explain if there is both a cosmic redshift, and an intrinsic redshift in certain types of bright objects: Blue galaxies, quasars, and galaxies with active galactic nuclei.

But to explain this intrinsic redshift, and to explain the rotation of the edges of galaxies, it is necessary to identify the root cause of this failure. The root cause is the Newtonian interpretation of inertia.




Classical mechanics did not stop with Newton.
What about the Lagrangian formulation or the Hamiltonian formulation of Classical Mechanics?
These are just Newtonian mechanics transformed into different but equivalent frames of reference.


The world is not purely electromagnetic.
For example, what keeps the protons bound in a nucleus?

The existence of the weak and strong forces is based upon a need to isolate &amp; transfer electromagnetic and gravitational forces.
I haven’t dug into that yet, but I am convinced gravity is electromagnetic; and once quantum mechanics have been reshuffled around to handle this, the need for the Weak &amp; Strong forces may disappear as well.




A “photon’s” movement through space is slowed when the “gravitational” field strength it encounters increases.

I think that this is a result in GR.In Einstein’s solution, the speed of the photon is held constant and the change is chalked up to variances in space and time.[/quote]



Have you experimental evidence that supports your rejection of "dark stuff"?
Yes.

First: there has been about a twenty year search that has ruled out hot and cold baryonic matter.

Second: The results are in on Edelweiss (http://lanl.arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0411629) and the Super-Kamiokande (http://lanl.arxiv.org/abs/hep-ex/0404025): WHIMPS are a noshow.

Third: The accelerations of the pioneer probe are inconsistent with a Newtonian gravity.

Fourth: There is no current dark matter model that is consistent with observational data.

Fifth: There is no evidence of mixing of dark matter with baryonic matter over cosmic time. One or two supernova explosions every three hundred years translates to hundreds of thousands over the life of our galaxy. We should not expect the dust from these explosions to stay in the galactic plane, especially if dark matter gravitational field is out there:

Looking at galaxies a few hundred million years younger than the Milky Way, we should see quite predictable morphological changes and increases in heavy metal content due to a million supernova explosions. We have not found any evidence of either.

(It is worth noting that in order to fit the light-curves of the first distant supernova with expanded local templates, these supernova are assumed to suffer from no galactic dust reddening. Subsequent studies of distant galaxies with Chandra &amp; Newton and the Hubble telescopes have shown these assumptions to be fallacious.)

Sixth: Why isn’t there any dark matter right here, right now? The cosmological principles says we should not expect the physical universe to be different in our place and time. Where is it? Dark Matter could explain the acceleration of the Pioneer probes, but this would mean the obits of the outer planets are also out of kilter.





I can only state 'gravity waves' start at gamma wavelengths.
Why should they?
What happens for a pendulum oscillating at one cycle per second?

If Gravity is really standing weak gamma waves, they can be modulated to convey low frequency information.



...If this is true, there should be naturally occurring phenomena where the frequency of this electromagnetic field is reduced to observable wavelengths.
And why not increased?It can. Converting energy to matter does this.


So, are you saying that since the current theories cannot explain everything, they are wrong?
When a theory is incapable of explaining a reproducible event within its domain, the theory has to be modified. Often this only requires a minor tweak, but I am of the opinion our minor tweaks have been missing the boat for two centuries.



The best evidence (outside of supernovae) may be in the explosion of a Pershing II rocket motor...

So, why did it happen only once?Very similar events occurred in France and in the US. It was determined, much to everyone’s surprised, that electric fields can exist in the propellant grain of solid rocket motors, even when they are in Faraday cages.

These events have proven virtually impossible to duplicate, but they happen. As far as I know, no one ever suspected starting and stopping motions could make dramatic contributions to the charge build-up, so I am anxious to see if this can be duplicated.

Oh, I had a fact wrong: The Pershing II has a nonconductive Kevlar case, so the charge arced through the case and into the propellant grain. Subseqeunt testing proved these fields can also exist in motors with conductive cases.





But the Michelson-Morley experiment was performed here on Earth and employed interference of light.M&amp;M was a null result, within the margin of experimental error, there was no detection of ether flow. If they had tried the experiment in the ‘z’ verses the ‘x’ axis, they would have observed the slowing of the speed of light due to gravity. (Which Einstein has interpreted as a variation in space time.)


Above you were saying "everything from nuclear detonations to cat hair reduce gravitational frequencies".
But you still have to explain why gravity waves are converted into EM waves.I am saying gravity waves are standing EM waves at extremely high frequencies. A disruption of one of these wave surfaces in one direction can lead to an ‘S’ wave in a tangent plane at a much lower frequency. This would explain why earthquakes disrupt the ionsphere, and they do.


After three posts you finally told me that it is not the De Broglie wavelength of the whole planet. I am under the impression that you do not read carefully my posts.To be honest, I was not sure how to answer the question.

The sun is made up mostly of protons, each vibrating at a characteristic frequency. As these standing waves move away from the sun, natural resonance will occur at lower frequencies that are functions of the diameter of the sun, the temperature and pressure gradients within the sun, ect.

The earth will likewise emit waves the very in an extremely complex pattern of natural resonance. One of the strongest of these patterns will be a ratio of the total mass of sun to the total mass of the earth.

If you plunked a huge plunger mechanism down in the middle of the ocean, and pushed it up and down, it could create huge circular waves, and a surfer could find a ring around the plunger in which his mass, his momentum exactly matched the curvature of these waves, and he could surf around the plunger without ever falling off the wave. That is just what the earth is doing.


How come we managed to send a man to the Moon and several probes throughout the Solar System. Not to mention all the succesful tests (direct and indirect) of Special Relativity.

By having a model that is a close approximation of reality. Ptolomey could predict eclipses, and when planets moved into retrograde. It is no accident both the physics of Ptolomey and the Physics of Feynman require unnatural retro motions to explain real world events.

Lunatik
2004-Nov-30, 09:36 PM
Newton’s description of inertia is wrong… Einstein’s description of relativity is wrong.
Please provide some evidence. So far it agrees fairly well with experimental results, and is theoretically solid.

Both General Relativity and Newtonian mechanics describe an unstable universe: it should be expanding or contracting, and for about a hundred years now, theorists have been trying to satisfy these criteria with the Big Bang model.

When the Big Bang theory was established, there were three critical observations:

1) Light element content: with +95% of the known matter of the universe being composed of hydrogen and helium, it seemed to be a simple task to extrapolate backward to a primal event.

2) Once a primal event had been described, it was apparent there should be evidence the universe was expanding outward…or if the density of the universe was greater than a critical value, it should be contracting. The cosmic redshift appeared to be evidence of continued expansion.

3) If the physics of the primal event have been correctly modeled, a uniform remnant in the form of a highly redshifted cosmic background should remain in a uniform microwave black-body: The Cosmic Microwave Background.

In addition to these key elements, a vast amount of cosmic aging data has been assembled.

What’s wrong with this picture?

1: Light element ratios. The most distant quasars we have observed have the same ratio of iron to hydrogen as our own solar system. While light/heavy element ratios vary dramatically in different types of star clusters within our own galaxy, there is simply no evidence of chemical aging in the universe.

2:The scale of the universe, the size and number of distant galaxy clusters, far out-paces the predictions made in the 1960’s. To explain how this could happen, it has been theorized a single ‘reflective’ event occurred, and evidence of this appear in the cosmic microwave background. A search for this secondary peak yielded a peak in the power spectrum of the Cosmic Microwave background that is one-hundredth of the predicted magnitude.

3: If the universe is expanding, the distance between galaxies, and the spacing between galactic clusters should also be increasing. There is no evidence of this. The Doppler interpretation of redshift should show a timing delay in the light-curves of supernova. But the most distant supernova we observe have light-curves of the same length as the brightest supernova in the local population. There is no evidence of expansion.

To work around this fact, supernova researchers are applying a free parameter, the ‘stretch factor’ to these distant supernova to correct for time dilation that is not there. This causes the rise times to decrease with increasing distance and assigns relatively low magnitudes to the most distant events – an unnatural reverse selection bias.

On top of all this, the Hubble Ultra deep-field, the radio and the X-ray surveys all reveal a constant barrage of more distant point sources.

To compensate for these gross modeling failures, many major revisions have been made to the big bang model. These include dark energy and dark matter, an earlier population of iron enriching stars and an inflationary period.

In spite of the failure of all three of the core evidences of the Big Bang, cosmologist have been pacified in making these assumptions by an almost endless body of evidence of cosmic evolution. This includes peaks in the populations of quasars, blue galaxies, supernova and evolution of galaxy clusters.

The problem with this evidence is all of these peaks occur in rings, and in the fairly recent past. This geocentric trend is not natural and therefore not real.

If these trends were real, we should expect to find the evolutionary trends in the metal content and in the morphologies of galaxy families as they age, and this is just not happening. Beyond the local ring freatures, we find the same ratio of galaxy types, the same metallicity trends in all galaxies.

What is going on?

The apparently recent peak in cosmic evolutionary trends can be explain if there is both a cosmic redshift, and an intrinsic redshift in certain types of bright objects: Blue galaxies, quasars, and galaxies with active galactic nuclei.

But to explain this intrinsic redshift, and to explain the rotation of the edges of galaxies, it is necessary to identify the root cause of this failure. The root cause is the Newtonian interpretation of inertia.
...snip...




But the Michelson-Morley experiment was performed here on Earth and employed interference of light.M&amp;M was a null result, within the margin of experimental error, there was no detection of ether flow. If they had tried the experiment in the ‘z’ verses the ‘x’ axis, they would have observed the slowing of the speed of light due to gravity. (Which Einstein has interpreted as a variation in space time.)


Above you were saying "everything from nuclear detonations to cat hair reduce gravitational frequencies".
But you still have to explain why gravity waves are converted into EM waves.I am saying gravity waves are standing EM waves at extremely high frequencies. A disruption of one of these wave surfaces in one direction can lead to an ‘S’ wave in a tangent plane at a much lower frequency. This would explain why earthquakes disrupt the ionosphere, and they do... snip...
Could a disruption of EM waves be 'shadowed' by gravity waves on the perpendicular?

If EM waves move in shock wave fashion though the space medium, their waves may on the tangent, or perpendicular, ripple the space vacuum in such a way that the gravity waves ripple there, but perpendicularly or tangentially to the EM shock wave's propagation. The problem with this is two fold, however: 1) is the frequency the same for both, or are they somehow inversely proportional? 2) what happens at above (extremely short lambda) gamma ray frequencies, or below the (long lambda) photo-electric frequencies? Presumably, both EM and gravitic waves would travel at the same velocity v = c, but some measures have put gravity at powers of magnitude above lightspeed (per Van Flandern: http://www.ldolphin.org/vanFlandern/gravityspeed.html "Speed of Gravity).

What I have trouble with is visualizing how we measure a force at the perpendicular, or tangent, of EM waves? Do we even have a model on how to do this, if these gravity waves exist? I suspect we had not yet found them because our instruments only measure readings "head on" but not at right angle. So unless we can model such an instrument, we are left in the dark, though "radiation from changes in inertial mass" may offer us some clues, if this is what happens. This then reverts back to the top portion of this post, regarding an expanding universe postulated from cosmic light redshift: If EM energy as it travels throught the space vacuum is tagged by a tangential wave of gravity, this may be the mechanism that siphons off its energy as it gradually converts back to its perpedicularly attached gravitic wave. The result? Redshift! Conversely, when gravity takes hold of momentum energy (i.e., distant Pioneer probes), this may be the mechanism for converting that energy into EM radiation...

... But I am now on the bow edge of my consciousness, so can't offer much more than this... for now, or it could get really loony. #-o

JMB
2004-Dec-01, 08:07 AM
Only a few words about this good discussion:

- In the Lyman forest of the quasars, many authors found a periodicity of the redshifts equal to 0.062. This periodicity results from the propagation of an UV rich continuous spectrum in atomic hydrogen (the redshifts needed to put the Lyman beta and gamma lines to the alpha are 3*0.062 and 4*0.062). The theory of the CREIL shows that this effect occurs by atoms of hydrogen in the state of principal quantum number n=2 (H*). At the temperature of the generation of the forest (20000 K), hydrogen is atomic, not excited; its excitation for a CREIL effect requires a Ly alpha absorption, an oscillation appears which generates the lines: the origin of the Lyman forest is purely physical, in a (neartly) homogeneous cloud of atomic hydrogen. This generation of lines provides a relative stabilisation of the temperature too.

As it appears that the redshifts of the quasars are mainly intrinsic, most of the arguments for the BB fall. A lot of other redshifts (and the blueshift of the radio of the Pioneers) occur where H* may appear.

About an electromagnetic origin of the gravitation : We know that the reduction of the zero point field between two objects produces an attraction of the objects. Maybe, a similar effect at very high frequencies could be the Newtonian attraction.

For a stationary universe, it is necessary to break the increase of entropy, in particular finding a well to decrease the thermal electromagnetic energy. Is it an increase of the energy of the neutrinos (which is not quantified) by this energy, then a generation of matter from these neutrinos ? Hum ! not serious !

papageno
2004-Dec-01, 10:54 AM
Newton’s description of inertia is wrong… Einstein’s description of relativity is wrong.
Please provide some evidence. So far it agrees fairly well with experimental results, and is theoretically solid.
Both General Relativity and Newtonian mechanics describe an unstable universe: it should be expanding or contracting, and for about a hundred years now, theorists have been trying to satisfy these criteria with the Big Bang model.
What about the tests that are not linked to cosmology?
If you say that Newton's theory is wrong, you have to explain why it agrees with experiments.

Since cosmology is not my field, I skip your points about the interpretation of the observations in cosomlogy.



The root cause is the Newtonian interpretation of inertia.
As I said, physics did not stop with Newton.





Classical mechanics did not stop with Newton.
What about the Lagrangian formulation or the Hamiltonian formulation of Classical Mechanics?
These are just Newtonian mechanics transformed into different but equivalent frames of reference.
The Lagrangian approach has been carried over into quantum field theory.
The Hamiltonian approach has been carried over into quantum mechanics.






The world is not purely electromagnetic.
For example, what keeps the protons bound in a nucleus?

The existence of the weak and strong forces is based upon a need to isolate &amp; transfer electromagnetic and gravitational forces.
I haven’t dug into that yet, but I am convinced gravity is electromagnetic; and once quantum mechanics have been reshuffled around to handle this, the need for the Weak &amp; Strong forces may disappear as well.
You are convinced?
This sounds a lot like you start from the conclusion and work backwards to justify it.
On what basis are you convinced that gravity is electromagnetic in nature?





Have you experimental evidence that supports your rejection of "dark stuff"?
Yes.

First: there has been about a twenty year search that has ruled out hot and cold baryonic matter.

Second: The results are in on Edelweiss (http://lanl.arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0411629) and the Super-Kamiokande (http://lanl.arxiv.org/abs/hep-ex/0404025): WHIMPS are a noshow.

Third: The accelerations of the pioneer probe are inconsistent with a Newtonian gravity.

Fourth: There is no current dark matter model that is consistent with observational data.
Have you evidence that shows unambiguously that general relativity is wrong?
What about the planets and the probes we sent out?
Can you explain why there are no anomalous accelerations for them?



Fifth: There is no evidence of mixing of dark matter with baryonic matter over cosmic time. One or two supernova explosions every three hundred years translates to hundreds of thousands over the life of our galaxy. We should not expect the dust from these explosions to stay in the galactic plane, especially if dark matter gravitational field is out there:
On what basis do you "expect"?



Looking at galaxies a few hundred million years younger than the Milky Way, we should see quite predictable morphological changes and increases in heavy metal content due to a million supernova explosions. We have not found any evidence of either.

(It is worth noting that in order to fit the light-curves of the first distant supernova with expanded local templates, these supernova are assumed to suffer from no galactic dust reddening. Subsequent studies of distant galaxies with Chandra &amp; Newton and the Hubble telescopes have shown these assumptions to be fallacious.)

Sixth: Why isn’t there any dark matter right here, right now? The cosmological principles says we should not expect the physical universe to be different in our place and time. Where is it? Dark Matter could explain the acceleration of the Pioneer probes, but this would mean the obits of the outer planets are also out of kilter.
The same can be said if Newtonian mechanics is wrong out there.
If the Pioneer probes experience an anomalous acceleration, because Newtonian mechanics is wrong, the orbits of the outer planets should be affected as well.







I can only state 'gravity waves' start at gamma wavelengths.
Why should they?
What happens for a pendulum oscillating at one cycle per second?

If Gravity is really standing weak gamma waves, they can be modulated to convey low frequency information.
"If... it is really..."?
What if it is not?
Why should gravity have anything to do with standing weak gamma waves?
Why don't we observe these gamma waves as EM waves (since we can observe gamma radiation)?






...If this is true, there should be naturally occurring phenomena where the frequency of this electromagnetic field is reduced to observable wavelengths.
And why not increased?
It can. Converting energy to matter does this.
How?





So, are you saying that since the current theories cannot explain everything, they are wrong?
When a theory is incapable of explaining a reproducible event within its domain, the theory has to be modified.
Show that these unexplained phenomena are in its domain.



Often this only requires a minor tweak, but I am of the opinion our minor tweaks have been missing the boat for two centuries.
On what basis are you convinced?






The best evidence (outside of supernovae) may be in the explosion of a Pershing II rocket motor...

So, why did it happen only once?Very similar events occurred in France and in the US. It was determined, much to everyone’s surprised, that electric fields can exist in the propellant grain of solid rocket motors, even when they are in Faraday cages.

These events have proven virtually impossible to duplicate, but they happen. As far as I know, no one ever suspected starting and stopping motions could make dramatic contributions to the charge build-up, so I am anxious to see if this can be duplicated.
If this has to do with "slight displacements of the gravitational field", why is it so hard to reproduce?
What is so special about these rockets?





But the Michelson-Morley experiment was performed here on Earth and employed interference of light.
M&amp;M was a null result, within the margin of experimental error, there was no detection of ether flow. If they had tried the experiment in the ‘z’ verses the ‘x’ axis, they would have observed the slowing of the speed of light due to gravity. (Which Einstein has interpreted as a variation in space time.)
This was not the goal of the experiment.
Anyway, gravitational red-shift has been observed in other experiments.

The point was:
Tesla interpreted the result of the Michelson-Morley experience as effect of interaction between electromagnetic forces.
I pointed out that the experiment uses interference of light, which works if photons do not interact.
You replied that photon-photon interaction "is only a factor over cosmic distances".
And my question was: since the experiment was performed here on Earth, over short distances, why should it be interpreted in terms of interaction between photons?
(Unless you do not agree with Tesla's interpretation, which begs the question why you cited him in the first place.)






Above you were saying "everything from nuclear detonations to cat hair reduce gravitational frequencies".
But you still have to explain why gravity waves are converted into EM waves.I am saying gravity waves are standing EM waves at extremely high frequencies.
On what basis do you say that?
Do you have experimental evidence or some solid theoretical speculation (which does not contradict established physical facts)?




A disruption of one of these wave surfaces in one direction can lead to an ‘S’ wave in a tangent plane at a much lower frequency. This would explain why earthquakes disrupt the ionsphere, and they do.
Is this the only way earthquakes can affect the ionosphere?
On what basis do you exclude more "conventional" mechanisms?






After three posts you finally told me that it is not the De Broglie wavelength of the whole planet. I am under the impression that you do not read carefully my posts.To be honest, I was not sure how to answer the question.
You kept referring to Morris Anderson!
Instead of dancing around the issue, you could have simply said that you were not sure how to answer.



The sun is made up mostly of protons, each vibrating at a characteristic frequency. As these standing waves move away from the sun, natural resonance will occur at lower frequencies that are functions of the diameter of the sun, the temperature and pressure gradients within the sun, ect.
How does the De Broglie wavelength come into the picture, then?
What about nuclear fusion and the solar wind?
Why don't these affect the orbits of the planets?




The earth will likewise emit waves the very in an extremely complex pattern of natural resonance. One of the strongest of these patterns will be a ratio of the total mass of sun to the total mass of the earth.
Considering that these masses are not exactly constant, why are the orbits stable?
Also, what does this have to do with De Broglie wavelength?




If you plunked a huge plunger mechanism down in the middle of the ocean, and pushed it up and down, it could create huge circular waves, and a surfer could find a ring around the plunger in which his mass, his momentum exactly matched the curvature of these waves, and he could surf around the plunger without ever falling off the wave. That is just what the earth is doing.
And what would be this "plunger mechanism"?
What does it have to do with De Broglie wavelength?
Why are these "rings" so stable for the planets?






How come we managed to send a man to the Moon and several probes throughout the Solar System. Not to mention all the succesful tests (direct and indirect) of Special Relativity.

By having a model that is a close approximation of reality. Ptolomey could predict eclipses, and when planets moved into retrograde. It is no accident both the physics of Ptolomey and the Physics of Feynman require unnatural retro motions to explain real world events.
If the assumptions of the current theories are wrong, why do they work so well?

JMB
2004-Dec-01, 01:25 PM
The point was:
Tesla interpreted the result of the Michelson-Morley experience as effect of interaction between electromagnetic forces.
I pointed out that the experiment uses interference of light, which works if photons do not interact.

As, in quantum mechanics you can use the wave representation (although there are discussions about the wave equation of the photon), the best in studies of interferences is using this representation which is the classical representation by Maxwell's equations too. Thus, in Michelson's experiment, there are interferences which may be considered as interactions between photons if you want to introduce photons (quantum mechanics is not clear about its wave-particle duality).

In the vacuum, Maxwell's equations are linear, so that the FIELDS provided by two solutions are independant, but the ENERGIES are not, it is the interferences. At high energies, Maxwell's equations do not work anymore because e+/e- pairs may be created.

The problem is different in matter: the dynamical polarisation which allows to explain the refraction may be detected, providing non-destructive observations of light. More generally lasers beam propagating in a common medium interact coherently if convenient conditions are fulfilled, for instance:
-the sum of the wave vectors is zero
-the light pulses are ultrashort.

This last condition has a bad name, because the length of the pulses must be compared. G. L. Lamb wrote it must be shorter than "all relevant time constants". "ultrashort" is not an absolute property of a pulse, it depends on the matter.
With laser femtosecond pulses, this condition is fulfilled by nearly all matter. With ordinary incoherent light (nanosecond pulses), in the practice, atomic hydrogen in its n=2 states is needed (called H*).

The transfers of energy by propagation in H*, from the light beams which have the highest Planck's temperature to the colder beams shift the frequencies. In astrophysics, these transfers occur where there is H* (quasars...), and the energy is transferred isotropically to the thermal radiation (2.7K or "hot dust").

Michelson and Morley experiment is complicated, but its result is simply a consequence of Maxwell's equations in the vacuum.

papageno
2004-Dec-01, 01:56 PM
The point was:
Tesla interpreted the result of the Michelson-Morley experience as effect of interaction between electromagnetic forces.
I pointed out that the experiment uses interference of light, which works if photons do not interact.
As, in quantum mechanics you can use the wave representation (although there are discussions about the wave equation of the photon), the best in studies of interferences is using this representation which is the classical representation by Maxwell's equations too. Thus, in Michelson's experiment, there are interferences which may be considered as interactions between photons if you want to introduce photons (quantum mechanics is not clear about its wave-particle duality).
Interference of EM waves (i.e., linear superposition) is not photon-photon scattering.

If Jerry did not mean photon-photon scattering when he said


Tesla argued the correct interpretation of the Michelson Morley results is that ALL electromagnetic forces interacted with each other, and this includes photons.
then the point is moot.



In the vacuum, Maxwell's equations are linear, so that the FIELDS provided by two solutions are independant, but the ENERGIES are not, it is the interferences. At high energies, Maxwell's equations do not work anymore because e+/e- pairs may be created.
Which is where Quantum Electrodynamics comes into the picture.



[...]

Michelson and Morley experiment is complicated, but its result is simply a consequence of Maxwell's equations in the vacuum.
If there is no material medium for EM waves, or if the material medium is dragged along the Earth's surface.

Lunatik
2004-Dec-01, 07:28 PM
papageno: The same can be said if Newtonian mechanics is wrong out there.
If the Pioneer probes experience an anomalous acceleration, because Newtonian mechanics is wrong, the orbits of the outer planets should be affected as well.
Pap, you have to be careful here, comparing two seperate pheonomena: Planets are in stable orbits within a constant Newton's G band in relation to their mean distance from the Sun (per mine, on variable Newton's G, above posts). Space probes, or comets, cut across these bands of constant G, so they behave differently, if G is a variable. ALL our distant probes should exhibit acceleration anomalies from near Jupiter (5.2 AU) and beyond, though not all are conducive to measuring this if they are in-flight adjusted, or don't have communications capability to allow for it. If their trajectories are more circular, using planets as sling-shot boosters, then these calculations become more difficult to detect, within a margin of error. The Pioneers are on an escape path out of the solar system, so more obvious. Planets are NOT on an escape path from the solar system, so not the same.

Jerry
2004-Dec-02, 04:07 AM
Presumably, both EM and gravitic waves would travel at the same velocity v = c, but some measures have put gravity at powers of magnitude above lightspeed (per Van Flandern: http://www.ldolphin.org/vanFlandern/gravityspeed.html "Speed of Gravity). Tom’s arguments do not hold up well under a microscope. The freshman 2-body gravitational solution does not include the integration of the motions of the bodies over the time delay. To calculate the earth’s momentum vector, this integration begins about eight minutes before and ends eight minutes after the solution moment, and this averages out to be the ‘current location’ plugged into the simplified equation. The correct solution to the apparent GPS dilemma is similar, but much more complex.

Tom also uses some minor double speak to explain why the speed of gravity in the laboratory, which has been measure as near the speed of light, is not the celestial speed. To my knowledge there are no experiments inside the earth/moon radius that are at odds with Newtonian predictions EXCEPT for static drag.

The recently reported frame dragging experiments show quite conclusively gravity waves exist, and propagate at the speed of light. These results are inconsistent with Tom’s predictions.

JMB
2004-Dec-02, 07:22 AM
Interference of EM waves (i.e., linear superposition) is not photon-photon scattering.
If you like it. The important is knowing where energy is available by squaring the total field.
[/quote]


Which is where Quantum Electrodynamics comes into the picture.

Or nonlinearities in classical electrodynamics.
[/quote]



Michelson and Morley experiment is complicated, but its result is simply a consequence of Maxwell's equations in the vacuum.
If there is no material medium for EM waves, or if the material medium is dragged along the Earth's surface.
I agree : I wrote "complicated" because MM experiment is a source of infinite discussions; therefore, its conclusion, the relativity, is better introduced from Maxwell's equations.

JMB
2004-Dec-02, 07:30 AM
.... two seperate pheonomena: Planets are in stable orbits within a constant Newton's G band in relation to their mean distance from the Sun (per mine, on variable Newton's G, above posts). Space probes, or comets, cut across these bands of constant G, so they behave differently, if G is a variable.
To be demonstrated. The orbits of the planets are not circles, and they were observed for a very long time.

papageno
2004-Dec-02, 09:59 AM
The same can be said if Newtonian mechanics is wrong out there.
If the Pioneer probes experience an anomalous acceleration, because Newtonian mechanics is wrong, the orbits of the outer planets should be affected as well.
Pap, you have to be careful here, comparing two seperate pheonomena:
They are not separate.
If Newtonian Mechanics fails for the Pioneer probes, why does it work for the outer planets, which are in the same region of space?



Planets are in stable orbits within a constant Newton's G band in relation to their mean distance from the Sun (per mine, on variable Newton's G, above posts). Space probes, or comets, cut across these bands of constant G, so they behave differently, if G is a variable.
Halley's comet did not exhibit anomalies in its orbit, as far as I know.



ALL our distant probes should exhibit acceleration anomalies from near Jupiter (5.2 AU) and beyond, though not all are conducive to measuring this if they are in-flight adjusted, or don't have communications capability to allow for it. If their trajectories are more circular, using planets as sling-shot boosters, then these calculations become more difficult to detect, within a margin of error. The Pioneers are on an escape path out of the solar system, so more obvious. Planets are NOT on an escape path from the solar system, so not the same.
The "shape" of the orbits does not matter, because they are determined by gravitational interaction (kinetic energy of the object).
Unless we missed some other mechanism in the case of the Pioneer probes.
Saying that the anomalous acceleration of the Pioneer probes is a failure of Newtonian mechanics is cherry picking: one has to explain why there are no anomalies in other, similar cases.

Demigrog
2004-Dec-02, 05:06 PM
I notice that nobody on this thread has brought up the local expansion explanation. I've read several papers explaining the Pioneer 10/11 anomaly as the local effect of expansion along the propagation path of the radio waves used to communicate with the probes.

http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/gr-qc/pdf/9810/9810085.pdf

Do we need new physics after all?

Edited for spelling

Lunatik
2004-Dec-02, 05:55 PM
I notice that nobody on this thread has brought up the local expansion explanation. I've read several papers explaining the Pioneer 10/11 anomaly as the local effect of expansion along the propagation path of the radio waves used to communicate with the probes.

http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/gr-qc/pdf/9810/9810085.pdf

Do we need new physics after all?
Very interesting paper showing an alternative reason for Pioneers Anomaly due to expanding space in our solar system, though the conclusion fails to show this relatioship numercially, as to why the hypothesis results in -a=~8.5E-8 cm/s^2. I am no expert in space expansion, but I had seen elsewhere that solar systems and galaxies are exempt from such expansion due to gravity considerations within these gravitational-matter-systems, so expansion is reserved for the very great distances between galaxies and clusters. Of course, if cosmic redshift is from non-Doppler effect, but a redshift illusion, then expanding space within the solar system is thrown into doubt further. Also, there may be EM redshifting taking place within shorter distances, so that by Pluto's orbit it should already be evident, though Pluto itself is not expanding away from us, that we know of.

Lunatik
2004-Dec-02, 06:46 PM
The same can be said if Newtonian mechanics is wrong out there.
If the Pioneer probes experience an anomalous acceleration, because Newtonian mechanics is wrong, the orbits of the outer planets should be affected as well.
Pap, you have to be careful here, comparing two separate phenomena:
They are not separate.
If Newtonian Mechanics fails for the Pioneer probes, why does it work for the outer planets, which are in the same region of space?
It is not a "failure" of Newtonian Mechanics, since we had used it to estimate mass and orbital mechanics for the planets. Where it leaves out part of the story is that our estimates for mass may be wrong if G is different, but the result is still the same as if G were truly a universal constant, and planets continue in their orbits without anomalies. As I said, the only way to see this is to have a planet leave it's orbit and start to fly out of the solar system, which for now is an unlikely event.



Planets are in stable orbits within a constant Newton's G band in relation to their mean distance from the Sun (per mine, on variable Newton's G, above posts). Space probes, or comets, cut across these bands of constant G, so they behave differently, if G is a variable.
Halley's comet did not exhibit anomalies in its orbit, as far as I know.
..."as far as I know" is the operable here. Do we really know what Haley's is doing out by the Kuiper Belt? I suspect we simply "assume" that out there it is doing what Newton predicted it should do, so didn't bother to look. And how would we look, if it's to far to find with our telescopes? Maybe attaching a two way communications probe would give us data to test for variable G?



ALL our distant probes should exhibit acceleration anomalies from near Jupiter (5.2 AU) and beyond, though not all are conducive to measuring this if they are in-flight adjusted, or don't have communications capability to allow for it. If their trajectories are more circular, using planets as sling-shot boosters, then these calculations become more difficult to detect, within a margin of error. The Pioneers are on an escape path out of the solar system, so more obvious. Planets are NOT on an escape path from the solar system, so not the same.
The "shape" of the orbits does not matter, because they are determined by gravitational interaction (kinetic energy of the object).
Unless we missed some other mechanism in the case of the Pioneer probes.
Saying that the anomalous acceleration of the Pioneer probes is a failure of Newtonian mechanics is cherry picking: one has to explain why there are no anomalies in other, similar cases.
Yes, the shapes of the orbits do not matter. The small differences in elliptical orbits yield anomalies too small to worry about, except for Mercury which is in a very low G orbit, so inertial-G-mass is very low and it exhibits a pronounced precession anomaly at the perihelion.

Tensor
2004-Dec-02, 09:11 PM
Space probes, or comets, cut across these bands of constant G, so they behave differently, if G is a variable.

Halley's comet did not exhibit anomalies in its orbit, as far as I know.
..."as far as I know" is the operable here. Do we really know what Haley's is doing out by the Kuiper Belt? I suspect we simply "assume" that out there it is doing what Newton predicted it should do, so didn't bother to look.
Lunatik, isn't it a bit inconsistent of you to nitpick pap for the use of this phrase, when in the preceding post you state this:



Also, there may be EM redshifting taking place within shorter distances, so that by Pluto's orbit it should already be evident, though Pluto itself is not expanding away from us, that we know of.
My highlight.

Also, can you specify the exact size and shape and where we find those constant G bands?


The small differences in elliptical orbits yield anomalies too small to worry about, except for Mercury which is in a very low G orbit, so inertial-G-mass is very low and it exhibits a pronounced precession anomaly at the perihelion.

You have your equations that predict the amount of Mercury's precession somewhere?

Lunatik
2004-Dec-02, 09:38 PM
Space probes, or comets, cut across these bands of constant G, so they behave differently, if G is a variable.

Halley's comet did not exhibit anomalies in its orbit, as far as I know.
..."as far as I know" is the operable here. Do we really know what Haley's is doing out by the Kuiper Belt? I suspect we simply "assume" that out there it is doing what Newton predicted it should do, so didn't bother to look.
Lunatik, isn't it a bit inconsistent of you to nitpick pap for the use of this phrase, when in the preceding post you state this:



Also, there may be EM redshifting taking place within shorter distances, so that by Pluto's orbit it should already be evident, though Pluto itself is not expanding away from us, that we know of.
My highlight.

Also, can you specify the exact size and shape and where we find those constant G bands?


The small differences in elliptical orbits yield anomalies too small to worry about, except for Mercury which is in a very low G orbit, so inertial-G-mass is very low and it exhibits a pronounced precession anomaly at the perihelion.

You have your equations that predict the amount of Mercury's precession somewhere?
No, no equation to describe Mercury's anomaly.

"That we know of" is not inconsistent with Pap's "as far as I know", both valid statements.

The equations showing Newton's G growing at approximately 7.24E-11 Nm^2kg^-2 (per AU) had been explained in prior posts above, see: Nov. 19th, Nov. 1st, and other stuff. Also see "Einstein 100" post of Nov. 9th: http://www.badastronomy.com/phpBB/viewtopic.php?p=362663&amp;highlight=#top

Final paper on this equation has not yet been released for a wider audience than BA, at this time, stay tuned. :roll: Of course, when it is, let 'em rip!... or R.I.P. :lol:

The truth is out there.

[Ps: Tensor, JMB, you bring up valid points, and I am aware that what I am suggesting is not theory but merely a "maybe" hypothesis, just conjectural for now, and that the planets are not in circular orbits, but elliptical. What makes Mercury so interesting is that it may be experiencing, in addition to what Einstein calculated successfully, a kind of "slingshot" effect being so close to such a massive body as the Sun. The variable G idea would work here, though I had not worked out the equation because I don't have all the data I would need. Here's a partial list:

1. Perihelion and aphelian velocity, and distances.
2. A stripped down version of Einstein's equation describing precession.
3. I can calculate G for distances from the Sun (above posts) but need to estimate comensurate planetary mass (GM = Rv^2) to find evidence of "slingshot" effect.
4. Mercury's mass is what it is, though it may be greater than what we estimated with a constant Newton's G (in terms of its local lower G), but would need to verify that the numbers work out.

To my understanding of how this would work, velocity should result faster for Mercury's mass closer to the Sun (lower G), and slow farther out (higher G), as the planet's "inertial mass" gets affected, and this would need to coincide with observations. If that works, then the next step would be to use this variable G in Einstein's equation to see if this could be used to substitute the space-time variables he used. But I have not done any of this, so for a future project, when I am able. The final should be the precession due to its slingshot effect, but only a guess for now. Will report back if I find something.] -edited.

papageno
2004-Dec-03, 09:55 AM
If Newtonian Mechanics fails for the Pioneer probes, why does it work for the outer planets, which are in the same region of space?
It is not a "failure" of Newtonian Mechanics, since we had used it to estimate mass and orbital mechanics for the planets. Where it leaves out part of the story is that our estimates for mass may be wrong if G is different, but the result is still the same as if G were truly a universal constant, and planets continue in their orbits without anomalies. As I said, the only way to see this is to have a planet leave it's orbit and start to fly out of the solar system, which for now is an unlikely event.
Whether the orbits are open or closed, there is no qualitative difference in gravitational interaction.
That is what I meant when I said that the "shape" of the orbit does not matter.
(By the way, what makes you think that the Pioneer probes will not end up on a very large, but closed orbit around the Sun?)

I understand your argument that the outer planets do not change dramatically their distance form the Sun.
But what about comets, and the other probes sent out?




Halley's comet did not exhibit anomalies in its orbit, as far as I know.
..."as far as I know" is the operable here. Do we really know what Haley's is doing out by the Kuiper Belt? I suspect we simply "assume" that out there it is doing what Newton predicted it should do, so didn't bother to look. And how would we look, if it's to far to find with our telescopes? Maybe attaching a two way communications probe would give us data to test for variable G?
So, the fact that Halley's comet comes back every 76 years is pure luck.
What makes you think that such a stable orbit is possible if G changes with the distance from Earth?




[...]
Saying that the anomalous acceleration of the Pioneer probes is a failure of Newtonian mechanics is cherry picking: one has to explain why there are no anomalies in other, similar cases.
Yes, the shapes of the orbits do not matter. The small differences in elliptical orbits yield anomalies too small to worry about, except for Mercury which is in a very low G orbit, so inertial-G-mass is very low and it exhibits a pronounced precession anomaly at the perihelion.
It is not just elliptical orbits (see above).
Also, you still have to address why these anomalies do not seem to affect comets or the other probes.

Lunatik
2004-Dec-03, 05:56 PM
papageno: So, the fact that Halley's comet comes back every 76 years is pure luck.
No, not pure luck. See Halley's comet info: http://www.nineplanets.org/halley.html
Note how small perturbations occur in its orbit, reason assigned being due to other planetary influences or boiled off gases. Is this "gases" hypothesis totally valid, or could variable G also be the reason? We can predict with near certainly when it will again appear in our skies, as it approaches its perihelion, but we do not know with certainty what it does at a great distance from us. What is it doing at its aphelion? Also see Wiki's http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mean_anomaly , for Orbit Anomaly.

Why is it so incredibly important to postulate that gravity is a universal constant? What is the origin of this idea? Why is it so difficult to hypothesize that maybe it has a electromagnetic component that renders it a variable? Who first said gravity is a universal constant, and by what justification? Anyone, anyone...?


papageno: (By the way, what makes you think that the Pioneer probes will not end up on a very large, but closed orbit around the Sun?)
In fact, a variable G increasing inertial mass in the outer solar system will put into a closed orbit. This should happen when the inertial mass out there exceeds inertial mass here used to calculate escape velocity), so it finds an orbit, probbly highly elliptical. No guess as to where, though it should be very far out, maybe by the Oort Cloud regions. Keep in mind that a variable G at ~7E-11 N per AU is still a very small change in inertial mass, to the power of one over eleven zeros! that's very weak, but significant.

Other comets and probes? Yes, right you are. Oort Cloud comets take millennia to return; other probes have different configurations not suited for easy readings, as per my above.

papageno
2004-Dec-03, 06:31 PM
: So, the fact that Halley's comet comes back every 76 years is pure luck.
No, not pure luck. See Halley's comet info: http://www.nineplanets.org/halley.html
Note how small perturbations occur in its orbit, reason assigned being due to other planetary influences or boiled off gases. Is this "gases" hypothesis totally valid, or could variable G also be the reason?
As far as I know, comets have been observed to outgas.
Are there unambiguous observations that G is not constant?



[...]

Why is it so incredibly important to postulate that gravity is a universal constant? What is the origin of this idea? Why is it so difficult to hypothesize that maybe it has a electromagnetic component that renders it a variable? Who first said gravity is a universal constant, and by what justification? Anyone, anyone...?
Is there any experimental evidence or unambiguous observations that show that G is not constant?
G is assumed to be constant for the same reasons that the speed of light in vacuum or the Planck constant are assumed to be constant.

About the "electromagnetic component", an electromagnetic field contains energy, hence (inertial) mass (after all, photons carry momentum).
The contribution to gravitational mass goes through the equivalence principle.




: (By the way, what makes you think that the Pioneer probes will not end up on a very large, but closed orbit around the Sun?)
In fact, a variable G increasing inertial mass in the outer solar system will put into a closed orbit. This should happen when the inertial mass out there exceeds inertial mass here used to calculate escape velocity), so it finds an orbit, probbly highly elliptical. No guess as to where, though it should be very far out, maybe by the Oort Cloud regions. Keep in mind that a variable G at ~7E-11 N per AU is still a very small change in inertial mass, to the power of one over eleven zeros! that's very weak, but significant.
I am still confused by this idea that a change in G, Newton's gravitational constant, changes the inertial mass of an object.
I must have missed where you explain it.

Does it work like this?
We observe the (orbital) motion of an object, hence we observe the acceleration due to gravitational interaction.
If G changes, the gravitational interaction changes, that mean the force acting on the object changes.
For the motion to be the same as in the case where G is constant, we must assume that the inertial mass changes.

My problem is this:
from experiments we know that the inertail mass depends on the amount of matter, but not on gravitational force acting on it.

If G changes, I would expect to see a change in the motion of the object (because the force acting on it changed).
On what basis would one assume that the inertial mass changed to compensate?




Other comets and probes? Yes, right you are. Oort Cloud comets take millennia to return; other probes have different configurations not suited for easy readings, as per my above.
So, before reaching the conclusion that G is not constant, we should wait to have more information.

Celestial Mechanic
2004-Dec-03, 06:42 PM
[Snip!]Also see Wiki's http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mean_anomaly , for Orbit Anomaly.
I have looked at the site you linked to. It contains a version of a diagram that practically every elementary text on celestial mechanics must have. However, the word "anomaly" as used in this context is probably not what you were thinking of when you googled to that site. My dictionary gives the following three definitions for anomaly:
The angular distance of a planet from its perhelion as seen from the sun. Deviation from the common rule. Synonym: irregularity. Something anomalous, especially something that deviates in excess of normal variation.
There is nothing abnormal about either of the three anomalies (mean, eccentric and true) used in celestial mechanics.

Why is it so incredibly important to postulate that gravity is a universal constant? What is the origin of this idea?
There is no evidence of any variation in G over the size of the Solar System. On the other hand, the possibility of variation over time and over larger scales of length is possible, but the variation is going to be slight. For example, Solar System experiments limit (dG/dt)/G to no more than about 10^-11 yr^-1.

Why is it so difficult to hypothesize that maybe it has a electromagnetic component that renders it a variable? Who first said gravity is a universal constant, and by what justification? Anyone, anyone...?[Snip!]
The source of electromagnetic fields are electrical charges, which can be both positive and negative, with the resulting forces being both attractive and repulsive. The source of Newtonian gravity is mass, which is always positive and the force always attractive. I believe Newton was first to consider G to be a universal constant because otherwise the forces acting between two masses would not be equal and opposite. Observations in the Solar System confirm this to a high degree of accuracy.

Lunatik
2004-Dec-03, 07:31 PM
[Snip!]Also see Wiki's http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mean_anomaly , for Orbit Anomaly.
I have looked at the site you linked to. It contains a version of a diagram that practically every elementary text on celestial mechanics must have. However, the word "anomaly" as used in this context is probably not what you were thinking of when you googled to that site. My dictionary gives the following three definitions for anomaly:
The angular distance of a planet from its perhelion as seen from the sun. Deviation from the common rule. Synonym: irregularity. Something anomalous, especially something that deviates in excess of normal variation.
I googled "Halley's comet".

There is nothing abnormal about either of the three anomalies (mean, eccentric and true) used in celestial mechanics.

Why is it so incredibly important to postulate that gravity is a universal constant? What is the origin of this idea?
There is no evidence of any variation in G over the size of the Solar System. On the other hand, the possibility of variation over time and over larger scales of length is possible, but the variation is going to be slight. For example, Solar System experiments limit (dG/dt)/G to no more than about 10^-11 yr^-1.
Do you have a reference for this? Most interesting.



Why is it so difficult to hypothesize that maybe it has a electromagnetic component that renders it a variable? Who first said gravity is a universal constant, and by what justification? Anyone, anyone...?[Snip!]
The source of electromagnetic fields are electrical charges, which can be both positive and negative, with the resulting forces being both attractive and repulsive. The source of Newtonian gravity is mass, which is always positive and the force always attractive. I believe Newton was first to consider G to be a universal constant because otherwise the forces acting between two masses would not be equal and opposite. Observations in the Solar System confirm this to a high degree of accuracy.
Yes, of course, electromagnetic field is fundamentally different from gravitic field. I have not yet shown the hpothesis of why these two interact, a paper working on now, so bear with me. FYI, it works out to look something like this:

E = hc/L(proton mass) = f(1 - (proton grav constant g))c^2

where E = planet's total orbital energy (a variable per irradiance of the Sun times distance to planet--reverse of d/d^2, where d^2 is W/m^2, and d is distance in meters-- time planet's orbital KE, kinetic energy)

h = Planck's constant
c = light velocity constant
L = lambda 1.322e-15 m
proton mass = 1.67e-27 kg
f = function of
1 = mass (axiomatic)
proton gravity constant = 5.9e-39 (dimensionless, but also Volts^2, or kg/s, which I can't go into for now) and can be calculated for variable proton mass (resulting from variable E).

I'd love to go into all this in detail, but this is still work in progress, so only bare bones for now. However, once we know the proton grav constant g, there is a way to figure Newton's G, i.e. f(gc^2), which turns out to be a variable as stated above. Sorry can't be more helpful for now.

Lunatik
2004-Dec-03, 08:09 PM
: So, the fact that Halley's comet comes back every 76 years is pure luck.
No, not pure luck. See Halley's comet info: http://www.nineplanets.org/halley.html
Note how small perturbations occur in its orbit, reason assigned being due to other planetary influences or boiled off gases. Is this "gases" hypothesis totally valid, or could variable G also be the reason?

As far as I know, comets have been observed to outgas.
Are there unambiguous observations that G is not constant?
Circular. We assumed constant G, so used it to estimate astonomical phenomena per constant G, estimated distant mass per constant G, calculated how orbits behave per this estimated mass, and then concluded that G is constant. Circular.




[...]

Why is it so incredibly important to postulate that gravity is a universal constant? What is the origin of this idea? Why is it so difficult to hypothesize that maybe it has a electromagnetic component that renders it a variable? Who first said gravity is a universal constant, and by what justification? Anyone, anyone...?

[Is there any experimental evidence or unambiguous observations that show that G is not constant?
Have we looked for it? ESA is looking: http://physicsweb.org/articles/world/17/9/3


G is assumed to be constant for the same reasons that the speed of light in vacuum or the Planck constant are assumed to be constant.
"Assumed".


About the "electromagnetic component", an electromagnetic field contains energy, hence (inertial) mass (after all, photons carry momentum).
The contribution to gravitational mass goes through the equivalence principle.
The equivalence principle is why change in G changes inertial mass.





: (By the way, what makes you think that the Pioneer probes will not end up on a very large, but closed orbit around the Sun?)
In fact, a variable G increasing inertial mass in the outer solar system will put into a closed orbit. This should happen when the inertial mass out there exceeds inertial mass here (used to calculate escape velocity), so it finds an orbit, probbly highly elliptical. No guess as to where, though it should be very far out, maybe by the Oort Cloud regions. Keep in mind that a variable G at ~7E-11 N per AU is still a very small change in inertial mass, to the power of one over eleven zeros! that's very weak, but significant.
I am still confused by this idea that a change in G, Newton's gravitational constant, changes the inertial mass of an object.
I must have missed where you explain it.

Does it work like this?
We observe the (orbital) motion of an object, hence we observe the acceleration due to gravitational interaction.
If G changes, the gravitational interaction changes, that mean the force acting on the object changes.
For the motion to be the same as in the case where G is constant, we must assume that the inertial mass changes.

My problem is this:
from experiments we know that the inertail mass depends on the amount of matter, but not on gravitational force acting on it.

If G changes, I would expect to see a change in the motion of the object (because the force acting on it changed).
On what basis would one assume that the inertial mass changed to compensate?
Because the F = GMm/R^2 dictates that a greater G translates into a greater F.**




Other comets and probes? Yes, right you are. Oort Cloud comets take millennia to return; other probes have different configurations not suited for easy readings, as per my above.
So, before reaching the conclusion that G is not constant, we should wait to have more information. :lol: Of course!

**[I should add something here, because this will be a source of possible confusion. M is lower in a higher G , but its "inertial mass" is higher by the same proportion, because of the equivalence of a higher G. This is not the usual way to think of this since we never had to cope with a gravity variable (hypothetical for now) before, so ill equipped to see it easily. But the offset of a higher G is that estimated Mass is too high, but the inertial mass is too low, all self canceling so in the end it looked okay. But this is where we were being misled by a universal constant G, as I suspect. The end result is that further from the Sun, lower Energy region, orbital behavior looks "normal" to us, but it may be masking a higher proton mass, higher proton gravity coupling constant, higher inertial mass, and lower total planetary mass. But this is where caution is needed: Lower planetary mass is offset by higher inertial/proton mass, so they self cancel, leaving us ingenous that anything was wrong. Furthermore, why be suspicious when the numbers we used worked just fine?!]

Tensor
2004-Dec-04, 05:15 AM
"That we know of" is not inconsistent with Pap's "as far as I know", both valid statements.

Ok, my problem with the statement was it seemed to me that you were using his 'as far as I know" to tear down his argument. But, then in the very next post you used it in an argument yourself. If this was not the case, it would be my faulty understanding. Sorry.



The equations showing Newton's G growing at approximately 7.24E-11 Nm^2kg^-2 (per AU) had been explained in prior posts above, see: Nov. 19th, Nov. 1st, and other stuff. Also see "Einstein 100" post of Nov. 9th: http://www.badastronomy.com/phpBB/viewtopic.php? p=362663&amp;highlight=#top

Thanks, I'll look them over.



[Ps: Tensor, JMB, you bring up valid points, and I am aware that what I am suggesting is not theory but merely a "maybe" hypothesis, just conjectural for now, and that the planets are not in circular orbits, but elliptical. What makes Mercury so interesting is that it may be experiencing, in addition to what Einstein calculated successfully, a kind of "slingshot" effect being so close to such a massive body as the Sun. The variable G idea would work here, though I had not worked out the equation because I don't have all the data I would need. Here's a partial list:

2. A stripped down version of Einstein's equation describing precession.

What do you mean by a stripped down version? A non-Differential Geometry version? There wouldn't be one for the precession calculation. The non-linearity of the equations in GR is what enables it to accurately predict the precession. Short non-mathematical description: the gravity of the sun has an energy content of its own and that energy also generates gravity. It's the additional gravity, caused by the energy content of the sun's gravity, that accounts for the precession of Mercury.

Jerry
2004-Dec-04, 06:04 AM
Please provide some evidence...

Let’s start with the basics: Tesla never published his equations, he may not have formalized them, but if Newton’s wrong and 'action-at-a-distance' is really a standing wave, I can start by throwing out the strong equivalence principle and assume that 'G' is an independant variable that is a function of the distance from the Sun. Plugging this into the proven formula for gravity near the earth:

F = kln(Gn/r2)(M1M2/r^2) Eq 1.

Where kln(Gn/r^2) is the G constant we use on Earth, but in this equation, k and Gn are unknown constants that are characteristic of the attenuation in the inertial field in a log/log relationship. This means the only time we would see significant differences in the g force is in probes such as the Pioneer I &amp; II as they accelerate between the planets. (I should note that every space probe has been at some variance from the predicted orbit, but only the Pioneer Probes were designed to track this small of an anomally.)

To solve for k values, I am going to set up a curve based upon the following assumptions that are consistent with this theory of ‘gravity’:

1) The Density of most solid spheres in the galaxy should be close to the same. This is somewhat justified upon the basis most meteorites have a density between 6 and 9, and the inner planets between 3.5 and 5.5. The gas giant planets are clear exceptions.

2) The earth and moon were once a single planet with a density of about 4.5.

3) The lighter moons of Saturn are, like the planet, extremely high in very light elements, In fact the only moon of Saturn that is composed like the rest of the orbs is Titon.

4) I use the densitys of all of the moon of all the other planets, omitting only the densities of the gas giants. (I did not use the densest moon of jupiter, omitting it accidently, but it is also a three sigma outlier.)

I can now average the apparent densities at each solar distance and calculate the slope of the log curve. Gn turns out to be –1.3532 and the offset is 10.159. (The equation: F=(kln(Gn)/r) (M1/M2/r^2) gives the same answer within 2%)

I can then plug in the numbers and calculate the densities for each of the planets and their moons if they were all in the same orbit as the earth. And look what happens:

Orb Density Density (in Earth frame of reference)

Mercury 5.4 4.49
Venus 5.24 4.47
Earth 5.5 5.5 ( Earth Moon Ave=4.47)
Mars 3.933 4.47

Jupiter 1.326 2.11
Metis 2.8 4.47
Thebe 3.55 5.67
Europa 3.02 4.81
Ganymede 1.94 3.91
Callisto 1.86 2.97
Leda 2.7 4.31
Himilia 2.8 4.47
Lysithia 3.1 4.49
Elara 3.3 5.27
Anaka 2.7 4.31
Carme 2.8 4.47
Sinope 3.1 4.95
P2x 3.3 5.27
P3x 2.7 4.31
P4x 2.8 4.47
Pasiphae 2.9 4.63
P5x 3.1 4.95
Amalthea 1.8 2.87
P6x 2.1 3.35
Io 3.55 5.67
Andrastea 4.5 10.59
P7x 3.7 8.7

Average of all
Jupiters Moons: 2.8 4.93

Saturn 0.568 1.34
Prometheus 0.70 1.65
Pandora 0.70 1.65
Epimetheus 0.70 1.65
Janus 0.67 1.58
Mimas 1.17 2.75
Phoebe 1.60 3.76
Hyperion 1.40 3.29
Encleladus 1.24 2.92
Tethys 1.21 2.85
Dione 1.43 3.36
Rhea 1.33 3.13
Titan 1.88 4.42

Uranus 1.27 3.78
Miranda 1.20 3.58
Ariel 1.56 4.65
Umbriel 1.52 4.53
Titania 1.70 5.07
Oberon 1.64 4.89

Neptune 1.638 5.76
Naiad 1.2 4.22
Thalassa 1.3 4.57
Despina 1.2 4.47
Galatea 1.3 4.47
Larissa 1.3 4.84
Proteus 1.3 4.47

Pluto 1.75 4.47

Look how often ~ 4.47 and numbers within a few percent of it show up! Mercury, Venus, The average of the earth and the moon, Mars, 14 of Jupiter’s moons and the average of all of Jupiter’s moons, eight of Uranus’s moons, five of Neptune’s moons and Pluto! Using the ‘Tesla’ equation, 64% of the moons and planets in our solar system can be categorized as having essentially the same density, and if you throw out Saturn, the number is even higher!!!

It could still be argued this is just a coincidental function of the fact that densities are progressively lower with increasing distance from the Sun, but if I integrate the variance in gravity predicted by this equation between the orbits of Jupiter and Neptune, I get an acceleration 0.8cm10^-8/sec^2, which is precisely the acceleration of the Pioneer Probes!

Can your cosmology do that?

More, later! Edit: confused variable names &amp; found another moon

papageno
2004-Dec-04, 03:18 PM
No, not pure luck. See Halley's comet info: http://www.nineplanets.org/halley.html
Note how small perturbations occur in its orbit, reason assigned being due to other planetary influences or boiled off gases. Is this "gases" hypothesis totally valid, or could variable G also be the reason?

As far as I know, comets have been observed to outgas.
Are there unambiguous observations that G is not constant?
Circular. We assumed constant G, so used it to estimate astonomical phenomena per constant G, estimated distant mass per constant G, calculated how orbits behave per this estimated mass, and then concluded that G is constant. Circular.
We have observed comets outgassing.
We have not observed a variation in G.
Which one is more likely to affect the orbit of a comet?




inertial mass of an object.
I must have missed where you explain it.

Does it work like this?
We observe the (orbital) motion of an object, hence we observe the acceleration due to gravitational interaction.
If G changes, the gravitational interaction changes, that mean the force acting on the object changes.
For the motion to be the same as in the case where G is constant, we must assume that the inertial mass changes.

My problem is this:
from experiments we know that the inertail mass depends on the amount of matter, but not on gravitational force acting on it.

If G changes, I would expect to see a change in the motion of the object (because the force acting on it changed).
On what basis would one assume that the inertial mass changed to compensate?
Because the F = GMm/R^2 dictates that a greater G translates into a greater F.**
Which is what I said ("because the force acting on it changed").
Does this mean that I got your reasoning right?
If so,

On what basis would one assume that the inertial mass changed to compensate?




**[I should add something here, because this will be a source of possible confusion. M is lower in a higher G , but its "inertial mass" is higher by the same proportion, because of the equivalence of a higher G.
How do justify this reasoning?
If G changes, why should the masses change?




This is not the usual way to think of this since we never had to cope with a gravity variable (hypothetical for now) before, so ill equipped to see it easily.
But we can cope with variable forces, which would be the case if G changes, but the masses do not.
We are not ill equipped, it would just make things a bit complicated (like describing the motion of rocket, whose mass changes because it is burning fuel).



But the offset of a higher G is that estimated Mass is too high, but the inertial mass is too low, all self canceling so in the end it looked okay.
Resorting to "self-cancelling" effects sounds a lot like ad hoc assumptions to justify the failure of a theory to account for observations.
How is this any better than dark matter?



But this is where we were being misled by a universal constant G, as I suspect. The end result is that further from the Sun, lower Energy region, orbital behavior looks "normal" to us, but it may be masking a higher proton mass, higher proton gravity coupling constant, higher inertial mass, and lower total planetary mass. But this is where caution is needed: Lower planetary mass is offset by higher inertial/proton mass, so they self cancel, leaving us ingenous that anything was wrong. Furthermore, why be suspicious when the numbers we used worked just fine?!]
See above.
With the evidence available, assuming a variable G is more far-fetched than assuming the existence of dark matter.

Lunatik
2004-Dec-04, 03:39 PM
Tensor: What do you mean by a stripped down version? A non-Differential Geometry version?
I'm a simple fellow, so subscribe to the KISS principle. But never having seen Einstein's work on Mercury, other than anecdotally, I'd be flying without instruments, by the intuitive seat of my pants. It's easy to make things complex, harder to keep it simple. :lol:


Jerry: Look how often ~ 4.47 and numbers within a few percent of it show up! Mercury, Venus, The average of the earth and the moon, Mars, 14 of Jupiter’s moons and the average of all of Jupiter’s moons, eight of Uranus’s moons, five of Neptune’s moons and Pluto! Using the ‘Tesla’ equation, 64% of the moons and planets in our solar system can be categorized as having essentially the same density, and if you throw out Saturn, the number is even higher!!!

It could still be argued this is just a coincidental function of the fact that densities are progressively lower with increasing distance from the Sun, but if I integrate the variance in gravity predicted by this equation between the orbits of Jupiter and Neptune, I get an acceleration 0.8cm10^-8/sec^2, which is precisely the acceleration of the Pioneer Probes!
Not too surprised by the results of this "tweaked" Newton equation: F=(kln(Gn)/r) (M1/M2/r^2), so planetary density within a narrow parameter is an interesting find. Funny that this same idea had been on my mind, to find if a variable G evens out planetary density, so that Mercury's nearly all metallic in a very light G soup would be closer to Neptunes all gas in a very high G soup, but never worked out the numbers. This would imply that our Sun's energy modulates the planets and moons densities within some parameters of what our solar system is made of. The gas giants are therefore more dense per their higher G environment than they would be in Earth's G, while Mercury's very dense material acts as if it were less dense in its very low G. Since all cosmology had been postulated on a constant Newton's G, expect howls from the opposition, since we are still unfamiliar with thinking of a variable G, though MOND had already pointed that way. (But for now, these variable G ideas are still a BA exclusive!) Have you thought of publishing a paper on it? I'm working on one now, though I suspect it will be difficult to find a venue for it... so much work to be done. At first blush, a solar energy related variable G appears to be a more sensible explanation for lots of cosmic phenomena than a constant G, though it's still "blue sky" for now.

papageno
2004-Dec-04, 03:39 PM
Let’s start with the basics: Tesla never published his equations, he may not have formalized them, but if Newton’s wrong and 'action-at-a-distance' is really a standing wave,
"Action-at-a-distance" is an approximation that works if the speeds involved are much lower than the speed of changes in gravitational field (which is, from what we know, the same as the speed of light in vacuum).
This approximation does not work well over long distances.



I can start by throwing out the strong equivalence principle and assume that 'G' is an independant variable that is a function of the distance from the Sun.
The equivalence principle (gravitational mass = inertial mass) has nothing to do with the value or the constancy of G and is based on experiments (such as the Cavendish torsional balance (http://kossi.physics.hmc.edu/Courses/p23a/Experiments/Cavendish.html)), nor does it have anything to do with "action-at-a-distance".
So, on what basis do you throw it out (not experimental evidence, as far as I can see)?



Plugging this into the proven formula for gravity near the earth:

F = kln(Gn/r2)(M1M2/r^2) Eq 1.

Where kln(Gn/r^2) is the G constant we use on Earth, but in this equation, k and Gn are unknown constants that are characteristic of the attenuation in the inertial field in a log/log relationship.
Where did you get this "proven" formula?



This means the only time we would see significant differences in the g force is in probes such as the Pioneer I &amp; II as they accelerate between the planets. (I should note that every space probe has been at some variance from the predicted orbit, but only the Pioneer Probes were designed to track this small of an anomally.)
Why should these be the only cases?
What about comets?



To solve for k values, I am going to set up a curve based upon the following assumptions that are consistent with this theory of ‘gravity’:
The "theory of gravity" you outlined above does not look like the one currently used.



1) The Density of most solid spheres in the galaxy should be close to the same. This is somewhat justified upon the basis most meteorites have a density between 6 and 9, and the inner planets between 3.5 and 5.5. The gas giant planets are clear exceptions.
"Most solid spheres"?
What does this have to do with the planets, or satellites, or even many asteroids and meteorites?



2) The earth and moon were once a single planet with a density of about 4.5.

3) The lighter moons of Saturn are, like the planet, extremely high in very light elements, In fact the only moon of Saturn that is composed like the rest of the orbs is Titon.

4) I use the densitys of all of the moon of all the other planets, omitting only the densities of the gas giants. (I did not use the densest moon of jupiter, omitting it accidently, but it is also a three sigma outlier.)

I can now average the apparent densities at each solar distance and calculate the slope of the log curve. Gn turns out to be –1.3532 and the offset is 10.159. (The equation: F=(kln(Gn)/r) (M1/M2/r^2) gives the same answer within 2%)

I can then plug in the numbers and calculate the densities for each of the planets and their moons if they were all in the same orbit as the earth. And look what happens:

Orb Density Density (in Earth frame of reference)
"Density(in Earth frame of reference)"?
I was not aware that the planet move with relativistic speeds with respect to the Earth.
Unless I misunderstand what you mean.



[snip table]
Look how often ~ 4.47 and numbers within a few percent of it show up! Mercury, Venus, The average of the earth and the moon, Mars, 14 of Jupiter’s moons and the average of all of Jupiter’s moons, eight of Uranus’s moons, five of Neptune’s moons and Pluto! Using the ‘Tesla’ equation, 64% of the moons and planets in our solar system can be categorized as having essentially the same density, and if you throw out Saturn, the number is even higher!!!
On what is this "Tesla equation" based?



It could still be argued this is just a coincidental function of the fact that densities are progressively lower with increasing distance from the Sun, but if I integrate the variance in gravity predicted by this equation between the orbits of Jupiter and Neptune, I get an acceleration 0.8cm10^-8/sec^2, which is precisely the acceleration of the Pioneer Probes!

To be honest, your method reminds me of Lyndon Ashmore.
I did not see a proper justification of all these calculations (not even a link).



Can your cosmology do that?

It is not "my", nor "cosmology", since you are dealing with the Solar System, and I have not developed the theories on it.

EDIT to add: the Cavendish experiment is not an accurate reference to the equivalence principle. The correct reference would be the Eotvos experiment. :oops:

Lunatik
2004-Dec-04, 04:02 PM
papageno: G is the interaction strength independent of the masses involved (as you can see from the formula you quoted below).
So, why would a change in the force change the mass?
Mass is mass, and a change in G does not change the mass of what the planet, or probe, is made of. If we weigh it on Earth, and it works out to be so many kilograms, it is still the same mass far out there in terms of Earth's kilograms, but different in terms of its local "kilograms" per the local G. So force does not "change the mass", except as it applies to its inertial mass. Now, if the inertial mass out there is greater than here, the force of gravity from the Sun will have a greater pull on it, so that it should show a greater acceleration towards the Sun. This is what the Pioneers are responding to. Remember we had estimated distant mass assuming a constant G, so we overestimated the mass of the gas giants, for example, in terms of their local G. As I explained above, this was not obvious to us because the lesser planetary mass out there was countered by their greater inertial mass, so it looked okay. The only way we found something was wrong was when the now greater inertial mass of the Pioneers out there began to act as if they were being pulled back towards the Sun at a greater rate. This is only a first clue, and now we need to look for more, which is what ESA plans to do. I hope this makes sense, because it is a new way of thinking about it, so not common to our experience. We had been coddled within a constant G on Earth, and now are being prodded to think different. :roll:

[Edited for finger dyslexia.]

papageno
2004-Dec-04, 04:17 PM
papageno: G is the interaction strength independent of the masses involved (as you can see from the formula you quoted below).
So, why would a change in the force change the mass?
Mass is mass, and a change in G does not change the mass of what the planet, or probe, is made of. If we weigh it on Earth, and it works out to be so many kilograms, it is still the same mass far out there in terms of Earth's kilograms, but different in terms of its local "kilograms" per the local G.
The weight changes.
Weight on Earth is the gravitational force between the Earth and the object.
Change one of the masses or the distance, and the weight changes.



So force does not "change the mass", except as it applies to its inertial mass. Now, if the inertial mass out there is greater than here, the force of gravity from the Sun will have a greater pull on it, so that it should show a greater acceleration towards the Sun.
If the amount of matter has not changed, why would the (inertial) mass be different?



This is what the Pioneers are responding to. Remember we had estimated distant mass assuming a constant G, so we overestimated the mass of the gas giants, for example, in terms of their local G. As I explained above, this was not obvious to us because the lesser planetary mass out there was countered by their greater inertial mass, so it looked okay. The only way we found something was wrong was when the now greater inertial mass of the Pioneers out there began to act as if they were being pulled back towards the Sun at a greater rate. This is only a first clue, and now we need to look for more, which is what ASE plans to do. I hope this makes sense, because it is a new way of thinking about it, so not common to our experience. We had been coddled within a constant G on Earth, and now are being prodded to think different. :roll:
The Pioneer probes are not the only objects moving between planets.
Why does the anomalous acceleration show up now, instead of when the probes were closer to the planets?
Why aren't there anomalies in the orbits of the comets, or the Voyager probes, or any other probe that gets close enough to the outer planets?
Why does the sling-shot effect work as planned for the probes?

Lunatik
2004-Dec-04, 04:38 PM
papageno: The Pioneer probes are not the only objects moving between planets.
Why does the anomalous acceleration show up now, instead of when the probes were closer to the planets?
Why aren't there anomalies in the orbits of the comets, or the Voyager probes, or any other probe that gets close enough to the outer planets?
Why does the sling-shot effect work as planned for the probes?
When the probes were closer in, there was not enough variation in G to show results yet, and we were not looking for it. Ditto for comets. The "sling-shot effect" is a non sequitur.

papageno
2004-Dec-04, 04:50 PM
papageno: The Pioneer probes are not the only objects moving between planets.
Why does the anomalous acceleration show up now, instead of when the probes were closer to the planets?
Why aren't there anomalies in the orbits of the comets, or the Voyager probes, or any other probe that gets close enough to the outer planets?
Why does the sling-shot effect work as planned for the probes?
When the probes were closer in, there was not enough variation in G to show results yet, and we were not looking for it. Ditto for comets. The "sling-shot effect" is a non sequitur.

But, what you said here (http://www.badastronomy.com/phpBB/viewtopic.php?p=373760#373760) is


Space probes, or comets, cut across these bands of constant G, so they behave differently, if G is a variable. ALL our distant probes should exhibit acceleration anomalies from near Jupiter (5.2 AU) and beyond,...
There are probes between Jupiter and the outer planets, not to mention comets.
If you are talking about "bands of constant G" which depend on the distance from the Sun, the sling-shot effect around a planet would show the anomaly, because the gravitational force goes like the distance squared.

By the way, you still have not told me whether I understood your idea of "self-cancelling effects" (which is still unsupported).

Lunatik
2004-Dec-04, 05:19 PM
papageno: By the way, you still have not told me whether I understood your idea of "self-cancelling effects" (which is still unsupported).

I presume you are refering to this in the link?
Lunatik: ALL our distant probes should exhibit acceleration anomalies from near Jupiter (5.2 AU) and beyond, though not all are conducive to measuring this if they are in-flight adjusted, or don't have communications capability to allow for it. If their trajectories are more circular, using planets as sling-shot boosters, then these calculations become more difficult to detect, within a margin of error. The Pioneers are on an escape path out of the solar system, so more obvious. Planets are NOT on an escape path from the solar system, so not the same.
Yes? I fail to see your point. If inertial mass is self adjusting for the G where it is traveling, and our mass estimates were off by the same proportion, why would you notice a difference in how they behave from what we had calculated? I can see how you are having difficulty with this "think different" approach, but think about it. The variance in G for Venus or Mars is very small. It becomes more meaningful for Mercury's lower G, and for Jupiter's higher G. To help you see it better, here is a table of what these values look like (approximate only):

PLANET: total orbital Energy, Proton mass, Proton gravity g', local Newton's G':

MERCURY (0.39 AU): 60.55E+16 J, 2.48E-28 kg, 8.76E-40, ~2.79E-11 N

VENUS (0.72 AU): 17.33E+16 J, 8.67E-28 kg, 3.06E-39, ~ 5.20E-11 N

EARTH (1 AU): 9.0E+16 J, 1.67E-27 kg, 5.9E-39, ~7.24E-11 N (vs. 6.67E-11 N)

MARS (1.52 AU): 3.66E+16 J, 3.86E-27 kg, 1.36E-38, ~10.96E-11 N

JUPITER (5.2 AU): 0.335E+16 J, 4.49E-26 kg, 1.586E-37, ~ 38.6E-11 N

SATURN (9.5 AU): 0.1004E+16J, 1.498E-25 kg, 5.29E-37, ~68.5E-11 N

URANUS (19.2 AU): 0.0247E+16J, 6.1E-25 kg, 2.153E-36, ~138E-11 N

NEPTUNE (30 AU): 0.01E+16 J, 1.5E-24 kg, 5.3E-36, ~217E-11 N

PLUTO (39.5 AU): 0.006E+16 J, 2.58E-24 kg, 9.11E-36, ~284E-11 N

This is showing the results without the computations or theory, which would be too complicated to show here. The mass vs. inertial-mass variance becomes more pronounced for the distant outer planets, as per above. That's where we began to find the anomaly in Pioneers, Ulyses, Casini, Galileo, though we had never looked for them in the first place, until now.

For now, trust me. :lol:

[Eidted for decimal point error.]

papageno
2004-Dec-04, 05:32 PM
Yes? I fail to see your point. If inertial mass is self adjusting for the G where it is traveling, and our mass estimates were off by the same proportion, why would you notice a difference in how they behave from what we had calculated?
And what happens if not?
On what basis do you assume that the inertial mass of an object has anything to do with the strength of gravitational interaction?

Do you remeber this post (http://www.badastronomy.com/phpBB/viewtopic.php?p=375272#375272)?


Resorting to "self-cancelling" effects sounds a lot like ad hoc assumptions to justify the failure of a theory to account for observations.
How is this any better than dark matter?




I can see how you are having difficulty with this "think different" approach, but think about it.
Do you mean, "you are having difficulty to accept speculations that have no support, except my very own interpretation of the anomlaous acceleration of the Pioneer"?
Because that is what it looks like so far.



The variance in G for Venus or Mars is very small. It becomes more meaningful for Mercury's lower G, and for Jupiter's higher G. To help you see it better, here is a table of what these values look like (approximate only):

[...]

This is showing the results without the computations or theory, which would be too complicated to show here. The mass vs. inertial-mass variance becomes more pronounced for the distant outer planets, as per above. That's where we began to find the anomaly in Pioneers, Ulyses, Casini, Galileo, though we had never looked for them in the first place, until now.
The only anomalies I heard of, are the Pioneer ones.
On what do base your idea that the inertial mass changes?
(Except for a desire to reach a preconcieved conclusion.)



For now, trust me. :lol:
So, you do not have experimental evidence nor well supported theoretical speculations.
Why should I trust you?

Lunatik
2004-Dec-04, 11:47 PM
Papageno,

Please see Physics News Update, for which sattelites are affected: http://www.aip.org/pnu/1998/split/pnu391-1.htm

Asteroidal slight perturbation: http://www.scienceone.org/NASA_Scientists_Use_Radar_to_Detect_Asteroid_Force-4819084-4253-a.html

...or would 'braneworld' be a better fit?
http://www.iop.org/EJ/abstract/0264-9381/21/13/013/

...or would 'outgasing' etc. be better, though it fails to explain anomaly by 5 to 1?
http://www.phys.uni.torun.pl/~jkob/physnews99/node64.html

.. then again, if you want 'anomalies' here's a list!
http://www.science-frontiers.com/cat-astr.htm

Gremlins, Bose-Einstein condensate, radio waves pressure, etc. there could be lots of reasons why distant probes accelerate towards the Sun. And if I were you, I too would challenge any idea that tried to present a new hypothesis. I am totally skeptical when some weird idea is presented, so totally identify with what you're doing, and it's okay. But at the same time, I catalog all these weird ideas into my head for future references, because one never knows where the next breakthrough is going to be. Do I have the answer? Only a hypothesis that we need not be stuck on a Newton's gravitational constant found on Earth, and then project for the rest of the universe. The rest is wide open for study, and eventually, proof.

[I am shame facedly sorry I misspelt Cassini and Ulysses in my above.]

Cheers.

JMB
2004-Dec-05, 04:00 PM
For now, trust me. :lol:
So, you do not have experimental evidence nor well supported theoretical speculations.
Why should I trust you?
Do not trust him !
Hypothesis may be considered as good if they explain a lot of results better than old theories . It is not the case here (and not for the big bang which requires a strange hypothesis after almost every type of observation ! ).
The simplest explanation of the increase of frequency of the Pioneer is a transfer of energy from the sun light to radiowaves where protons and electrons of the solar wind are cold enough to combine into excited atomic hydrogen.
Laser experiments show transfers of energy giving frequency shifts from beams having a high Planck's temperature (generally high frequency : light) to colder beams (generally low frequency : thermal and radio). Applying the rules verified with lasers, it appears that, using ordinary light, nearly only atomic hydrogen in its excited states allows such transfers of energy.

Lunatik
2004-Dec-05, 04:39 PM
For now, trust me. :lol:
So, you do not have experimental evidence nor well supported theoretical speculations.
Why should I trust you?
Do not trust him !
Hypothesis may be considered as good if they explain a lot of results better than old theories . It is not the case here (and not for the big bang which requires a strange hypothesis after almost every type of observation ! ).
The simplest explanation of the increase of frequency of the Pioneer is a transfer of energy from the sun light to radiowaves where protons and electrons of the solar wind are cold enough to combine into excited atomic hydrogen.
Laser experiments show transfers of energy giving frequency shifts from beams having a high Planck's temperature (generally high frequency : light) to colder beams (generally low frequency : thermal and radio). Applying the rules verified with lasers, it appears that, using ordinary light, nearly only atomic hydrogen in its excited states allows such transfers of energy.
Do you "have experimental evidence for well supported theoretical speculations" to support your excitd atomic hydrogen hypothesis?

Can I trust you on this? :lol:

Lunatik
2004-Dec-05, 05:26 PM
papageno: By the way, you still have not told me whether I understood your idea of "self-cancelling effects" (which is still unsupported).

Let's see if this helps. Taking Newton's orbital energy as a template for Mass:

GM = Rv^2 .

Taking the old GM values of mass and Newton's G for each planet, to get theoretical Rv^2 value, then used to estimate a new M from the new G.

Example: G = 6.67e-11 Nm^2.kg-2
Mars M = 0.642e24 kg

GM = Rv^2 = 4.282e13 Nm^2.kg^-1, where by substituting the new G for Mars:

(1.096e-10)M = 4.282e13 , we get M' = 0.3907e24 kg

...which is a new (G-adjusted) M value for Mars's mass. Note that today's physics assumes Newton's G is a universal constant; the hypothesis shows it is a variable 'constant' instead, as per posts above.


TABLE OF OLD PLANETARY NEWTON'S G , AND THE NEW (varaible) G, OLD MASS, AND NEW G-ADJUSTED MASS (as 'local' mass in local G):

Planet body, Old G, New G, Earth G Mass, local G Mass "kg"

Mercury, 6.67E-11 N, 2.79e-11 N, 0.33e24 kg, 0.788e24 kg
Venus, 6.67E-11 N, 5.20e-11 N, 4.87e24 kg, 6.25e24 kg
Earth, 6.67E-11 N, 6.67e-11 N, 5.97e24 kg, 5.97e24 kg
Mars, 6.67E-11 N, 1.096e-10 N, 0.6242e24 kg, 0.3907e24 kg
Jupiter, 6.67E-11 N, 3.86e-10 N, 18.9e26 kg, 32.66e25 kg
Saturn, 6.67E-11 N, 6.85e-10 N, 5.684e26 kg, 5.534e25 kg
Uranus, 6.67E-11 N, 1.38e-9 N, 8.68e25 kg, 4.195e24 kg
Neptune, 6.67E-11 N, 2.17e-9 N, 10.24e25 kg, 3.147e24 kg
Pluto, 6.67E-11 N, 2.84e-9 N, 0.013e24 kg, 0.305e23 kg

Now you can see better (I hope) what I meant by "self canceling", where the greater G translates into equivalent greater inertial-mass (equivalence) but lower local G mass, for the local "kilograms". I don't know if this will communicate it to you, but as in any detective story, this is just one more clue. Or as famous Holmes would say, "Elementary my dear Watson." But we don't have all the pieces of the puzzle yet to know "whodunnit".

Jerry
2004-Dec-05, 11:52 PM
I can start by throwing out the strong equivalence principle and assume that 'G' is an independant variable that is a function of the distance from the Sun.
The equivalence principle (gravitational mass = inertial mass) has nothing to do with the value or the constancy of G and is based on experiments...
So, on what basis do you throw it out (not experimental evidence, as far as I can see)?This is my working assumption: Inertial energy and gravity are only equvalent in a framework where the total amount of mass is equvalent. If a mass is places in an envionment, such as at a different distance from the sun, it's inertial equvalent changes in log/log distance squared proportions.




Plugging this into the proven formula for gravity near the earth:

F = kln(Gn/r2)(M1M2/r^2) Eq 1.

Where kln(Gn/r^2) is the G constant we use on Earth, but in this equation, k and Gn are unknown constants that are characteristic of the attenuation in the inertial field in a log/log relationship.
Where did you get this "proven" formula? I simply plugged a variable form of "G" - my working hypothesis, into the 'proven' Newtonian formula F=G(m1m2/r^2), replace G with k(ln(Gn/r^2).




... (I should note that every space probe has been at some variance from the predicted orbit, but only the Pioneer Probes were designed to track this small of an anomally.)
Why should these be the only cases?
What about comets?Of course it applies to comets as well! Since we do not know the precise orbits or masses of the comets, how can we make precise predictions of there densities? The Pioneer Probes were the only probes that we tracked with enough accuracy to state there is an unexplained acceleration of 0.8x10^-8 cm/sec^2. Lunatik explains observation by increasing gravity, I explain it by decreasing 'inertia'., which defines "g" in the above equation.

It is significant to note that before we actually visited Jupiter,
Saturn and Uranus, we predicted the densities of these planets and their moons were much more in-line with the inner planet densities. If the inertia of the pioneer and voyagers probes diminished with increasing distance, our use of this inertia to calculate the density of these environments was wrong!




To solve for k values, I am going to set up a curve based upon the following assumptions that are consistent with this theory of ‘gravity’:
The "theory of gravity" you outlined above does not look like the one currently used.Again, I have plugged in a variable 'G' constant, which really boils down to a variable inertia, although as I have explained elsewhere in this thread, the idea is based upon the mechanics of Tesla.




1) The Density of most solid spheres in the galaxy should be close to the same. This is somewhat justified upon the basis most meteorites have a density between 6 and 9, and the inner planets between 3.5 and 5.5. The gas giant planets are clear exceptions.
"Most solid spheres"?
What does this have to do with the planets, or satellites, or even many asteroids and meteorites?This is an assumption I used to determine the constants needed to create a variable inertia that is consistant with observations. I could have worked the other way and used the measured acceleration of the Pioneer probe to calculate the masses of the planets, In which case, with this equation, the same high level of coincidence in density would have popped out (4.47g/cc). I think it was much more impressive to blindly work it the other way, as I did.





"Density(in Earth frame of reference)"?
I was not aware that the planet move with relativistic speeds with respect to the Earth.
Unless I misunderstand what you mean.I am saying that if 'inertial mass' is proportional to total mass, in this case, in reference to the distance from the sun, you must move everything to the same inertial frame of reference to compare densities of different objects. This has nothing to do with relativity, other than relativistic equations would yield slightly different results.



On what is this "Tesla equation" based?"Inertial mass" is a function of total mass. Like Lunatik says, these are new concepts and not necessarily easy to grasp. The k(ln(gn/r^2)) term is an approximation of a very complex wave mechanics solution. - Since this only varies one term in the standard equation for calculating gravitational forces, hopefully it is easier to relate to. Actually, the inertial function varies quite a bit in the enviroments of Jupiter and Saturn.





.... I integrate the variance in gravity predicted by this equation between the orbits of Jupiter and Neptune, I get an acceleration 0.8cm10^-8/sec^2, which is precisely the acceleration of the Pioneer Probes!

To be honest, your method reminds me of Lyndon Ashmore.Thank you, this is helpful feedback. Lyndon is not assigning causality to anything, nor is everything he has posted up in the night. These discrepancies between theory and observation are real.

If I am right about the nature of what we call inertia, what we define as the momentum of an object is actually an inbalance in the electrical forces of a standing wave: Push against the sun, and the sun "moves away" from us; this creates a net inbalance in the Emf in the opposite direction, and we are pulled toward this inbalance and moved away from the sun.
But the amount of 'upward momentum' we can exhibit is a function of our distance from the sun. Assuming this function is the type gausian distribution we would expect if gravity is an emf, this momentum tensor (mt) will decrease by a factor of about ln(mt)r, or ln(mt/r^2).

As I said, this is just an approximation based upon prior an estimate of the attenuation factor necessary to explain the universe as we see it.

I have a strong sense of urgency in addressing this, and let me tell you why:

This past year, the Beagle expedition ended in failure when the probe failed to respond after entering the Martian atmosphere. In the final report the investigators were unable to identify a root cause for the mission failure, but what they could identify was an anomalous atmospheric condition that created an extremely low pressure in the atmosphere of Mars during Beagles decent. The evidence of this is a measured depression 200 miles above the Martian surface.

What is most curious about this finding is that the successful landings of both Spirit and Opportunity still experienced flight anomalies that are consistent with the Beagle scenario: In both missions the parachutes deployed late, indicating either a calibration error in the sensors on both missions, or that the density of the atmosphere of Mars at the deployment altitude was less than predicted. Both of the Viking probes, which successfully landed in the 1970’s also experienced late deployment of braking parachute deployment, and they both used much more hydrazine fuel than anticipated. These failures are not coincidental, nor are they systemic: pressure actuated event technology has been highly developed and very reliable since World War II.

If I am right about inertial strength decreasing with increasing distance from the sun, These anomalies are due to the intrinsic pressure differential in the Martian atmosphere. The decrease in ‘inertial mass’ means the real density of Mars is much closer to that of the earth (4.47g/cc), so the pressure gradient above the planet, in complete accordance with ideal gas laws, diminishes more rapidly with increasing distance from the surface.

For example: if planet X has an uniform density, and an atmospheric density of 100mg/m^3, diameter of 10 km and a surface gravitational constant of 10m/s^2, then at 20 km altitude, the density would be about 100mg/m^3 /(20km-10km)^2 =1mg/m^3.

But if the core of the planet is mostly iron, since more of the mass of the planet is toward the center, the maximum g-force is not at the surface, but at an effective radius of about 7km from the center. Now the density of the atmosphere at 10km above the planet is about 10m/s^2/(20km-7km) = 0.59mg/m^3. The denser the planet, the less braking there is in the upper atmosphere, and this is the reason the parachutes have not opened on schedule. The same thing is likely to happen with Huygen, only worse, because while On Mars our estimate of the density is off by only 30%, near Saturn it is of by almost 300%!

Much work to do.

Edit: The latest estimate on the anomalous acceleration rate is 8.74cm/s^2,
per Michael Martin Nieto (http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/04110776. gr-qc/0411077). An exhaust review of every system has revealed naughta. They also indicate they cannot differential between a true doppler event, or a redshift in the light spectrum, as Jacque Moret-Bailly and others - including myself have proposed. What? Jerry, you are proposing both Strong equivalance principle violation and cosmic redshift?

Can I hedge just a little and say there are arguments in favor of both directions: The cosmic RS theory is consistent with reshifts elsewhere, although in this case it would have to be a blue shift, which I decided, after reviewing the alpha absorbtion data in this range. So for the reasons i have given on this thread and others, I am of the opinion the net effect on the pioneer probe is dominated by a strong equivalence violation that is distance from the sun dependent, (Therefore there is no measureable Blue shift in the moon, nor was there in the Pioneer probe prior to the time it entered the jovian environment.) A cosmic reshift could be masked by this blue shift, which would put the sep violation in the order of 16 cm*10-8 /s^2.

Tensor
2004-Dec-06, 04:22 AM
... and if you throw out Saturn, the number is even higher!!!

Ahhhh, but you can't just throw out Saturn if it doesn't fit. That would be Bad Astronomy. So we will have to scrap your whole idea. Similar to what you want to do with the Big Bang. Mostly, I gather, because your interpretation of observations doesn't match the interpretations of most astrophysicists.

Tensor
2004-Dec-06, 04:37 AM
Tensor: What do you mean by a stripped down version? A non-Differential Geometry version?
I'm a simple fellow, so subscribe to the KISS principle. But never having seen Einstein's work on Mercury, other than anecdotally, I'd be flying without instruments, by the intuitive seat of my pants. It's easy to make things complex, harder to keep it simple. :lol:

KISS and keep it as simple as possible are two vastly different things. We can keep it simple (concerning planets anyway) from the orbit of Venus out. This is due to the GR and Newtonian answer being virtual identical at those distances. But, the Newtonian answer doesn't agree with observations at the orbit of Mercury, but GR does. Which would indicate that GR is the simplest (even though the math is horribly complex) at that distance.

Celestial Mechanic
2004-Dec-06, 05:18 AM
[Snip!]I simply plugged a variable form of "G" - my working hypothesis, into the 'proven' Newtonian formula F=G(m1m2/r^2), replace G with k(ln(Gn/r^2)).
Well, then I am going to have to take you to task for the same sloppiness with units and notation that Lyndon Ashmore practices.

First, any quantity inside of a logarithm must be dimensionless. The units of G are m^3/kg/s^2, n is kg/m^3, and r is of course m, so that G*n/r^2 is in m^-2*s^-2. Unless, of course, your G isn't the usual definition of G, in which case the notation is confusing.

Second, logarithms are dimensionless, so in order for k*(ln(G*n/r^2)) to be a replacement for G, it must have the same dimensions as G. A far better way to write this would be:

G_0*ln(k*n/r^2), where k has units m^5/kg and G_0 (that's g sub zero, can't do subscripts in HTML, sorry) has the same units as G.

Of course, you still haven't really justified the use of this formula, all you've done is drop the name of Tesla as if it were some sort of magic talisman. What heuristic reason do you have for this particular formula?

JMB
2004-Dec-06, 08:56 AM
Do you "have experimental evidence for well supported theoretical speculations" to support your excitd atomic hydrogen hypothesis?

Can I trust you on this? :lol:
I started the theory of the CREIL (without the acronym) without any experimental support. About at the same time, people working with femtosecond lasers discovered the ISRS, which uses the same theory, except that as the index of refraction depends on the high peak power of the lasers, the transfers of energy and frequency shifts depend on this peak power. The theory of ISRS shows that it works at any power so that it becomes a femtosecond CREIL with short, low power pulses.
The common theory of CREIL and ISRS is verified by experimental ISRS.
In particular, the length of the pulses must verify the general condition : shorter than all relevant time constants of the gas. These time constants are:
- the collisional time, so that, for CREIL the pressure must be low
- The period of the Raman type resonance. In CREIL, as the coherence of the natural light is some nanoseconds, the Raman resonance must have a period of the order of 100 MHZ. In hydrogen, the resonance in the fundamental state (1420 MHz ~ 21cm) has too high a frequency, but the resonances in the n=2 states work well. for n>2, it may be some CREIL, but weaker because the frequencies are low.

The best experimental verification is the explanation of the spectra of the quasars, in particular the experimental observation of the periodicity 0.062 of the redshifts z, discovered experimentally before I demonstrated it is very simply deduced from the spectrum of atomic hydrogen (to shift the Lyman beta or gamma lines to the alpha, z is 3*0.062 or 4*0.062)

papageno
2004-Dec-06, 10:05 AM
papageno: By the way, you still have not told me whether I understood your idea of "self-cancelling effects" (which is still unsupported).

Let's see if this helps.

Not really.
I asked you whether my depiction of your idea is correct or not, to see if understood it (not if I agree with it).

So, do you think I understand your idea or not?

papageno
2004-Dec-06, 10:47 AM
The equivalence principle (gravitational mass = inertial mass) has nothing to do with the value or the constancy of G and is based on experiments...
So, on what basis do you throw it out (not experimental evidence, as far as I can see)?This is my working assumption: Inertial energy and gravity are only equvalent in a framework where the total amount of mass is equvalent.
Define "total amount of mass" and "inertial energy", and then explain on what your assumption is based.



If a mass is places in an envionment, such as at a different distance from the sun, it's inertial equvalent changes in log/log distance squared proportions.
What is "mass" and its "inertial equivalent" in this context?
Why would it change with distance?
If these are assumptions, on what are they based?


I simply plugged a variable form of "G" - my working hypothesis, into the 'proven' Newtonian formula F=G(m1m2/r^2), replace G with k(ln(Gn/r^2).
You have not answered the question: where does this formula come from?
Why would you use it?
And other problems with the equation have been addressed by Celestial Mechanic.


Of course it applies to comets as well! Since we do not know the precise orbits or masses of the comets, how can we make precise predictions of there densities?
I referred Lunatik to the Halley comet.
Considering that it came back right on time in 1910 and 1986, do you think that its orbit is known with enough precision?
If G were variable, why would the orbit of a comet be elliptical?
(For a G that depends on distance, the force no longer varies as the inverse of distance squared, hence the orbits are not necessarily quadratic curves.)



The Pioneer Probes were the only probes that we tracked with enough accuracy to state there is an unexplained acceleration of 0.8x10^-8 cm/sec^2. Lunatik explains observation by increasing gravity, I explain it by decreasing 'inertia'., which defines "g" in the above equation.
Lunatik still has not explained why he assumes that the inertial mass should change (except for post hoc assumptions).



It is significant to note that before we actually visited Jupiter,
Saturn and Uranus, we predicted the densities of these planets and their moons were much more in-line with the inner planet densities. If the inertia of the pioneer and voyagers probes diminished with increasing distance, our use of this inertia to calculate the density of these environments was wrong!
If the amount of matter does not change, why would the inertia change?
On what is this based?



]Again, I have plugged in a variable 'G' constant, which really boils down to a variable inertia, although as I have explained elsewhere in this thread, the idea is based upon the mechanics of Tesla.

On what is "Tesla's mechanics" based?
If it actually works, for what reason isn't this mechanics used by physicists?
(This is the first time that I see "Tesla's mechanics" mentioned.)





"Most solid spheres"?
What does this have to do with the planets, or satellites, or even many asteroids and meteorites?This is an assumption I used to determine the constants needed to create a variable inertia that is consistant with observations.
On what is this assumption based?
Why shouldn't we think that it is just an arbitrary assumption you used to reach a preconcieved conclusion?



I could have worked the other way and used the measured acceleration of the Pioneer probe to calculate the masses of the planets,
And why haven't you done so?



In which case, with this equation, the same high level of coincidence in density would have popped out (4.47g/cc). I think it was much more impressive to blindly work it the other way, as I did.

"Blindly" worked out from assumptions you have not justified.
Why should it be more impressive?







"Density(in Earth frame of reference)"?
I was not aware that the planet move with relativistic speeds with respect to the Earth.
Unless I misunderstand what you mean.I am saying that if 'inertial mass' is proportional to total mass, in this case, in reference to the distance from the sun, you must move everything to the same inertial frame of reference to compare densities of different objects. This has nothing to do with relativity, other than relativistic equations would yield slightly different results.
Define "total mass" and explain why it is different from "inertial mass".
What do you mean with "Earth frame of reference"?





On what is this "Tesla equation" based?"Inertial mass" is a function of total mass.
Again, what is "total mass"?



Like Lunatik says, these are new concepts and not necessarily easy to grasp. The k(ln(gn/r^2)) term is an approximation of a very complex wave mechanics solution.
Why would you use a "very complex wave mechanics solutions"?
Where does it come from?



- Since this only varies one term in the standard equation for calculating gravitational forces, hopefully it is easier to relate to. Actually, the inertial function varies quite a bit in the enviroments of Jupiter and Saturn.
References are welcome.





To be honest, your method reminds me of Lyndon Ashmore.Thank you, this is helpful feedback. Lyndon is not assigning causality to anything, nor is everything he has posted up in the night. These discrepancies between theory and observation are real.
I was referring to the unscientific approach of Lyndon Ashmore.
He has a conclusion to reach, and he makes up assumptions and misapplies established physics in order to reach that conclusion.



If I am right about the nature of what we call inertia,...
What if your are wrong?
Can you concieve feasible experiments to test your assumptions?



... what we define as the momentum of an object is actually an inbalance in the electrical forces of a standing wave: Push against the sun, and the sun "moves away" from us; this creates a net inbalance in the Emf in the opposite direction, and we are pulled toward this inbalance and moved away from the sun.
Physicists already tried to blame inertia on electromagnetism.
It did not work out.
Why should your approach be more succesful?



But the amount of 'upward momentum' we can exhibit is a function of our distance from the sun. Assuming this function is the type gausian distribution we would expect if gravity is an emf, this momentum tensor (mt) will decrease by a factor of about ln(mt)r, or ln(mt/r^2).
Why would gravity have anything to do with an Electro-Motive Force (emf)?



As I said, this is just an approximation based upon prior an estimate of the attenuation factor necessary to explain the universe as we see it.

On what is this approximation based?



I have a strong sense of urgency in addressing this, and let me tell you why:

[...]

If I am right about inertial strength decreasing with increasing distance from the sun, These anomalies are due to the intrinsic pressure differential in the Martian atmosphere. The decrease in ‘inertial mass’ means the real density of Mars is much closer to that of the earth (4.47g/cc), so the pressure gradient above the planet, in complete accordance with ideal gas laws, diminishes more rapidly with increasing distance from the surface.
And why do you blame it on a variable G?
Why not on our incomplete understanding of martian meteorology?
What if you are not right?




For example: if planet X has an uniform density, and an atmospheric density of 100mg/m^3, diameter of 10 km and a surface gravitational constant of 10m/s^2, then at 20 km altitude, the density would be about 100mg/m^3 /(20km-10km)^2 =1mg/m^3.

But if the core of the planet is mostly iron, since more of the mass of the planet is toward the center, the maximum g-force is not at the surface, but at an effective radius of about 7km from the center. Now the density of the atmosphere at 10km above the planet is about 10m/s^2/(20km-7km) = 0.59mg/m^3. The denser the planet, the less braking there is in the upper atmosphere, and this is the reason the parachutes have not opened on schedule. The same thing is likely to happen with Huygen, only worse, because while On Mars our estimate of the density is off by only 30%, near Saturn it is of by almost 300%!
Please, look up Gauss theorem, because what you are saying does not make much sense.




Much work to do.

Edit: The latest estimate on the anomalous acceleration rate is 8.74cm/s^2,
per Michael Martin Nieto (http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/04110776. gr-qc/0411077). An exhaust review of every system has revealed naughta. They also indicate they cannot differential between a true doppler event, or a redshift in the light spectrum, as Jacque Moret-Bailly and others - including myself have proposed. What? Jerry, you are proposing both Strong equivalance principle violation and cosmic redshift?

Can I hedge just a little and say there are arguments in favor of both directions: The cosmic RS theory is consistent with reshifts elsewhere, although in this case it would have to be a blue shift, which I decided, after reviewing the alpha absorbtion data in this range. So for the reasons i have given on this thread and others, I am of the opinion the net effect on the pioneer probe is dominated by a strong equivalence violation that is distance from the sun dependent, (Therefore there is no measureable Blue shift in the moon, nor was there in the Pioneer probe prior to the time it entered the jovian environment.) A cosmic reshift could be masked by this blue shift, which would put the sep violation in the order of 16 cm*10-8 /s^2.
On what is your idea based?

Lunatik
2004-Dec-06, 07:52 PM
Papageno, you had asked me above:
papageno: By the way, you still have not told me whether I understood your idea of "self-canceling effects" (which is still unsupported).
To which I will respond now, since this is important to understand. Of course, what I say is only one man's point of view, so not to be taken as gospel, just as how I understand it conceptually.


papageno: Is there any experimental evidence or unambiguous observations that show that G is not constant?
G is assumed to be constant for the same reasons that the speed of light in vacuum or the Planck constant are assumed to be constant.

About the "electromagnetic component", an electromagnetic field contains energy, hence (inertial) mass (after all, photons carry momentum).
The contribution to gravitational mass goes through the equivalence principle. (...)

I am still confused by this idea that a change in G, Newton's gravitational constant, changes the inertial mass of an object.
I must have missed where you explain it.

Does it work like this?
We observe the (orbital) motion of an object, hence we observe the acceleration due to gravitational interaction.
If G changes, the gravitational interaction changes, that mean the force acting on the object changes.
For the motion to be the same as in the case where G is constant, we must assume that the inertial mass changes.

My problem is this:
from experiments we know that the inertial mass depends on the amount of matter, but not on gravitational force acting on it.

If G changes, I would expect to see a change in the motion of the object (because the force acting on it changed).
On what basis would one assume that the inertial mass changed to compensate?

Let's take it a piece at a time: RE If G changes, the gravitational interaction changes, that mean the force acting on the object changes.
For the motion to be the same as in the case where G is constant, we must assume that the inertial mass changes.

Yes, inertial mass changes, but the correct way to say this is that it was always changed, living in a higher G, and we overestimated it with a constant G. So our mass value in kilograms (Earth based on our local G)were too high for a higher G (but okay in Earth's G 'constant'), so the motion to be the same we must assume that the inertial mass changes, which must read "it was already changed." What we see as orbital motion in local G necessitates the mass value of the object is lower than we had estimated (for outer planets), so the resulting motion is unaffected (self-canceled). This changes, of course, if a mass is traveling through increasing G regions, then its velocity will be affected as it gains [per equivalence principle] in inertial-mass.

RE My problem is this:
from experiments we know that the inertial mass depends on the amount of matter, but not on gravitational force acting on it.

Yes, of course. The matter/inertial-mass relationship is always the same in the same G region. Why would it be different? It is only affected if measured in different G, then it is lower inertial mass for inner planets, and conversely greater inertial mass for outer planets. So what happens to matter, let's take the outer planets, to make its inertial-mass greater (and hence per constant momentum to slow)? Think of it this way, as (to take a Jerry analogy, though we reach different conlusions on inertia) the matter enters lower solar energy regions it "out-radiates" its own energy; but if it out-radiates, something must be "in-radiating". So what would in-radiate to make inertial mass different? This can only be answered by "suspending" everything we ever learned on mass-matter-inertia (since it was for our 'constant' G only) and instead hypothesize that as energy out-radiates the "other thing" in-radiates. Now you can see why yours above "If G changes, the gravitational interaction changes, that mean the force acting on the object changes," is off the mark: the force on the object doesn't change; what changes is how this object in a higher G region in-radiates this "other thing" to give it greater inertial-mass, and hence make it "heavier" to the force acting on it (viz. the Sun's gravity). Of course, this "other thing" is that in a higher G, gravity is stronger per mass, hence it counterbalances the out-radiating energy intrinsic to this mass, so that its inertial-mass increases. The reason I said earlier that we have to "suspend everything we ever learned on mass-matter-inertia" is because we never had to think in terms of a variable Newton's G before. So what "in-radiates"? It's gravity expressed in the higher G function, which then implies an inverse relationship between the Sun's energy flux and the gravity potential of any given region: more energy, less gravity G, and less energy is more gravity G. Ditto for inertial mass (which by the way does not agree with how Jerry sees it, since he sees inertial mass decreasing with decreasing energy flux environment).

Now to answer your question: RE On what basis would one assume that the inertial mass changed to compensate?

By now the answer should be self evident: per the equivalence principle, higher G means higher inertial-mass, which means it is also "heavier" as to how it responds to the gravity from another body. In the case of the Pioneers, they are being pulled back towards the Sun at a constant rate of approximately ~8E-8 cm/s^2 (though my hypothesis says this is ONLY accounted for at the constant rate of ~ 7.24E-10 cm/s^2), with the balance possibly due to other systemic or external influences, such as how the spacevacuum's molecules interact with the heat release vents on the (dark) side of the crafts facing away from the Sun, i.e., what I called a "Crookes" effect (as any toy radiometer will demonstrate).

Did yours above show you understood what I had presented? Well, I really don't know if you do, unless you can explain better by what you meant in "If G changes, the gravitational interaction changes, that mean the force acting on the object changes." This is a critical point, what did you have in mind with "the force acting on the object"? To my understanding, the force of gravity from the Sun, the galaxy, other planets, etc. does not change; what changes is how this object responds to it.

JMB
2004-Dec-07, 06:54 AM
To my understanding, the force of gravity from the Sun, the galaxy, other planets, etc. does not change; what changes is how this object responds to it.

Strange discussion that I am unable to follow.
Using the CREIL, which is deduced from ordinary physics, appears too simple to be interesting !

Jerry
2004-Dec-07, 07:51 AM
Define "total amount of mass" and "inertial energy", and then explain on what your assumption is based.The total mass of an object is the total atomic weight of the baryons in the object. The “inertial energy’ of an object is the relativistic momentum minus the rest mass of the object. As you know, when we try to accelerate objects to near the speed of light, they start radiating; we can only pound so much energy into any object.

I am hypothesizing that the kinetic energy capacity of any object is limited by its mass and the mass of its environment. Note the subtle difference between this explanation and Einstein’s: Einstein says you cannot accelerate a physical object to the speed of light. I am saying the same thing, but also stating that momentum is a ‘field’ effect limited by the capacity of the field. (I can see all the EE’s out their nodding their heads, yes, we know what happens with we try to feed too much energy into an electromagnetic system.)

If any object is moving away from a center of mass, if the inertial energy of the object exceeds the field strength it is moving within, the path of the object is altered and to obey the rules of energy conservation, the energy is radiated. I justify this on the bases of the measured acceleration of stars near the edges of galaxies, the acceleration of the Pioneer probes, and the fact that whenever we see events that should create a great deal of momentum, we observe X-rays, gamma rays and so forth.




If a mass is placed in an environment, such as at a different distance from the sun, its inertial equivalent changes in log/log distance squared proportions.
What is "mass" and its "inertial equivalent" in this context?
Why would it change with distance?
If these are assumptions, on what are they based?
It was Newton who made the assumption momentum is a function of mass of an object, but not the mass of the system, not me. I am saying the Pioneer observations tell us something is wrong, and the energy and matter displacements patterns in supernova and the energy spike in the cosmic ray power function tell us the ‘inertial capacity’ of an object is limited by the mass of the system.


The late deployment of every parachute descent on to Mars and the hard landings confirm this. It took over three hundred corrections to put Odessey in the right orbit. And if something isn’t done between now and December 25th to prepare Huygen for landing on a moon more than twice a massive as we think it is, Huygen is going to end up like a bug on a windscreen, just like Beagle!



I simply plugged a variable form of "G" - my working hypothesis, into the 'proven' Newtonian formula F=G(m1m2/r^2), replace G with k(ln(Gn/r^2).
You have not answered the question: where does this formula come from? I am only doing what Newton and Einstein did, creating a mathematical approximation of reality. I expect forces in nature to behave in natural log proportions, if the G 'constant' is a function of total mass, this should be a reasonable approximation for a two body system where m1>>>m2.

If you are asking why I am starting over - throwing out Newton's &amp; Einsteins laws - ranking astrophysicsts will assure you the cosmos are so tightly constrained within the current set of rules, dark matter, inflation, and dark energy are necessary components, and I agree. So the basic rules must be wrong.



And other problems with the equation have been addressed by Celestial Mechanic.



[Snip!]I simply plugged a variable form of "G" - my working hypothesis, into the 'proven' Newtonian formula F=G(m1m2/r^2), replace G with k(ln(Gn/r^2)).
Well, then I am going to have to take you to task for the same sloppiness with units and notation that Lyndon Ashmore practices.

First, any quantity inside of a logarithm must be dimensionless. The units of G are m^3/kg/s^2, n is kg/m^3, and r is of course m, so that G*n/r^2 is in m^-2*s^-2. Unless, of course, your G isn't the usual definition of G, in which case the notation is confusing.

Second, logarithms are dimensionless, so in order for k*(ln(G*n/r^2)) to be a replacement for G, it must have the same dimensions as G. A far better way to write this would be:
Yes, I made a bad choice, I’m writing like an astrophycist (making up new units whenever I change scales). Gn (Gsubnaturalog) in my original formula should be unit-less, so the units would be in the k value (m^3/kg/s^2m). This is just an approximation, another function that works just as well is (now using CM’s nomenclature) F=Gjln(k)/r, Gj is then ~10m^2/kg/s^2 ...or is that Mparsecs-hr/slug/ft-yr^3?



Of course it applies to comets as well! Since we do not know the precise orbits or masses of the comets, how can we make precise predictions of there densities?
I referred Lunatik to the Halley comet.
Considering that it came back right on time in 1910 and 1986, do you think that its orbit is known with enough precision? If G were variable, why would the orbit of a comet be elliptical?
My gut answer is that comets are much denser than the orbit predicts – we estimate the mass from the orbit, not the other way around. Have you seen the pictures of the outgassing of Wild2? It is even outgassing on the opposite side of the comet from the sun. Dirty ice should not transfer heat that fast, but iron would. If the Europian intercept is successful in 2012, we will have a definitive answer. We should also be able to tell from Cassini’s orbits of Titan if my predictions are correct, but it will take some time to get a good approximation of the 2d term of the equation, I don’t know how long.

Wild 2 will hopefully be landing in the Utah desert in 2006 with comet stuff – any bets on the iron content? I’ll be it is high.



(For a G that depends on distance, the force no longer varies as the inverse of distance squared, hence the orbits are not necessarily quadratic curves.)True, but only one more term is necessary, and the deviance is small, also we had prior historicals probables on Haley’s …



If the amount of matter does not change, why would the inertia change?
On what is this based? A rational judgment about the material in the moons of Jupiter and Saturn, as well as the planets themselves. Prometheus simply cannot have a density of only 0.7 and be stealing matter from Saturn’s rings! What in the hell is it made out of? Dark energy? Hooverium?



On what is "Tesla's mechanics" based? wave mechanics. EEs use them all the time…



Why shouldn't we think that it is just an arbitrary assumption you used to reach a preconceived conclusion? I don’t have an agenda, just a lot of observations that don’t mate well with existing theory, and a lot of time watching the ocean. The idea that gravity is "field-limited" popped up while I was studying the jets flowing out of AGN - What in the hell tied them in knots? How did they stand in such tight columns? Why do they, at times seem to hit a wall? why are they so radio loud? This answers all of theses questions, as well as explaining about five dozen other things that have mystified us for decades.





I could have worked the other way and used the measured acceleration of the Pioneer probe to calculate the masses of the planets,
And why haven't you done so? I don’t have to, since by estimating the density of the planets, the acceleration of the Pioneer probes popped out, the proof is in the pudding. HOWEVER, when I did go back and double check, I came up with 1.6*10^-8cm/s^2, for the predicted velocity of the Pioneer probes. I am actually more pleased with this number: the approximation does not take into account the variations in ‘Gj’ caused by the masses of the big planets themselves. I am not certain how these masses were calculated (they are based upon the interactions of Voyager with the planets and the moons.) So with a number of 1.6 instead of 8, once I figure out how to reverse engineer this whole thing, the Densities of Saturn’s minor moons, and even Saturn and Jupiter themselves could easily be in the 4.5g/cc range as well.



…I think it was much more impressive to blindly work it the other way, as I did.

"Blindly" worked out from assumptions you have not justified.
Why should it be more impressive?[/quote]Well, I’m assuming gravity has a second order function because we observe rotational velocities that don’t match Newtonian theory, and we can neither find nor quantify dark matter. With current theory, we cannot explain cosmic rays or static friction.



Why would you use a "very complex wave mechanics solutions"?
Where does it come from?Tesla, Jacques Monet Bailly (who has an elaborate but unpublished paper creating a Proton as an EMF soliton.) and a whole lot of time watching the ocean.



References are welcome.Start where I started (http://lanl.arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0404207). This could save a few thousand hours – it is not all correct, but there are a few dozen good – mostly mainstream - references.





If I am right about the nature of what we call inertia,...
What if your are wrong?
Can you conceive feasible experiments to test your assumptions?Check out my post on the CREIL thread, also if the Huygen splats, or lands very hard, that is a tough experiment, but then, so was Beagle. We will know, and soon. We are also collecting supernova observations by the thousands now. If gravity proves to have the variability I have described, hopefully serious researchers in the supernova field will start looking at the supernova data from the prospective I have.



Physicists already tried to blame inertia on electromagnetism.
It did not work out.
Why should your approach be more successful?Perhaps it won’t. I think they limited the frequency by Planck’s constant and couldn’t get the energy right.




Why not on our incomplete understanding of Martian meteorology?gas laws are not that tough, why should it be so different from our own?


What if you are not right?The only thing I am certain of is that I am wrong! Scientists, unlike prophets, have an inalienable right to be wrong.

What is wrong is that in today’s scientific world, is to be wrong even once, is to be discredited. The result is we are lead by accountants. (All the brilliant clowns who make a lot of mistakes are writing software.)

Only four out of seven of Darwin’s hypothesis turned out to be true. I would have to hit on nine out of seven to even get a thumbnail reference in "who's ideas got stolen" :roll: .



Please, look up Gauss theorem, because what you are saying does not make much sense.Yes it does: Look at the limiting cases: If a planet had a surface area equal to a one mole layer of hydrogen gas, and has an atmosphere of one mole of hydrogen, and a mass just shy of a Neutron star, the atmosphere will be very dense at one angstrom and very very thin at 100km. If that same planet had the mass of the moon, the atmosphere would be spread from here to Mars, but a thicker atmosphere at 100km than the heavy one (by about seven atoms). Working from both extremes, it is easy to see that with a fixed amount of gas, the thickness of the atmosphere at a high altitude decreases with increasing density in the planet.



What? Jerry, you are proposing both Strong equivalance principle violation and cosmic redshift?tip of the iceberg
More later.

papageno
2004-Dec-07, 10:36 AM
Lunatik,

to be blunt, you seem to confuse the gravitational force acting on an object with the gravitational "constant" G.
Also, you seem to misunderstand the principle of equivalence (whichs has nothing to do with the value or the universality of G).

In order to save your idea of "variable G", you introduce the assumption that the inertial mass of an object changes to compensate the variation of G.
But you have not provided a single physically valid argument in support of this assumption.



Did yours above show you understood what I had presented? Well, I really don't know if you do, unless you can explain better by what you meant in "If G changes, the gravitational interaction changes, that mean the force acting on the object changes." This is a critical point, what did you have in mind with "the force acting on the object"? To my understanding, the force of gravity from the Sun, the galaxy, other planets, etc. does not change; what changes is how this object responds to it.
Didn't you quote the Newton's formula, that show that the gravitationla force between two objects depends on the distance?
Let me repeat it here:

F = G * (m1 * m2) / r12

where F is the force, G Newton's gravitational constant, m1[/i}, [i]m2 the gravitational masses of the two objects, and r12 the doistance between the two objects.
So, "If G changes" and everything else (masses and distance) is constant "the gravitational interaction changes, that means the force acting on the object changes."

By the way, I told Jerry


I referred Lunatik to the Halley comet.
Considering that it came back right on time in 1910 and 1986, do you think that its orbit is known with enough precision?
If G were variable, why would the orbit of a comet be elliptical?
(For a G that depends on distance, the force no longer varies as the inverse of distance squared, hence the orbits are not necessarily quadratic curves.)

papageno
2004-Dec-07, 11:16 AM
Define "total amount of mass" and "inertial energy", and then explain on what your assumption is based.The total mass of an object is the total atomic weight of the baryons in the object. The “inertial energy’ of an object is the relativistic momentum minus the rest mass of the object. As you know, when we try to accelerate objects to near the speed of light, they start radiating; we can only pound so much energy into any object.

I am hypothesizing that the kinetic energy capacity of any object is limited by its mass and the mass of its environment. Note the subtle difference between this explanation and Einstein’s: Einstein says you cannot accelerate a physical object to the speed of light. I am saying the same thing, but also stating that momentum is a ‘field’ effect limited by the capacity of the field. (I can see all the EE’s out their nodding their heads, yes, we know what happens with we try to feed too much energy into an electromagnetic system.)
On what basis are you "hypothesizing"?



If any object is moving away from a center of mass, if the inertial energy of the object exceeds the field strength it is moving within, the path of the object is altered and to obey the rules of energy conservation, the energy is radiated.
Why?
If the kinetic energy energy of an object is larger than the interaction energy, the object simply does not stay bound to the center of mass.
You see this in the "sling-shot effect" and basically in any scattering experiment.
What energy would the object radiate?



I justify this on the bases of the measured acceleration of stars near the edges of galaxies, the acceleration of the Pioneer probes, and the fact that whenever we see events that should create a great deal of momentum, we observe X-rays, gamma rays and so forth.
How is this not accounted for in the "conventional" theories?






If a mass is placed in an environment, such as at a different distance from the sun, its inertial equivalent changes in log/log distance squared proportions.
What is "mass" and its "inertial equivalent" in this context?
Why would it change with distance?
If these are assumptions, on what are they based?
It was Newton who made the assumption momentum is a function of mass of an object, but not the mass of the system, not me. I am saying the Pioneer observations tell us something is wrong, and the energy and matter displacements patterns in supernova and the energy spike in the cosmic ray power function tell us the ‘inertial capacity’ of an object is limited by the mass of the system.
Classical Mechanics has progressed since Newton.
Now we know that momentum is linked to symmetries (as are angular momentum and energy).
Also, you have not answered the questions.



The late deployment of every parachute descent on to Mars and the hard landings confirm this. It took over three hundred corrections to put Odessey in the right orbit. And if something isn’t done between now and December 25th to prepare Huygen for landing on a moon more than twice a massive as we think it is, Huygen is going to end up like a bug on a windscreen, just like Beagle!
What makes you think that this is evidence that Newtonian Mechanics is fundamentally wrong?
Isn't it more likely that, since there are many objects out there, adjustements are necessary to correct for perturbations due to these other objects?





I simply plugged a variable form of "G" - my working hypothesis, into the 'proven' Newtonian formula F=G(m1m2/r^2), replace G with k(ln(Gn/r^2).
You have not answered the question: where does this formula come from? I am only doing what Newton and Einstein did, creating a mathematical approximation of reality. I expect forces in nature to behave in natural log proportions, if the G 'constant' is a function of total mass, this should be a reasonable approximation for a two body system where m1>>>m2.
You still have not answered the question!
Where does that formula come from?
On what are your "expectations" based?
Why do you think that G depends on mass?



If you are asking why I am starting over - throwing out Newton's &amp; Einsteins laws - ranking astrophysicsts will assure you the cosmos are so tightly constrained within the current set of rules, dark matter, inflation, and dark energy are necessary components, and I agree. So the basic rules must be wrong.
On what experimental evidence is this "conclusion" based?
How does this evidence show that "the basic rules must be wrong"?
Why don't we see this on Earth?




[...]



Of course it applies to comets as well! Since we do not know the precise orbits or masses of the comets, how can we make precise predictions of there densities?
I referred Lunatik to the Halley comet.
Considering that it came back right on time in 1910 and 1986, do you think that its orbit is known with enough precision? If G were variable, why would the orbit of a comet be elliptical?
My gut answer is that comets are much denser than the orbit predicts – we estimate the mass from the orbit, not the other way around.

[snip]



(For a G that depends on distance, the force no longer varies as the inverse of distance squared, hence the orbits are not necessarily quadratic curves.)True, but only one more term is necessary, and the deviance is small, also we had prior historicals probables on Haley’s …
Please explain how it is possible to have elliptical orbits if G is not constant?
If you want to resort to Lunatik "solution" of assuming that the inertial mass changes, cancelling the effect, you are expected to provide some support for this.






If the amount of matter does not change, why would the inertia change?
On what is this based? A rational judgment about the material in the moons of Jupiter and Saturn, as well as the planets themselves. Prometheus simply cannot have a density of only 0.7 and be stealing matter from Saturn’s rings! What in the hell is it made out of? Dark energy? Hooverium?
So, you do not have experimental evidence.
Yours is just an argument form ignorance.






On what is "Tesla's mechanics" based? wave mechanics. EEs use them all the time…
Come on, at least give some proper references!
Yours isn't an answer.






Why shouldn't we think that it is just an arbitrary assumption you used to reach a preconceived conclusion? I don’t have an agenda, just a lot of observations that don’t mate well with existing theory, and a lot of time watching the ocean. The idea that gravity is "field-limited" popped up while I was studying the jets flowing out of AGN - What in the hell tied them in knots? How did they stand in such tight columns? Why do they, at times seem to hit a wall? why are they so radio loud? This answers all of theses questions, as well as explaining about five dozen other things that have mystified us for decades.
Again, no substance, just an argument from ignorance.








I could have worked the other way and used the measured acceleration of the Pioneer probe to calculate the masses of the planets,
And why haven't you done so? I don’t have to, since by estimating the density of the planets, the acceleration of the Pioneer probes popped out, the proof is in the pudding. HOWEVER, when I did go back and double check, I came up with 1.6*10^-8cm/s^2, for the predicted velocity of the Pioneer probes. I am actually more pleased with this number: the approximation does not take into account the variations in ‘Gj’ caused by the masses of the big planets themselves. I am not certain how these masses were calculated (they are based upon the interactions of Voyager with the planets and the moons.) So with a number of 1.6 instead of 8, once I figure out how to reverse engineer this whole thing, the Densities of Saturn’s minor moons, and even Saturn and Jupiter themselves could easily be in the 4.5g/cc range as well.
So, you do start from the conclusion and work backwards.









…I think it was much more impressive to blindly work it the other way, as I did.

"Blindly" worked out from assumptions you have not justified.
Why should it be more impressive?Well, I’m assuming gravity has a second order function because we observe rotational velocities that don’t match Newtonian theory, and we can neither find nor quantify dark matter. With current theory, we cannot explain cosmic rays or static friction.
This sound like "we do not understand every detail, so everything we know is wrong".







Why would you use a "very complex wave mechanics solutions"?
Where does it come from?Tesla, Jacques Monet Bailly (who has an elaborate but unpublished paper creating a Proton as an EMF soliton.) and a whole lot of time watching the ocean.
So, why would you use a "very complex wave mechanics solutions"?





References are welcome.Start where I started (http://lanl.arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0404207). This could save a few thousand hours – it is not all correct, but there are a few dozen good – mostly mainstream - references.
Thanks.







If I am right about the nature of what we call inertia,...
What if your are wrong?
Can you conceive feasible experiments to test your assumptions?Check out my post on the CREIL thread, also if the Huygen splats, or lands very hard, that is a tough experiment, but then, so was Beagle. We will know, and soon. We are also collecting supernova observations by the thousands now. If gravity proves to have the variability I have described, hopefully serious researchers in the supernova field will start looking at the supernova data from the prospective I have.



Physicists already tried to blame inertia on electromagnetism.
It did not work out.
Why should your approach be more successful?Perhaps it won’t. I think they limited the frequency by Planck’s constant and couldn’t get the energy right.



Why not on our incomplete understanding of Martian meteorology?gas laws are not that tough, why should it be so different from our own?
Because Mars is different from Earth (which has oceans, stronger gravity and is closer to the Sun).





What if you are not right?The only thing I am certain of is that I am wrong! Scientists, unlike prophets, have an inalienable right to be wrong.

What is wrong is that in today’s scientific world, is to be wrong even once, is to be discredited. The result is we are lead by accountants. (All the brilliant clowns who make a lot of mistakes are writing software.)

Only four out of seven of Darwin’s hypothesis turned out to be true. I would have to hit on nine out of seven to even get a thumbnail reference in "who's ideas got stolen" :roll: .
What does evolution have to do with this?
You should worry about your own theories.





Please, look up Gauss theorem, because what you are saying does not make much sense.Yes it does:
[snip]

So, you do not know what the theorem says and how it is applied to gravity.


You might think I am a bit harsh towards you and Lunatik.
But I do not want this thread to become like the one with lyndonashmore.
If you want to talk about physics, making "against-the-mainstream" claims, you are expected to support them and explain your reasoning.

Lunatik
2004-Dec-07, 06:33 PM
papageno: Didn't you quote the Newton's formula, that show that the gravitational force between two objects depends on the distance?
Let me repeat it here:

F = G * (m1 * m2) / r^2

where F is the force, G Newton's gravitational constant, m1[/i}, [i]m2 the gravitational masses of the two objects, and r12 the distance between the two objects.
So, "If G changes" and everything else (masses and distance) is constant "the gravitational interaction changes, that means the force acting on the object changes."

Yes, "the force acting on the object changes", but why? Is it because the "gravitational force" changes? No. Gravity is gravity, dependent upon mass, and working at a distance according to the inverse square law. The Sun's gravity, for example, does not change with distance, except by how it registers at a distance per the inverse square law. This is fundamental, and Newton got that right, though he never had to cope with a variable G (since it was never postulated by him). What changes is the force of "how mass responds to this gravity force in a greater, or lesser, G environment," meaning that Newton's F = G * (m1 * m2) / r^2 is still valid, only that the function (Gm) becomes different. This is the critical point. In a greater G environment, mass acts as if it has more "weight" in response to what is attracting it; hence it has more inertial-mass, which is how a greater Newton's G manifests itself in mass. The mass we started with on Earth is still the same, in Earth's G environment, but it changes in a greater G environment: viz., it would take more force to move it in a greater G region than on Earth. And this is TESTABLE! That's what ESA is after, as I would be too if I were with NASA/JPL. :o

Another point: How do we know what's happening to comets, like Halley's, at its aphelion? We know what it does close to Earth, but where do we lose track of it, at what distance does its observation falter, or fail? And even if we can see it through its whole highly elliptical orbital cycle, how can we measure its velocity (or acceleration anomaly) without having a communications probe attached to it? Lastly, Halley's is NOT on an escape path out of the solar system, but remains trapped within the Sun's gravity, so it cycles back with great predictability. But does this alone answer all the questions as to what it does in orbit? I don't think it does. If it were on an escape path, that too would be another variable G effect, what is happening to Pioneers.

I know it's a subtle point, so not easy to either explain or understand, so not bothered that our communications seems tenuous here. Like I said before, this requires a "think different" methodology. If we are forced to think in terms of different G, it's something Newton never had to cope with, but we will if it proves true.

Now, let me ask you a question:

How would you describe what happens to mass in a changing G environment, assuming this happened? :-? [-(

Celestial Mechanic
2004-Dec-07, 06:42 PM
[Snip!]Another point: How do we know what's happening to comets, like Halley's, at its aphelion? We know what it does close to Earth, but where do we lose track of it, at what distance does its observation falter, or fail? And even if we can see it through its whole highly elliptical orbital cycle, how can we measure its velocity (or acceleration anomaly) without having a communications probe attached to it?[Snip!]
Actually, the arc of a comet's orbit out past, say, Jupiter, is the arc where the effects of all the various non-gravitational forces are least. The cumulative effects of non-gravitational forces on a comet are much bigger than the cumulative effects of anything that may be occurring in the Kuiper Belt.

Lunatik
2004-Dec-07, 10:01 PM
RE my above posts on variable G:

See if this helps clarify better mine above, taking Newton's:

F = G * (m1 * m2) / r^2

To be adjusted for variable G, it should read as:

F(per dG )= (G * m1)*(G'/G *m2)/ r^2

where dG = G'/G, viz., a variable G' divided by Earth's G, where for the inner planets G' is less than G, but for outer planets G' is greater than G. On Earth, G'/G = 1. In this example, (G*m1) is the Sun, and (G'/G * m2) represents the Pioneer probes.

If dG grows at a steady rate of ~7.24E-11 Nm^2 kg^-2 per AU, then if the Pioneers are now at about 70 AU, then dG = G'/G is approximately 75.98, so that the Pioneers mass, as a function of increased G is now acting as if it were (G'/G * m2) ~76 times greater than when it left Earth. Of course r^2 is that much greater, so the pull is very low, but it accounts for why they are accelerating towards the Sun at a steady rate. They have to slow down, and eventually reach a critical level where they will stop and begin the long journey back into the Sun. That will establish the outer limits of their very large and elliptical future orbits. If they're now traveling at only about 10% velocity from when they started, then they may never reach the Oort Cloud at 50,000 AUs away.

I hope this sheds some light on how a variable G affects the inertial mass, though I am sure everyone will say that "you can't do that!" because I did not adjust the F by the same ratio of G'/G, but that's what happens when you go into a different G region. The equation must show this greater G, since it is different from Earth's region.

Guaranteed you will not find this in any school texts, so please do NOT use any of this in school, or I'm in BIG trouble for leading you astray. This is speculative theory only. :lol:

papageno
2004-Dec-08, 10:45 AM
Yes, "the force acting on the object changes", but why? Is it because the "gravitational force" changes? No. Gravity is gravity, dependent upon mass, and working at a distance according to the inverse square law. The Sun's gravity, for example, does not change with distance, except by how it registers at a distance per the inverse square law. This is fundamental, and Newton got that right, though he never had to cope with a variable G (since it was never postulated by him). What changes is the force of "how mass responds to this gravity force in a greater, or lesser, G environment," meaning that Newton's F = G * (m1 * m2) / r^2 is still valid, only that the function (Gm) becomes different. This is the critical point. In a greater G environment, mass acts as if it has more "weight" in response to what is attracting it;
Or it acts as if it was closer to the other mass, or as if the other mass was larger.
Why does it have to be the small object that "changes" its mass?
In the frame of reference where this object is at rest, your reasoning would apply to the other mass.
So, if we follow your reasoning, we would need to throw away the principle of relativity.




hence it has more inertial-mass, which is how a greater Newton's G manifests itself in mass. The mass we started with on Earth is still the same, in Earth's G environment, but it changes in a greater G environment:
Why?
Because the gravitational force is stronger?
The gravitational force would be stronger because G is larger, not because the gravitational mass of the object is larger.
For your reasoning to apply, we would have to throw away the principle of equivalence as well.



viz., it would take more force to move it in a greater G region than on Earth. And this is TESTABLE! That's what ESA is after, as I would be too if I were with NASA/JPL. :o

Another point: How do we know what's happening to comets, like Halley's, at its aphelion? We know what it does close to Earth, but where do we lose track of it, at what distance does its observation falter, or fail?
What makes you think that we would be able to predict its orbit close to Earth, if we were wrong about what happens far from Earth?

By the way,


If G were variable, why would the orbit of a comet be elliptical?
(For a G that depends on distance, the force no longer varies as the inverse of distance squared, hence the orbits are not necessarily quadratic curves.)




And even if we can see it through its whole highly elliptical orbital cycle, how can we measure its velocity (or acceleration anomaly) without having a communications probe attached to it?
If we could see the comets from Earth, we would not need a communications probe.
Do you think that we do not know the velocity of the planets?
If we can see an object, we can measure its position as a function of time, hence we can know its speed.



Lastly, Halley's is NOT on an escape path out of the solar system, but remains trapped within the Sun's gravity, so it cycles back with great predictability.
If G varies in an unknown way far from the Sun, how can the orbit be predictable?
And closed orbits are not qualitatively different from open orbits (the sling-shot orbits of probes are predicted, otherwise they would not be able to direct them to their targets).



But does this alone answer all the questions as to what it does in orbit? I don't think it does. If it were on an escape path, that too would be another variable G effect, what is happening to Pioneers.

Why would it be different?
It is the same gravitational interaction!



I know it's a subtle point, so not easy to either explain or understand, so not bothered that our communications seems tenuous here. Like I said before, this requires a "think different" methodology. If we are forced to think in terms of different G, it's something Newton never had to cope with, but we will if it proves true.
Hogwash.
Do you really think that physicsts never considered the possibilty that G might not be constant, but time and/or position dependent?



Now, let me ask you a question:

How would you describe what happens to mass in a changing G environment, assuming this happened? :-? [-(



So, "If G changes" and everything else (masses and distance) is constant "the gravitational interaction changes, that means the force acting on the object changes."
You have not provided any physically valid reason to assume that the masses change, if G changes.
You should read my posts more carefully.





RE my above posts on variable G:

See if this helps clarify better mine above, taking Newton's:

F = G * (m1 * m2) / r^2

To be adjusted for variable G, it should read as:

F(per dG )= (G * m1)*(G'/G *m2)/ r^2

where dG = G'/G, viz., a variable G' divided by Earth's G, where for the inner planets G' is less than G, but for outer planets G' is greater than G. On Earth, G'/G = 1. In this example, (G*m1) is the Sun, and (G'/G * m2) represents the Pioneer probes.
And why not use (G'/G * m1) for the Sun and (G * m2) for the probes?
Or why not sqrt(G/G')*r for the new distance?
Why does it have to be your particular interpretation?

Newton's formula is written in that way to show that the masses do not depend on the constant G.




[...]
I hope this sheds some light on how a variable G affects the inertial mass, though I am sure everyone will say that "you can't do that!" because I did not adjust the F by the same ratio of G'/G, but that's what happens when you go into a different G region. The equation must show this greater G, since it is different from Earth's region.
[...]

Your "reasoning" does not show that a variable G affects the inertial mass of an object.
The only thing you can show that way, is that the force changes.
The leap to the assumption that the mass (either gravitational or inertial) changes, is completely unjustified.

Lunatik
2004-Dec-08, 05:23 PM
Interesting points, paps. Let's take some of yours here, for starters:

papageno: Or it acts as if it was closer to the other mass, or as if the other mass was larger.
Why does it have to be the small object that "changes" its mass?
In the frame of reference where this object is at rest, your reasoning would apply to the other mass.
So, if we follow your reasoning, we would need to throw away the principle of relativity.
The Sun's gravity, in this case remains the same, per the inverse square law at a distance, same mass, same G, nothing different from what is observed. ONLY the receding mass is traveling through variable G, the Sun stays where it is (in your parlance "at rest", though this is never strictly true), and only the receding mass is experiencing variable G. This should be very simple, so don't know why you find it difficult. Will this "throw away the principle of relativity"? No, why should it? Relativity is still useful as a way to measure action at a distance, what it's doing in its reference frame... or, of course, if the acceleration towards the Sun invalidates how relativity works... but I think it's safe.

papageno: The gravitational force would be stronger because G is larger, not because the gravitational mass of the object is larger.
For your reasoning to apply, we would have to throw away the principle of equivalence as well.
Cause and effect. The principle of equivalence, if I understand it correctly, would dictate that in a larger G you get greater "effective" inertial mass. Why would that "throw away the principle of equivalence"? This I don't follow... sorry.

papageno: What makes you think that we would be able to predict its (Halley's) orbit close to Earth, if we were wrong about what happens far from Earth?
Because what happens "outgoing" is again happening "incoming", so this out-and-back behavior cancels (from our perspective here), thus the effects are masked. Unless we follow meticulously the whole orbital path, we can't see it.

papageno: If we could see the comets from Earth, we would not need a communications probe.
Do you think that we do not know the velocity of the planets?
If we can see an object, we can measure its position as a function of time, hence we can know its speed.
Not the same thing. Planets do not travel across variable G regions (except in a small way in their elliptical orbits) while comets have a very large elliptical orbit, so they cross many variable G regions. So, yes, we know the velocity of the planets, since they stay in their orbits fairly closely within the parameters of their respective G regions (Neptune is exception on the far out end, Mercury is exception on the very close to the Sun end), but we may not know comet velocities out in the greater G regions. Of course, this is all predicated on Newton's G being a variable with distance from the Sun, something ESA is out to find out. So, until we get the data measuring this, we may jsut have to chill, and wait for the data. :lol:

I'm surprised you find this difficult. Anybody else having trouble with this concept? I'm just curious.

Err.. by the way... I don't believe you answered my question:

"How would you describe what happens to mass in a changing G environment, assuming this happened?" [-(

papageno
2004-Dec-08, 06:02 PM
Or it acts as if it was closer to the other mass, or as if the other mass was larger.
Why does it have to be the small object that "changes" its mass?
In the frame of reference where this object is at rest, your reasoning would apply to the other mass.
So, if we follow your reasoning, we would need to throw away the principle of relativity.
The Sun's gravity, in this case remains the same, per the inverse square law at a distance, same mass, same G, nothing different from what is observed. ONLY the receding mass is traveling through variable G, the Sun stays where it is (in your parlance "at rest", though this is never strictly true), and only the receding mass is experiencing variable G.
For an observer sitting on the "receding" object, it is Sun that is moving away.
In this frame of reference, it would be the Sun that "experiences" a variable G and changes its mass.
How do you reconcile this with the principle of relativity?



This should be very simple, so don't know why you find it difficult. Will this "throw away the principle of relativity"? No, why should it? Relativity is still useful as a way to measure action at a distance, what it's doing in its reference frame... or, of course, if the acceleration towards the Sun invalidates how relativity works... but I think it's safe.
Your reasoning requires the Sun to give a special frame of reference, contradicting the principle of relativity.
Also, what makes you think that the Theory of Special or General Relativity have anything to do with action at a distance?




The gravitational force would be stronger because G is larger, not because the gravitational mass of the object is larger.
For your reasoning to apply, we would have to throw away the principle of equivalence as well.
Cause and effect. The principle of equivalence, if I understand it correctly, would dictate that in a larger G you get greater "effective" inertial mass.
Incorrect.
The principle of equivalence says that the gravitational mass (the one appearing in Newton's formula for gravitation) equals the inertial mass (the one appearing in Newton's second law).



Why would that "throw away the principle of equivalence"? This I don't follow... sorry.
That is correct. The principle of equivalence does not seem to be affected.
But, on what does the inertial mass depend?
On what do you base the idea that a variable G changes the inertial mass?




: What makes you think that we would be able to predict its (Halley's) orbit close to Earth, if we were wrong about what happens far from Earth?
Because what happens "outgoing" is again happening "incoming", so this out-and-back behavior cancels (from our perspective here), thus the effects are masked. Unless we follow meticulously the whole orbital path, we can't see it.
Show us.
If you do not have a problem playing around with Newton's formula, you should not have a problem working out the orbit of a small mass interacting via gravity with a big mass, with variable G.
Have you done the calculation, or are just hand-waving?




If we could see the comets from Earth, we would not need a communications probe.
Do you think that we do not know the velocity of the planets?
If we can see an object, we can measure its position as a function of time, hence we can know its speed.
Not the same thing. Planets do not travel across variable G regions (except in a small way in their elliptical orbits) while comets have a very large elliptical orbit, so they cross many variable G regions. So, yes, we know the velocity of the planets, since they stay in their orbits fairly closely within the parameters of their respective G regions (Neptune is exception on the far out end, Mercury is exception on the very close to the Sun end), but we may not know comet velocities out in the greater G regions. Of course, this is all predicated on Newton's G being a variable with distance from the Sun, something ESA is out to find out. So, until we get the data measuring this, we may jsut have to chill, and wait for the data. :lol:
You avoided the point:


And even if we can see it through its whole highly elliptical orbital cycle, how can we measure its velocity (or acceleration anomaly) without having a communications probe attached to it?
to which I responded


If we can see an object, we can measure its position as a function of time, hence we can know its speed.




I'm surprised you find this difficult. Anybody else having trouble with this concept? I'm just curious.
It is not the concept: it is the method.




Err.. by the way... I don't believe you answered my question:

"How would you describe what happens to mass in a changing G environment, assuming this happened?" [-(
And I believe that you did not understand the answer:


So, "If G changes" and everything else (masses and distance) is constant "the gravitational interaction changes, that means the force acting on the object changes."
So, do you have any physically valid reason to assume that the masses change?

By the way, it would be helpful if you addressed the other points as well.

Lunatik
2004-Dec-08, 07:19 PM
So, "If G changes" and everything else (masses and distance) is constant "the gravitational interaction changes, that means the force acting on the object changes."

You have not provided any physically valid reason to assume that the masses change, if G changes.
You should read my posts more carefully.
I think this one requires special attention, because I think it shows where the problem with "force" lies between us.

In your: "You have not provided any physically valid reason to assume that the masses change, if G changes."

Look at this carefully. I have not suggested the masses change. The masses of the Pioneers are still the same as when they left Earth; no aliens intercepted it to add weights to it (I'm assuming this, that they had not been tampered with :) ); their composition of what they're made of, what was their orginal mass (as we measured it in Earth's gravity), stays the same. Here is what changes: As G changes, their effective masses change only. Read this as "something is changing in the material molecular structure of the probes that makes them more responsive to the distant tug of the Sun's gravity". This is what I say is their 'inertial-mass', that their mass made up of their molecular composition in toto, under the influence of a greater G region (which is what happens where the Sun's electromagnetic-energy-flux is weaker), that's what had changed. This higher inertial mass can be tested for in two ways: 1) by how much force, or push, or chemical reaction energy, or thrust, it takes to move it; and 2) by how it is pulled on by the gravity of distant objects, mainly as it is being pulled back into the Sun. So the masses aren't changing in terms of their composition, same Pioneer probes that left here, but their 'inertial-masses' are being affected by their higher G environment, which would show up as requiring greather thrust, or as being pulled more by distant gravitational force, of which the most obvious is the Sun.

I know it's a strange concept, that the same inertial-mass that requires more energy to push it also is more responsive to gravity (which is another example of this inverseness of the two, energy and gravity), but it really makes sense. For the same mass that has now become a "greater-inertial-mass", it will become "heavier" gravity wise, and will take "more force" to move it. I think this is what the "equivalence" is all about. (As a by the way, this is why future spacecrafts MUST use gravity as a propulsive force, if it were possible, since rocket ships could never carry enough chemical "push" aboard to make it very far.) So does it mean: "So, 'If G changes' and everything else (masses and distance) is constant 'the gravitational interaction changes, that means the force acting on the object changes' "? Yes, 'the force acting on the object changes', but NOT because the Sun's gravity changed! It is the gravitational 'weight' of the probes that changed. I believe this is the point you are missing. Or in your words, "You should read my posts more carefully." [-X

Lunatik
2004-Dec-08, 08:05 PM
For an observer sitting on the "receding" object, it is Sun that is moving away.
In this frame of reference, it would be the Sun that "experiences" a variable G and changes its mass.
How do you reconcile this with the principle of relativity?
Variable G is dependent upon distance from the Sun, not the other way around, as 'no preferential reference frames'-- Einteins's first postulate-- would imply. It is the Sun's energy that determines what variable G will be, not the Pioneers' energy. In effect, the Sun is the preferential reference frame here. Sorry if this disturbs Einstein's Relativity, not my intent to knock it, I think it is very elegant idea.


Your reasoning requires the Sun to give a special frame of reference, contradicting the principle of relativity.
Also, what makes you think that the Theory of Special or General Relativity have anything to do with action at a distance?
We use light, where v = c constant, as a measure of what happens at a distance, including what action happens at a distance (not to be confused with Newton's 'action at a distance'). The light constant requires distant observations to be treated relativistically.


Incorrect.
The principle of equivalence says that the gravitational mass (the one appearing in Newton's formula for gravitation) equals the inertial mass (the one appearing in Newton's second law).
Naturally, where G is a universal constant. That is not the case described here.


What makes you think that we would be able to predict its (Halley's) orbit close to Earth, if we were wrong about what happens far from Earth? to which the response was
Because what happens "outgoing" is again happening "incoming", so this out-and-back behavior cancels (from our perspective here), thus the effects are masked. Unless we follow meticulously the whole orbital path, we can't see it. to which you wrote
Show us.
Can't. Until we take measurements of what comets do at their aphelion, we're assuming that they behave as we had computed their orbits. But what if they turn around a 100,000 km sooner, for example? This is why it is important to attach a probe. Can it be calculated in advance using a variable G? Probably, but for now, I'll leave it as a 'hand wave', a kind of astronomical "Ciao!" :lol:

Star Pilot
2004-Dec-09, 04:21 AM
From Paul Marmet papers...
http://www.newtonphysics.on.ca/Anomalous/Acceleration.html
Quote
"This paper shows that the anomalous acceleration of the spacecraft Pioneer 10 and 11 in the direction of the Sun is due to the presence of dust in the Kuiper belt, which has been ignored in the calculation. These data provide the first direct measurement of dust density in the Kuiper belt, which is 1.38 x 10-19 gr/cc. "

Comments?

papageno
2004-Dec-09, 10:12 AM
In your: "You have not provided any physically valid reason to assume that the masses change, if G changes."

Look at this carefully. I have not suggested the masses change. The masses of the Pioneers are still the same as when they left Earth; no aliens intercepted it to add weights to it (I'm assuming this, that they had not been tampered with :) ); their composition of what they're made of, what was their orginal mass (as we measured it in Earth's gravity), stays the same. Here is what changes: As G changes, their effective masses change only. Read this as "something is changing in the material molecular structure of the probes that makes them more responsive to the distant tug of the Sun's gravity".
Considering that the "material molecular structure" is determined by electromagnetic interaction, why would it change if G changes?
And, "effective mass" has a specific meaning in physics: what do you mean?



This is what I say is their 'inertial-mass', that their mass made up of their molecular composition in toto, under the influence of a greater G region (which is what happens where the Sun's electromagnetic-energy-flux is weaker), that's what had changed. This higher inertial mass can be tested for in two ways: 1) by how much force, or push, or chemical reaction energy, or thrust, it takes to move it; and 2) by how it is pulled on by the gravity of distant objects, mainly as it is being pulled back into the Sun. So the masses aren't changing in terms of their composition, same Pioneer probes that left here, but their 'inertial-masses' are being affected by their higher G environment, which would show up as requiring greather thrust, or as being pulled more by distant gravitational force, of which the most obvious is the Sun.
If G changes, the gravitational force acting on the object changes, hence the response of the object to this force changes.
This response is acceleration (Newton's second law).
But you are saying that we do not observe a change in the motion (except for the Pioneer probes and similar), so we must assume that the mass of the object changes cancelling the effect of the variable G.
As I already told you, you have not brought up a valid reason to assume that the mass changes: this is problem.
Without a mechanism to explain this, your are in the realm of unsupported speculation, and it is more reasonable to assume that G does not change.



I know it's a strange concept, that the same inertial-mass that requires more energy to push it also is more responsive to gravity (which is another example of this inverseness of the two, energy and gravity), but it really makes sense. For the same mass that has now become a "greater-inertial-mass", it will become "heavier" gravity wise, and will take "more force" to move it. I think this is what the "equivalence" is all about.
Some maths:

m(i) * a = G * (m(g) * M) / (r^2)

via equivalence principle ( m(i) = m(g) ):

a = G * M / (r^2)

the mass m of the object is not there!
The acceleration a depends on the mass M of the Sun, on the distance r of the object from the Sun and on G.
If G changes with position, the acceleration changes, hence we would observe the effect in the motion of the object (the orbit is no longer a quadratic curve).



(As a by the way, this is why future spacecrafts MUST use gravity as a propulsive force, if it were possible, since rocket ships could never carry enough chemical "push" aboard to make it very far.) So does it mean: "So, 'If G changes' and everything else (masses and distance) is constant 'the gravitational interaction changes, that means the force acting on the object changes' "? Yes, 'the force acting on the object changes', but NOT because the Sun's gravity changed! It is the gravitational 'weight' of the probes that changed. I believe this is the point you are missing. Or in your words, "You should read my posts more carefully." [-X
The gravitational "weight" of the probes is the gravitational force between the probe and the Sun!
And this because the interaction constant G, not becayse the masses or the distance change.
How do jump from here to your talk about "greater inertial-mass"?

papageno
2004-Dec-09, 10:25 AM
For an observer sitting on the "receding" object, it is Sun that is moving away.
In this frame of reference, it would be the Sun that "experiences" a variable G and changes its mass.
How do you reconcile this with the principle of relativity?
Variable G is dependent upon distance from the Sun, not the other way around, as 'no preferential reference frames'-- Einteins's first postulate-- would imply. It is the Sun's energy that determines what variable G will be, not the Pioneers' energy. In effect, the Sun is the preferential reference frame here. Sorry if this disturbs Einstein's Relativity, not my intent to knock it, I think it is very elegant idea.
Wrong!
The principle of relativity is more elegant, and to "knock it" you need something much more substantial than some unsupported speculations.
If you assume the frame of reference of the Sun as preferential, you cannot even use classical mechanics.




Your reasoning requires the Sun to give a special frame of reference, contradicting the principle of relativity.
Also, what makes you think that the Theory of Special or General Relativity have anything to do with action at a distance?
We use light, where v = c constant, as a measure of what happens at a distance, including what action happens at a distance (not to be confused with Newton's 'action at a distance'). The light constant requires distant observations to be treated relativistically.
"Action at a distance" has a specific meaning in physics.
Anyway, if the objects observed do not move too fast, you do not need to use Relativity: you just need to take into account the delay due to finite speed of light.




Incorrect.
The principle of equivalence says that the gravitational mass (the one appearing in Newton's formula for gravitation) equals the inertial mass (the one appearing in Newton's second law).
Naturally, where G is a universal constant. That is not the case described here.
WRONG!!!
The principle of equivalence works locally.
It is still valid even if G were not a universal constant.




What makes you think that we would be able to predict its (Halley's) orbit close to Earth, if we were wrong about what happens far from Earth? to which the response was
Because what happens "outgoing" is again happening "incoming", so this out-and-back behavior cancels (from our perspective here), thus the effects are masked. Unless we follow meticulously the whole orbital path, we can't see it. to which you wrote
Show us.
Can't. Until we take measurements of what comets do at their aphelion, we're assuming that they behave as we had computed their orbits. But what if they turn around a 100,000 km sooner, for example? This is why it is important to attach a probe. Can it be calculated in advance using a variable G? Probably, but for now, I'll leave it as a 'hand wave', a kind of astronomical "Ciao!" :lol:
You forgot this part of my response:


If you do not have a problem playing around with Newton's formula, you should not have a problem working out the orbit of a small mass interacting via gravity with a big mass, with variable G.
Have you done the calculation, or are just hand-waving?

You do not need to do it for the specific case of Halley's comet.
You do not even need to plug in numbers.
You just have to show that a variable G yields the same orbit as a constant G.
But apparently you prefer hand-waving, rather than testing your speculations.

By the way


Do you really think that physicsts never considered the possibilty that G might not be constant, but time and/or position dependent?

Lunatik
2004-Dec-09, 05:27 PM
Incorrect.
The principle of equivalence says that the gravitational mass (the one appearing in Newton's formula for gravitation) equals the inertial mass (the one appearing in Newton's second law).


Naturally, where G is a universal constant. That is not the case described here.

WRONG!!!
The principle of equivalence works locally.
It is still valid even if G were not a universal constant.
... snip...

By the way


Do you really think that physicsts never considered the possibilty that G might not be constant, but time and/or position dependent?

If I may refer your question/statement to PhysicsWeb news:

Equivalence principle passes atomic test (http://physicsweb.org/articles/news/8/11/8/1)

Perform these same experiments from Neptune and then report back to me. :wink:

papageno
2004-Dec-09, 06:06 PM
Incorrect.
The principle of equivalence says that the gravitational mass (the one appearing in Newton's formula for gravitation) equals the inertial mass (the one appearing in Newton's second law).


Naturally, where G is a universal constant. That is not the case described here.

WRONG!!!
The principle of equivalence works locally.
It is still valid even if G were not a universal constant.
... snip...

By the way


Do you really think that physicsts never considered the possibilty that G might not be constant, but time and/or position dependent?

If I may refer your question/statement to PhysicsWeb news:

Equivalence principle passes atomic test (http://physicsweb.org/articles/news/8/11/8/1)

Perform these same experiments from Neptune and then report back to me. :wink:

](*,)
The equivalence principle does not depend on the value of G.
G might depend on position, and the equivalence principle is still valid.
The experiment in the link does not measure G.

And my question referred to your statement:


I know it's a subtle point, so not easy to either explain or understand, so not bothered that our communications seems tenuous here. Like I said before, this requires a "think different" methodology. If we are forced to think in terms of different G, it's something Newton never had to cope with, but we will if it proves true.
Your link refers to one of the tests of the equivalence principle.
It has nothing to do with speculations about variable G.

Lunatik
2004-Dec-09, 06:13 PM
So what exactly is Newton's G, to your understanding?

papageno
2004-Dec-09, 06:20 PM
So what exactly is Newton's G, to your understanding?
You know the formula: G is the coupling constant.

It has the same role as k in Coulomb's law:

F = k * (q1 * q2) / (r^2).

And we have plenty of examples where k depends on position, but the electric charge does not change cancelling the effect.

Tensor
2004-Dec-09, 06:25 PM
If I may refer your question/statement to PhysicsWeb news:

Equivalence principle passes atomic test (http://physicsweb.org/articles/news/8/11/8/1)

Perform these same experiments from Neptune and then report back to me. :wink:

Well, how about an experiment about 21,000 light years away? (http://nobelprize.org/physics/laureates/1993/press.html). One of the foundations of GR is the Equivalence principle, and GR does not use a variable G. Since GR predictions match the observations of an object 21,000 LY away, the EP and a non variable G must be valid out at least that far.

Lunatik
2004-Dec-09, 06:59 PM
So what exactly is Newton's G, to your understanding?
You know the formula: G is the coupling constant.

It has the same role as k in Coulomb's law:

F = k * (q1 * q2) / (r^2).

And we have plenty of examples where k depends on position, but the electric charge does not change cancelling the effect.
But what exactly is G?

Maybe this page in Wiki will help: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_constant

I think of G as a "proportionality" of how two masses interact gravitationally, as their mass is attracted gravitationally per the inverse square law.

How do you see it?

Lunatik
2004-Dec-09, 07:34 PM
If I may refer your question/statement to PhysicsWeb news:

Equivalence principle passes atomic test (http://physicsweb.org/articles/news/8/11/8/01)

Perform these same experiments from Neptune and then report back to me. :wink:

Well, how about an experiment about 21,000 light years away? (http://nobelprize.org/physics/laureates/1993/press.html). One of the foundations of GR is the Equivalence principle, and GR does not use a variable G. Since GR predictions match the observations of an object 21,000 LY away, the EP and a non variable G must be valid out at least that far.
Wonderful! Thanks Tensor, because this takes the discussion to another level.

You'll notice in your link, on page 2 discussing "Demonstration of gravitational waves", which I will quote here (I think 'fair use' copyright law is okay here?), an interesting point:

"...It was found that the orbit period is declining: the two astronomical bodies are rotating faster and faster about each other in an increasingly tight orbit. The change is very small..."

It then goes on to say that in accordance with Einstein's prediction in 1916, this binary system is radiating energy in the form of 'gravitational waves', which is why the two masses are moving closer together. Of course, with a universal constant G, this makes total sense, though we have yet to find such gravitational waves.

Now, 'think differrent', that (as Jerry had suggested) that what is radiating is electromagnetic energy instead... This would have a corollary effect on what I had been suggesting, that as (em radiant) energy is less the gravitational constant is more, hence more gravity (as a product of GM, where G is greater), and hence binaries rotating faster about each other. The more energy is radiating out of then over time, the greater their effective gravity becomes, the greater their inertial-mass becomes, the more this mass is in a kind of gravitational 'implosion', and the faster the rotations. But none of this was implied in the article! And yet the article is totally valid in its assumption based on a universal constant G!

So my point is that there is another way to see all this, though we had been looking at it from only one perspective, while another one can hypothetically exist. The goal is to find over time, with observations and locale based measurements, which is the better system. What the Pioneers Anomaly had done is raise a question, and now it is up to all those great minds out there to find an answer that better satisfies this question. Options should remain open.

As a caveat, I should mention that we are observing binary pulsars at a distance (21K LYrs away), so are not on location to really know what's happening, and have to input many assumptions to fit our observations, such as mass, density, diameter, etc.... But, all these assumptions were predefined by a universal constant G... so caveat.

Tensor
2004-Dec-09, 09:18 PM
You missed the whole point of my last post. You stated "Perform these same experiments from Neptune and then report back to me." Well, a prediction of GR was tested against an observation much further out that Neptune's orbit, and it matches GR.


Now, 'think differrent', that (as Jerry had suggested) that what is radiating is electromagnetic energy instead...

And his proof is.....? What calculation show how much EM is being radiated and how does this change the orbit?


This would have a corollary effect on what I had been suggesting, that as energy is less the gravitational constant is more, hence more gravity (as a product of GM),and hence binaries rotating faster about each other.

Which energy? The rotational energy of the Neutron stars? The thermal energy, what?


The more energy is radiating out of then over time, the greater their effective gravity becomes, the greater their inertial-mass becomes, the more this mass is in a kind of gravitational 'implosion', and the faster the rotations.

How much more is radiating? How much does the effective gravity increase? What is the correspondence to energy lost to the increase in gravity? What kind of "implosion". WHAT ARE THE NUMBERS?


But none of this was implied in the article! And yet the article is totally valid in its assumption based on a universal constant G!

Why should it imply anything else? You have provided nothing to show why anything other than a constant G should be taken as anything more than a fantasy.


So my point is that there is another way to see all this, though we had been looking at it from only one perspective, while another one can hypothetically exist.

Nope, there is no other way to look at it. If you want to look at it from a variable G or EM radiation perspective, SHOW ME THE NUMBERS. Show me where the predictions of either of the variable G or EM equations (or any other idea you may have) match the shift in the periaston of PSR1913+16. This is all you have to do to show those ideas have merit. Without them, it's a simple case of handwaving.


The goal is to find over time, with observations and locale based measurements, which is the better system. What the Pioneers Anomaly had done is raise a question, and now it is up to all those great minds out there to find an answer that better satisfies this question. Options should remain open.

As soon as you have something that can show that the observation is really the fault of the theory and not a faulty observation, you will have an option.


As a caveat, I should mention that we are observing binary pulsars at a distance (21K LYrs away), so are not on location to really know what's happening, and have to input many assumptions to fit our observations, such as mass, density, diameter, etc.... But, all these assumptions were predefined by a universal constant G... so caveat.

You want to give a caveat to a value that has been experimentally determined and a theory that has long list of experimental verification.

But, handwave on a value that has no experimental confirmation and an idea that has yet to predict anything? :roll:

Lunatik
2004-Dec-09, 09:27 PM
You missed the whole point of my last post. You stated "Perform these same experiments from Neptune and then report back to me." Well, a prediction of GR was tested against an observation much further out that Neptune's orbit, and it matches GR.
And this experiment was performed on the binary system AT the binary system? [-X

Do you see my point? Or did you miss the part where I said we had to "input assumptions" based on a univeral constant G to come up with these results? Of course, if we do that, the results will match our expectations... No argument there.

RE "WHAT ARE THE NUMBERS? "

Valid point. If you can provide me with the PSR 1913 + 16 binary system's star radiant energy output (electromagnetic radiant energy flux) in Joules per second, distance of orbital bodies, and velocity of bodies per this distance, I can work out some numbers. However, since these are so far away, and since both bodies in a binary system radiate, it may require some adjustments to what I had done in my earlier posts with solar energy and the planets. Keep in mind that the high frequency radio waves emitted from the pulsars is not the radiant energy I am asking for, since these are the result of emissions from their poles only (all very very highly gravitic stars will have this polar emission). I need the ambiant radiance in Watts per meter squared of the energy output of the stars. Otherwise, the NUMBERS being presented now are only the waves of self satisfied, per inputs assumed, hands.

Let me know if you have these, my thanks in advance.

Tensor
2004-Dec-10, 05:24 AM
You missed the whole point of my last post. You stated "Perform these same experiments from Neptune and then report back to me." Well, a prediction of GR was tested against an observation much further out that Neptune's orbit, and it matches GR.
And this experiment was performed on the binary system AT the binary system?

Do you see my point? Or did you miss the part where I said we had to "input assumptions" based on a univeral constant G to come up with these results? Of course, if we do that, the results will match our expectations... No argument there.

That was MY point, but I guess it must have been to subtle. We are both making assumptions, lets check them out.

I think that GR is correct and GR assumes G is a constant and inertial mass is the same as gravitational mass. With this, the prediction of Mercury's precession matches observation and the precession of the binary PSR 1913+16 matches observation.


Your assume G is variable and inertial mass isn't the same as gravitational mass (or if you buy the EM radiation explanation you assume that gravity is some kind of EM. What do these two predict for both precessions? Maybe you could point me to some calculations on either of these two showing this. I've search (online and in the university's library) and can find no calculation for either of the precessions. Lots of wordy explanations that amount to nothing more than handwaving, but no hard numbers.

So, could you explain exactly why you feel your assumptions, with no experimental evidence or actual calculations are superior to an assumption that can predict observations?



RE "WHAT ARE THE NUMBERS? "

Valid point. If you can provide me with the PSR 1913 + 16 binary system's star radiant energy output (electromagnetic radiant energy flux) in Joules per second, distance of orbital bodies, and velocity of bodies per this distance, I can work out some numbers.

Hey, it's not my theory. But here (http://www.johnstonsarchive.net/relativity/binpulsar.html) are the orbital parameters and masses of the two neutron stars. But wait, you can't use these (except for the EM model)



However, since these are so far away, and since both bodies in a binary system radiate, it may require some adjustments to what I had done in my earlier posts with solar energy and the planets. Keep in mind that the high frequency radio waves emitted from the pulsars is not the radiant energy I am asking for, since these are the result of emissions from their poles only (all very very highly gravitic stars will have this polar emission).

So that energy is not taken into account, interesting. How do you specifically determine which energy you use to account for gravity?


I need the ambiant radiance in Watts per meter squared of the energy output of the stars. Otherwise, the NUMBERS being presented now are only the waves of self satisfied, per inputs assumed, hands.

I can't find (as of yet, I will keep trying) the power output. But, in the meantime, with the numbers I've given you, you should be able to predict how much power the stars in the binary should radiate to account for the change in the perastron. And, as I've pointed out, you shouldn't throw the assuption stone, as you are assuming (without any specific evidence that I have seen) several things.


Let me know if you have these, my thanks in advance.

Let me know when you've come up with your power output prediction.

Jobe
2004-Dec-10, 08:42 AM
Maybe this dark matter everyone keeps hollering about exists in our solar system : p

papageno
2004-Dec-10, 10:07 AM
So what exactly is Newton's G, to your understanding?
You know the formula: G is the coupling constant.

It has the same role as k in Coulomb's law:

F = k * (q1 * q2) / (r^2).

And we have plenty of examples where k depends on position, but the electric charge does not change cancelling the effect.
But what exactly is G?

Maybe this page in Wiki will help: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_constant

I think of G as a "proportionality" of how two masses interact gravitationally, as their mass is attracted gravitationally per the inverse square law.

How do you see it?
You are just dancing around the issue.
Maybe you should make clear what you mean when you say "what exactly is...?".
What kind of answer would satisfy you?

Normandy6644
2004-Dec-10, 04:39 PM
Tensor, did you get the link I posted in the General Astronomy thread? I found a bunch more abstracts that might have useful info for you, so let me know if you need them.

Tensor
2004-Dec-10, 04:43 PM
Tensor, did you get the link I posted in the General Astronomy thread? I found a bunch more abstracts that might have useful info for you, so let me know if you need them.

No I didn't, I'll go look now, thanks.

Ok, back. I looked and did a quick read through. It's not woo-woo. It's basically a look at Dicke's original (1961) PV theory of gravity (with additions by Yilmaz 1992) and how it stacks up with current observations in cosmology and astrophysics. In some cases it matches observations quite closely. In others the author explains what fudge factors would have to be introduced to make it work. The major point though, is that it is no where near able to predict the observed value for the inspiral of PSR 1913 + 16. Which, as the author does point out, basically kills the idea of PV being viable.

And while it is not what I was looking for, it is an excellent example of exactly what most ATM people SHOULD but DON"T do in trying to present evidence. In another section, where the author is talking about some ideas without using the math, He makes the very correct statement " However, no conclusions are possible based on these very broad arguments.". And broad arguments are a staple of most ATM posters.

And yes, if you could, PM the other abstracts to me.

Edited to add a summary of the paper

Lunatik
2004-Dec-10, 05:23 PM
Tensor: I can't find (as of yet, I will keep trying) the power output. But, in the meantime, with the numbers I've given you, you should be able to predict how much power the stars in the binary should radiate to account for the change in the perastron. And, as I've pointed out, you shouldn't throw the assumption stone, as you are assuming (without any specific evidence that I have seen) several things.
I don't know if we have solar irradiance, power output values for PSR1913+16. They may be too far distant to measure effectively, so unless we're closer to being "on location" we may not know. Call it "hand waving" if you wish, but if you read ALL my posts on this thread, you will see there is a logical progression with NUMBERS, if you care to go back to check it out. As far as I'm concerned, your claims that GR has the answers is assumption based on mass estimates using a universal constant G, so only valid for that model. Just because EVERYONE accepts this as TRUE does not make it necessarily true. Or are we in another Ptolemeic epicycles era again, when everyone assumed Earth to be at the center of the universe?

My assumption is quite simple really: Why did we assume Newton's G to be a UNIVERSAL constant? My take is that gravity is a function of how the atom is put together, where in an EM energy rich region, the G is small; vice versa in an EM energy poor region, where G is great. (See my posts above for further details.) The trouble Paps is having with this G variable idea, if I understand correctly, is that as a product of G and mass (GM) the G cannot vary. I think it can. Beyond that it becomes semantics, "what do you mean by 'what exactly is'...?, etc." That game is an open ended infinity loop, so not constructive to better understanding. I am puzzled that my reference to Wiki's page didn't clarify it better, but no matter. When we have a probe at Neptune to measure inertial-mass there, we'll know better whether or not inertial-mass is G dependent, as I predict.

Well, gotta call my travel agent for tickets to Tahiti, to go and watch water drain the other way. Cheers. 8)

papageno
2004-Dec-10, 05:38 PM
My assumption is quite simple really: Why did we assume Newton's G to be a UNIVERSAL constant?
Because there is no evidence of the contrary.



My take is that gravity is a function of how the atom is put together, where in an EM energy rich region, the G is small; vice versa in an EM energy poor region, where G is great. (See my posts above for further details.) The trouble Paps is having with this G variable idea, if I understand correctly, is that as a product of G and mass (GM) the G cannot vary.
What are you talking about?
If GM is constant, and G is variable, you have to assume that the Sun's mass M is variable, not the mass of the probe.
Anyway, GM is a parameter characteristic of our Solar System (and it does not depend on the position of probes, comets or planets).

I brought up the analogy with Coulomb's law.
In electrodynamics it is normal to have a dielectric constant dependent on position.
A variable G is conceptually the same. But there is no experimental evidence for this.




I think it can. Beyond that it becomes semantics, "what do you mean by 'what exactly is'...?, etc." That game is an open ended infinity loop, so not constructive to better understanding.
You started it.
If it not constructive, why did you ask the question in the first place?



I am puzzled that my reference to Wiki's page didn't clarify it better, but no matter. When we have a probe at Neptune to measure inertial-mass there, we'll know better whether or not inertial-mass is G dependent, as I predict.
The Wikipedia says what I said in reponse to your question.
Or maybe you were asking about the numerical value of G, which is completely irrelevant to this discussion.

Demigrog
2004-Dec-10, 06:19 PM
My assumption is quite simple really: Why did we assume Newton's G to be a UNIVERSAL constant?
Because there is no evidence of the contrary.


Better to say, "no evidence of the contrary that cannot be explained as well or better by more conventional physics." :) Or, even better, "there are observed phenomena that directly eliminate the possibility of a varying G". (Is that true, however? I’d say yes based on our ability to predict orbits and navigate our probes, but the math is over my head. Maybe we’re just making enough ad-hoc corrections to navigation that the effect is not noticeable).

Lunatik
2004-Dec-10, 07:01 PM
What are you talking about?
If GM is constant, and G is variable, you have to assume that the Sun's mass M is variable, not the mass of the probe.
I must admit I don't know what this means, that GM is constant... M is constant if it is the Sun's mass, but why does GM be a constant if G is variable? You lost me here. :o


Or maybe you were asking about the numerical value of G, which is completely irrelevant to this discussion.
Why is it completely irrelevant? Isn't a fixed G numerical value different from a variable numeric value G? In my above, GM was wrong, since M is the Sun, it should have been Gm, where m is the mass of probe traveling in relation to the Sun. But I despair, it looks like communications here just don't work with words, and I've shown it numerically, and still no contact, so what can I say?... lights out.
:(

Lunatik
2004-Dec-10, 08:01 PM
My assumption is quite simple really: Why did we assume Newton's G to be a UNIVERSAL constant?
Because there is no evidence of the contrary.


Better to say, "no evidence of the contrary that cannot be explained as well or better by more conventional physics." :) Or, even better, "there are observed phenomena that directly eliminate the possibility of a varying G". (Is that true, however? I’d say yes based on our ability to predict orbits and navigate our probes, but the math is over my head. Maybe we’re just making enough ad-hoc corrections to navigation that the effect is not noticeable).
I went back to my first posts, starting (pg. 2) Oct. 6th, especially where my numbers show up (pg. 3) Oct 16th, and the discussion seems to have swung from where the Pioneers 10/11 are experiencing an 'anomaly' to where Newton's G is a universal constant. I guess the thread should now be renamed to "The Normality Acceleration of Pioneers 10 and 11" ... because there is not evidence to the contrary? I think your ad hoc comment is right on. :wink:

Lunatik
2004-Dec-11, 03:34 AM
NUMBERS !!!

Okay, I did a simple quantitative analysis of this Pioneer 10/11 Anomaly thread to see the frequency when posters used their math and numbers. I ignored entries that only incidentally mentioned a number or equation, and counted all the entries on each page that had something numerical or mathematical to say. This is not a 'weighted' count, since some math was more extensive than others, but just a count of how often it was used.

Here's the lineup:

Ipetrich; 1 (page 1)
Hub: 1 (pg. 2)
MrObvious: 1 (pg. 2)
TravisM: 1 (pg. 4)
CelestialMechanic: 1 (pg. 9)
JMB: 2 (pp. 7,9)
Thomas: 4 (pp. 3,4)
Jerry: 4 (pp. 7,8,9)
papageno: 6 (pp. 3,4,7,9)
Lunatik: 11 (pp. 2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9)
Tensor: 0

This adds up to be a total of 32 math and numbers entries, of which Lunatik's was a third. You want numbers? Look up those pages.

Or is it just easier to talk? To paraphrase Calvin and Hobbes, "If ignorance is bliss, why bother thinking?" Does the math add up, to explain why the Pioneers are experiencing their acceleration anomaly towards the Sun? Well, you be the judge.

I rest my case. Got tickets for Tahiti. 8)

Tensor
2004-Dec-11, 05:21 AM
NUMBERS !!!

Okay, I did a simple quantitative analysis of this Pioneer 10/11 Anomaly thread to see the frequency when posters used their math and numbers. I ignored entries that only incidentally mentioned a number or equation, and counted all the entries on each page that had something numerical or mathematical to say. This is not a 'weighted' count, since some math was more extensive than others, but just a count of how often it was used.

Here's the lineup:

Ipetrich; 1 (page 1)
Hub: 1 (pg. 2)
MrObvious: 1 (pg. 2)
TravisM: 1 (pg. 4)
CelestialMechanic: 1 (pg. 9)
JMB: 2 (pp. 7,9)
Thomas: 4 (pp. 3,4)
Jerry: 4 (pp. 7,8,9)
papageno: 6 (pp. 3,4,7,9)
Lunatik: 11 (pp. 2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9)
Tensor: 0

This adds up to be a total of 32 math and numbers entries, of which Lunatik's was a third. You want numbers? Look up those pages.

Strawman. I did look them up, and you know what, I didn't see anything on your pages that answered my questions. Namely, what the calculations using a variable G or and EM type gravity predict for the precession of Mercury and PSR1913+16 and how closely do those predictions match what is observed (you could also throw in whether or not they predict the observed frame dragging around Earth). I'm not even asking you to do the calculations, just point me to a web site or a paper that shows the calculations. Normandy (http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/astro-ph/0302273) provided one site with the calculations, but the calculated value doesn't match observation.

I'm not quite sure what numbers or calculations you want me to provide. You asked for the specific numbers for the mass and the distance between the two neutron stars in PSR1913+16 and I provided them for you (and I guess you didn't count that post). I'm still looking for the power output. But, even with what I gave you, you should be able to show what the power output should be, to account for the inspiral.

After all, you're the one claiming that GR could be wrong because of a variable G or EM type of gravity. It's not up to me to provide you with evidence or proof of your claim. All I was asking was if those types of gravity are correct, what is the prediction for the two precessions? The numbers I gave you should enable you to at least compute the required power output to account for the inspiral.


Or is it just easier to talk? To paraphrase Calvin and Hobbes, "If ignorance is bliss, why bother thinking?"

I've asked you to provide a specific prediction for a variable G or EM type gravity (to see if it matches observation) so we can evaluate whether or not that type of gravity is viable. And what you've done since is to sidestep those requests, request I find the number you need for yur calculations, and ignore a request asking how you determine which energy is used in to determine G's variability. Or to quote you: "Is it just easier to talk?"


Does the math add up, to explain why the Pioneers are experiencing their acceleration anomaly towards the Sun? Well, you be the judge.

No, it doesn't. But several other effects haven't positively been rejected as possible reasons for the anomaly. If you want to throw out GR and include Variable G or EM type gravity to explain the Pioneer anamoly, that type of gravity also has to explain the two precessions. Before we go dumping GR for a variable G, we better be sure that:
1.) all other physical effects that could account for the anamoly have been discredited
2) the variable G predictions also match those other observations. 'Cause if it can't, it is also useless.


I rest my case. Got tickets for Tahiti. 8)

Don't rest your case. Isn't that what you packed your clothes in for your trip? :lol: Have a nice time in Tahiti, I'm jealous. :-?

papageno
2004-Dec-11, 01:27 PM
What are you talking about?
If GM is constant, and G is variable, you have to assume that the Sun's mass M is variable, not the mass of the probe.
I must admit I don't know what this means, that GM is constant... M is constant if it is the Sun's mass, but why does GM be a constant if G is variable? You lost me here. :o



The trouble Paps is having with this G variable idea, if I understand correctly, is that as a product of G and mass (GM) the G cannot vary.
I was addressing this point. And I asked: "What are you talking about?"
If you do not know what I mean, you should be clearer about what you are talking about.




Or maybe you were asking about the numerical value of G, which is completely irrelevant to this discussion.
Why is it completely irrelevant? Isn't a fixed G numerical value different from a variable numeric value G?
You are discussing whether G is variable or not.
The actual number is irrelevant to this discussion.




In my above, GM was wrong, since M is the Sun, it should have been Gm, where m is the mass of probe traveling in relation to the Sun.
I thought you were actually referring to GM, since this is mentioned in the Wikipedia link.
Also, why would it be wrong?
Why do you choose Gm instead of GM?



But I despair, it looks like communications here just don't work with words, and I've shown it numerically, and still no contact, so what can I say?... lights out.
:(
I did ask you to be clearer about what you mean.

Would you mind explaining on what you speculations are based?

Lunatik
2004-Dec-11, 09:09 PM
I did ask you to be clearer about what you mean.

Would you mind explaining on what you speculations are based?
To be clearer I would have to explain to you what gravity is, which I can, since it is a function of how the atom is put together. But this is beyond the scope of this thread on the Pioneers Anomaly, so you might want to email me direct, and I'll explain in full detail. This applies to anyone else too.


I didn't see anything on your pages that answered my questions. Namely, what the calculations using a variable G or and EM type gravity predict for the precession of Mercury and PSR1913+16 and how closely do those predictions match what is observed (you could also throw in whether or not they predict the observed frame dragging around Earth).
You are taking this discussion beyond the Pioneers Anomaly question, so not appropriate to dedicate more time to the pulsars or Mercury precession here. I looked over the figures you linked earlier, and I think I can find a very rough approximation with what's offered, but without the star irradiance in Watts, I'd be forced to guess at some needed values, so pointless exercise for now, though it is doable. However, the results would not be meaningful. Still, I'll spend some time on that with certain assumptions needed, such as what is the wavelength of the EM energy put out by the pulsars, and what value I might estimate to be the total Energy output of both pulsars. These would have to be educated guesses based on something related to the 'cut-off' frequency of light, the photo-electric effect, and how this affects gravity. Some of the information I have is 'proprietary', where it applies to another project, so may not be free to divulge the whole story.

But the Mercury question belongs on a new thread, since it is not germane to what the Pioneers are doing.

Oh, by the way, my case is not yet packed, since the trip is a month away. Cheers. :lol:

Jerry
2004-Dec-12, 03:43 AM
You might think I am a bit harsh towards you and Lunatik.
But I do not want this thread to become like the one with lyndonashmore.
Quite the contrary, you have made this a great thread! And if either Lunatic or myself turns out to be spot on, rather historic.

As you know I am doing a hiatus on the general astronomy pages. I really believe what I am saying is supported in the cosmic evidence, and what we are discussing has repercussions for the Huygen Mission.

The best thing is, we should have a better idea whether or not the new concepts of gravity Lunatic and I are postulating are germane very sooon. The Wild 2 will be returning in 2004 with samples from a comet, we will shortly have spectrographic data from Titan that will reveal whether or not the “Ice moon” and Ice planet scenarios are real, or if Titan is the heavy moon we think it is.

So we are having two parties: One at my house on January 14, to celebrate the thump of Huygen, (hopefully safe, but very hard) and one in the Utah desert to celebrate the return of Wild 2 in January of 2006. You're all invited!



If you want to talk about physics, making "against-the-mainstream" claims, you are expected to support them and explain your reasoning.Of course! But sometimes it will just boil down to how much weight we put on different evidence.

Lunatik is postulating, as near as I can tell, within the bounds of general relativity, and I am not. Since this is ultimately what I must defended, I will start a new thread and just keep a heartbeat on this one. This is a great thread! Keep it up!

One salient comment to this thread: We have measured and learned the orbital distance of the moon from the earth is increasing, not decreasing as we are assured in any astronomy text 20 year old. This does hint something is amiss. As the Young Earthnuts have pointed out, at the current rate of recession, the moon should be about where Mars is now, given the assumed age of the Earth-Moon system.

It is obvious this should not be the case: As the moon recedes from the Earth, the gravitation attraction should weaken, and the amount of energy being transferred to the moon will reduce and the orbit will stabilize. The question is: Why is the still moon receding? It should have reached equilibrium, and started to fall millennia ago.

One possible answer is there are truly resonant orbits, and the moon is transient between two hidden boundaries that are a function of the mass of the earth / moon system. This is highly consistent with the concept of a diminishing ‘g’ factor with increasing distance, and of course, with a wave concept of gravity

Chip
2004-Dec-12, 03:56 AM
...Quite the contrary, you have made this a great thread! And if either Lunatic or myself turns out to be spot on, rather historic...

This is indeed an interesting thread in places. Don't forget to include my name somewhere on the plague at least as the one who broke the bottle that launched it many moons ago. :D

Tensor
2004-Dec-12, 05:20 AM
One salient comment to this thread: We have measured and learned the orbital distance of the moon from the earth is increasing, not decreasing as we are assured in any astronomy text 20 year old. This does hint something is amiss.

Jerry, you sure about this? My ancient astronomy textbook (Exploring the Universe, Abell) that I used in 1973 (and still have) talks about the Earth-Moon distance increasing due to tides. And I have some articles in popular science books going back to the 1950's (and 1947 in one case, I almost never get rid of a book) that talk about the increasing distance of the moon.

Tensor
2004-Dec-12, 05:46 AM
I didn't see anything on your pages that answered my questions. Namely, what the calculations using a variable G or and EM type gravity predict for the precession of Mercury and PSR1913+16 and how closely do those predictions match what is observed (you could also throw in whether or not they predict the observed frame dragging around Earth).

You are taking this discussion beyond the Pioneers Anomaly question, so not appropriate to dedicate more time to the pulsars or Mercury precession here.

You may be right, but if you want to claim some non GR reason (gravity wise), those items will continue to pop up.


I looked over the figures you linked earlier, and I think I can find a very rough approximation with what's offered, but without the star irradiance in

... snip...

Some of the information I have is 'proprietary', where it applies to another project, so may not be free to divulge the whole story.

I'm not worried about the assumptions (I'll assume they are reasonable) :) A lower bound estimation (based on your assumptions) of the power required to shift the orbit of the neutron star binary using a variable G or EM type of gravitation that is high enough to be dectectable here, and isn't, would show you to be on the wrong track. Especially if you set up your assumptions to be on the conservative side. If your higher boundary shows that the power is to low to detect, you may still be on the right track.
As far as your proprietary information, if you can't share it, (I do understand why you may not be able to), you can't share it. However, without the actual calculations, you will have to understand why many here will be very sceptical.


Oh, by the way, my case is not yet packed, since the trip is a month away. Cheers. :lol:

Well, I'm still jealous. :D

Lunatik
2004-Dec-12, 08:27 PM
Lunatik is postulating, as near as I can tell, within the bounds of general relativity, and I am not. Since this is ultimately what I must defended, I will start a new thread and just keep a heartbeat on this one. This is a great thread! Keep it up!
Yes, I'd like to preserve General and Special Relativity, because I think when we are able to travel at or above lightspeed, we will need these to figure out where we are!

The drawback to postulating a variable gravity that is contingent upon star power per distance (where G is inversely proportional) is that, as pointed out by Paps, this means the Sun becomes the preferred reference frame (GM), and all other measurements of inertial-mass at a distance (Gm) from the Sun becomes proportional in relation to the Sun. I'm no expert on either GR or SR, but suspect this preferencial treatment of a reference frame goes against Einstein's first postulate, so it may have consequences that require an adjustment to how we use Relativity in the future, if this is so. Even if we find that the observer's frame is preferential in SR, it is still useful for observational purposes at lightspeeds, though we're not yet concerned with this, since our spacecrafts travel at only deca-kilometers per second, so not anywhere near there yet.

Tensor, you don't throw any books out? Now I'm jealous! :lol:

Jerry
2004-Dec-13, 04:30 AM
...as we are assured in any astronomy text 20 year old. This does hint something is amiss.

Jerry, you sure about this? My ancient astronomy textbook (Exploring the Universe, Abell) that I used in 1973 (and still have) talks about the Earth-Moon distance increasing due to tides. And I have some articles in popular science books going back to the 1950's (and 1947 in one case, I almost never get rid of a book) that talk about the increasing distance of the moon.One thing I am never sure about is anything :-?
I found a reference to the lunar orbit getting smaller in one of these books - and there are about nine of them dating back to 1965 (I have Abell edition 5), but we went through the pile again last night, and couldn't find it. My best guess was it was in reference to some other topic, and was just missed in the edit.

I'm very surprised you can date this that far back - I didn't think we had hard lunar ranging data until Apollo - only hints from rather crued radio astronomy.

Somebody ask me what made me think current theory suggests Neptune is largely made up of water - I could not find that reference anywhere, either :evil:



Yes, I'd like to preserve General and Special Relativity, because I think when we are able to travel at or above lightspeed, we will need these to figure out where we are!I interprete the reasoning behind them differently, but I'm still stuck with the maximum speed of light in a vacuum - - and E=mC^2 -sorry, no warp drive or dilithium antimatter :(
But wouldn't it be fun if we did?



The drawback to postulating a variable gravity that is contingent upon star power per distance (where G is inversely proportional) is that, as pointed out by Paps, this means the Sun becomes the preferred reference frame (GM), l:I can see the problem - How does your g factor behave in deep space where there are no obvious points of reference?

I don't have this problem, because any motion of an object is relative to the net electromagnetic field effect at the spatial location of the object. The object itself is just a pile of tensors. Not a pleasant thought, being just a weak pile of tensors, is it?