Extensions to Keplers Laws of Gravity

[alexross]

Ever wondered what will come next after Einstein gave us his view on gravity?
Well now you can see:
I have included the Sun and the planets in new gravitational and mathematical models.
These models predict for the first time:
1> Magnetic Field/Force between the Sun and the planets.
2> Magnetic Flux between the Sun and the planets.
3> Gravitational Field/Force between the Sun and the planets.
4> Gravitational Flux (I know I am the first person to say this exists) between the Sun and the planets.
Aside: Think of Gravitational Field/Force acting like electrical voltage and thus staying constant while the electrical current (or Gravitational Flux) can fluctuate.
5> The annual drift between the Moon and The Earth (virtually eliminating all error). I do not actually calculate this directly. I show that the Magnetic flux between the Moon and the Earth gives rise to the same result.

Of course because this is a mathematical model and not proven theory some will no doubt say it is speculative. I admit it needs independant research and verification.
I consider this will produce the first direct links between magnetism and gravity.
Now I have only typed up the first 4 models in word format.
I believe I missed out where Keplers theories come into all this?
Well Kepler did not say HOW the eliptical paths of the planets were formed!
If I have trouble inserting the word files I will add them as text messages lower down this thread. You will lose the images but you can always get them by emailing me.
:D The files are also available from a post at:

http://www.ima.org.uk/forums/showthread.php?p=76#post76

Thanks for your interest and helpful comments,
GET YOUR FREE DOWNLOADS OF DRAFT PAPERS NOW!,
Alex
Mr Alexander Ross BSc(Hons) AMIMA Dip. Int. Trd.
7, Midland Street
Accrington
Lancashire
United Kingdom
BB5 2AX
Telephone: +44 (0) 1254 237482
Fax: +44 (0) 1254 237482
Email: alexross53@hotmail.com

[alexross]

Here is the text file for the first paper. I will try and attach seperate images.

The Concepts behind the Solar Models (an overview)

Flux Cycles and Planetary Vectors

The existence of four factors for both the magnetic and gravitational fluxes maybe explained if we consider the gravitational fluxes. This is given by:

y^2 = (cos x)^2 - (sin x)^2 - (cos (180 - x))^2 + (sin (180 - x))^2

So let the terms be rewritten as:

Y^2 = T1 + T2 + T3 + T4

So that the transmitted gravitational flux as:

y^2 = (cos x)^2 + (sin x)^2 = T1 + T2

and the return gravitational flux as:

y^2 = (cos (180 - x))^2 + (sin (180 - x))^2 = T3 + T4

If we deduce that there is an induction effect of flux by the planet

Then perhaps there is a vector (North to South poles?) at the planet of, say:

P = T1 + T4

DRAFT 10-3-2006
Attaching images not successful: please email

[alexross]

Model for the Magnetic Flux of the Sun

Introduction
As far as I am aware no-one has put forward a model for the magnetic flux generated by the Sun. As such this is a completely new field.

1) This model is built on the presumptions that the Sun generates a magnetic sinusoidal/cosinusoidal wave in the same plane as the orbit of the planets. Secondly, The planets are also divided into two groups.

The origin of this wave is not discussed here. This wave may be some kind of force (T force?). The magnetic flux and field can therefore be held constant while the system as a whole varies and the magnetic force fluctuates.
Perhaps as a reduction in the flux between the Sun and a planet occurs it induces the planetary sinusoidal wave.

2) Each of the planets has a similar wave. This sets up a system of magnetic fluxes between the planets and the Sun.

3) Some of the fluxes between the planets and the Sun are negative and some are positive. The sum of all the fluxes in our solar system is zero.

4) The basic model uses the Earth in line with the Sun. The planets sharing the same polarity of flux with the Earth are known as the INFERIOR PLANETS.
The inferior planets are Mercury, Venus, Earth, Jupiter and Neptune.
Similarly the superior planets are Mars, Saturn, Uranus, and Pluto.
See figure fluxline.gif

5) The planets magnetic flux with the Sun therefore varies with the relative position of the planets. So for example the flux between Mercury and the Sun remains the same polarity as for the Earth on the Superior side of the Sun.
However as Mercury moves towards the superior side it's flux and polarity decreases to zero at the midpoint between these sides. Then the flux reverses and increases as it enters deeper into the superior side.

6) The situation and model for the flux between the Moon and the Earth is not exactly the same.

7) This has some agreement with my Unified Field Theory in which the T wave is dependant or related to the planets rotation.

8) The elliptical ratios for the planets were not used in this model.
A better factor was the inverse for the rotational period. I also used a
'synodic' factor by letting the Earth have a 'synodic' factor of 1 and comparing the synodic revolutions S.
The factor S was reasoned to depend upon the elliptical path taken and thus the amount of flux received. The amount of flux received or transmitted by a planet is similar to a dynamo and depends upon the speed of rotation.

9) It will be shown later that, in fact, the elliptical ratios are already factored into this model. Mathematical modelling at this stage does not involve the use of formulae but the identification of the pertinent factors responsible for the magnetic flux of the Sun.

Construction of the model.

There has to be some liberties taken with the data below to achieve the desired layout for the model.
The first step is to place each planet in a relative position, either on the peak or trough of a sinusoidal wave (see figure Sun1.jpg). The planets in column one are presented in their position away from the Sun.
The polarities in column one are the best fit given the inclinations and relative sequence of the planets positions.
In figure Sun1.jpg we start by looking at the equatorial inclinations of the planets in column three.
This is not the same as the tilt for the planets but provides a means of comparison with the Sun.
The result shown in column two is not a negative and positive fluctuation you would expect in a waveform. However column one shows north and south poles as if this were the case.
However we can correct the phases for the superior planets as in column four.
So now all the inferior planets have a positive phase and the superior planets have a positive phase.
Venus' phase is changed as its inclination > 90 degrees and becomes an inferior phased planet.
Mars' and Saturn's phases are changed to alternate the phases.
Uranus' and Pluto's phases are changed as their inclinations are > 90 degrees.
However the polarities are shown changed to keep the model intact.

In fact if we changed the order of Uranus and Neptune the wave pattern would alternate correctly. This is an area for additional study as to why this break in the order of the waveform occurs. Perhaps there is another unidentified factor that can restore the wave pattern and explain this anomaly?
At this point the model is just forming a credible framework but it is at least robust enough to be tested further to see what results it can provide.

Uranus and Neptune both have atmospheres of hydrogen and helium with outer ice cores of ammonia and methane. This may generate an effect in some manner like a battery. Comparing these planets to Saturn we find Saturn does not have a large ice core with the same components. This situation is unique to Uranus and Neptune.
The magnetic field of Uranus is offset 58.6 degrees from it's spin axis and the magnetic field of Neptune is offset 46.8 degrees from it's spin axis.
This may reflect the effect of this planetary battery reversing their respective wave forms. Finally Jupiter's composition may also act as a magnetic battery as its hydrogen is compressed to a metallic state.
However Jupiter's composition is very different to Uranus and Neptune so that may explain why the wave pattern is not disturbed.

There is good news now for a general formula based on this design results in a substantial improvement for this model.

Let R = rotational period
S = synodic revolution
x = angle of inclination

Then we seek to find V = Magnetic flux factor for the planet.
Where

V = (S cos x)/R

V is subject to a correction factor of 4.286 078 108

So the corrected value for V becomes

V/4.286 078 108

giving a total sum for V for all the planets of nil and providing a means of comparing the planetary values of V easily.
The tables below are used to calculate V and thus F.

PLANET
INCLINATION TO
EQUATOR (X)
DEGREES
COS X
RELATIVE ROTATIONAL
PERIOD (R)
EARTH = 1 (24 HOURS)
1/R
COS X / R
RELATIVE SYNODIC
REVOLUTION (S)
EARTH = 1 (365 DAYS)
MERCURY
2
0.999391
58.64
0.017053
0.017043
0.317808
VENUS
178
-0.999391
243
0.004115
0.004112
1.6
EARTH
23.4
0.917755
1
1
0.917755
1
MARS
25.2
0.904827
1.02595
0.974706
-0.88194
2.136986
JUPITER
3.1
0.998537
0.409722
2.440679
2.437107
0.928767
SATURN
26.7
0.893371
0.44375
2.253251
-2.013231
1.035616
URANUS
97.9
-0.137445
0.745833
1.340783
-0.184283
1.013699
NEPTUNE
29.6
0.869495
0.8
1.25
1.086868
1.005479
PLUTO
122.5
-0.537300
6.375
0.156863
-0.084282
1.005479

Note that some values for COS X are shown as negative because they are identified as negative wave phases.

PLANET
V =
(S * COS X) / R
INFERIOR PLANETS
V VALUES = V1
(POSITIVE)
SUPERIOR PLANETS
corrected
V VALUES = V2 * 1.010586018
(NEGATIVE)
MAGNETIC FLUX FACTOR
F =
V/ 4.286078108
MERCURY
0.005416401
0.005416401

0.001263719
VENUS
0.0065792
0.0065792

0.001535016
EARTH
0.917755
0.917755

0.214124655
MARS
-1.884693433

-1.884693433
-0.444379403
JUPITER
2.263504557
2.263504557

0.528106231
SATURN
-2.084922156

-2.084922156
-0.491590009
URANUS
-0.186807492

-0.186807492
-0.044046103
NEPTUNE
1.09282295
1.09282295

0.254970376
PLUTO
-0.08475781

-0.08475781
-0.019984483
totals

4.286078108
-4.286078107
nil

The third column has been adjusted since the sum for the values of V1 = 4.286078108 but for V2 = -4.241180891. So (V1 - V2) = 0.044269198 giving an error of approximately 1%.
So the values for V2 have been multiplied by 4.286078108 = (V1/V2).
The results above are as found and no further modification has been made. An error of 1% appears acceptable.
DRAFT 1-3-2006

[alexross]

Supporting evidence for a sinusoidal waveform at the Sun's core.

Introduction

The equation for the sun's flux was given by:

F = ((S COS X) / R) + ((S SIN (180 - X)) / R)

if we say this represents the transmitted magnetic flux from the Sun then we
note it has two components.
Let us also say that the flux directly transmitted from the Sun is given by:


Fs = ((S COS X) / R)

and the rest of the flux is induced or created by the planet being considered. That is:


Fp = (S SIN (180 - X)) / R

And Fs + Fp = F

There is another set to data that supports the main theory I have set out to extend Kepler's Laws of planetary motion.

If we use the planetary ellipses and work backwards we arrive at a circular result!

PLANET
MERCURY
VENUS
EARTH
MARS
JUPITER
SATURN
URANUS
NEPTUNE
PLUTO
TOTALS

INCLINATION TO EQUATOR
2
178
23.4
25.2
3.1
26.7
97.9
29.6
122.5


APHELION (A) MILLION KM
46.8
107.6
147.4
207.3
741.6
1346
2740
4466
4461
14263.7


PERIHELION (A) MILLION KM
69.4
109.0
152.6
249.2
817.4
1512
3011
4543
7364
17827.0


SIN X
0.034899496
0.034899496
0.39714789
0.425779291
0,054078872
0.449318998
0.990509463
0.493941866
0.843391445


(A/B) SIN X
0.02353453
0.03445146
0.382214494
0.354189595
0.049063919
0.399989002
0.901360321
0.48556997
0.510913801
3.141297862

Comparing this last result to pi = 3.141592654

we get pi/3.141297862 = 1.0000727972991

This is surprisingly close to pi (only 1/100 of 1% out).
Now pi can be related to the circumference of the Sun's core or it's cross sectional area.
I expect that the area of these ellipses can similarly be connected to the cross sectional area of the Sun. I relate this result more directly to the Sun's core circumference.
The result can also be used to suggest that the magnetic flux from the Sun can fill the area of a circle and operate upon its circumference at the same time.

Conclusion
This was a surprise result. Although these factors were not included in my mathematical model they can be thought of as an hidden factor.
It also directly links the elliptical paths of the planets to the value for pi.
There is not enough evidence here to suggest a direct link to the Sun's core.
This reinforces some of my work on the Moon's annual drift in relation to the magnetic flux between the Earth and the Moon.
This result also supports the notion that the magnetic flux is directed in a plane and circular area away from the Sun. This gives hope for the first possible explanation of why the planets are aligned approximately in one plane.
However it would be necessary to connect this result to gravity rather than magnetic flux.

(SIN X)^2
0.001217974
0.001217974
0.157726447
0.181288005
0.002924518
0.201887562
0.981108996
0.243978567
0.71130913
2.482659178

2.482659178 * 17827/14263.7 = 3.1028670798044

PI/3.1028670798044 = 0.987673266887

Error = 0.012326733113 or 1.23%

A more extensive search for a model connection with gravity may produce a
better result.
DRAFT 1-3-2006

[alexross]

Method for calculating the angles of planetary alignment for flux measurements.

As the angle to calculate the angle x (see figure scheme1.gif) increases beyond 90 degrees and point C the planet will move into a superior position.

At point C it's effect on the magnetic flux from the Sun has been reduced to zero as it moved from A to Q to C.
We now need to model the effect on it moving from C to R to B.
At point B we model that it has a completely negative effect to that which it had at point A.

As it moves from B to D to A it does not actually repeat the effect of moving from C to Q to A. The effect actually copies that for A to C to B.
So points Q represent peaks at values for F = 1.414 while point S represents a trough at a value for F = -1.414.
Points R and T represent mid-points at values for F = 0 (see figure equatn1.gif).

This feature of the model just interprets the effect of defining the flux F by

F = cos x + sin (180 -X).

To model points A and B as the peak and trough of the waveform for F would be more natural but there is no certainty this situation exists in practice.
The comparison of this aspect to real data may provide an improvement to this model. It is easy to adjust the angle x by 45 degrees but to model this mathematically I would rather have a proper reason.

The values for the angle x (see figures scheme1.gif and scheme2.gif) are measured clockwise.
This system may be subject to improvement as we are modelling a new system.
Note that when x>180 say x = 300 then F = cos 300 + sin (180 - 300).
This works well but we would get a slightly different result if we had measured the angle x from point A as angles AOQ, AOC, and AOR say and then measured F for the point T by taking the angle AOT as angle x.
However by keeping to this equation for F we retain a continual waveform for F as shown in figure equatn1.gif.

DRAFT 1-3-2006

[alexross]

Well this is as far as I have typed up my writing. I have debated on the 'magnatism' thread of this forum how these models can be improved and applied to alternative planetary orbital scenarios.
Thanks for staying with me so far.

The Duration of the Magnetic Flux Cycle

The graph for:

F = y = cos x + sin (180 -X)

is similar to:

y = cos x + sin (180-x) - sin x - cos (180-x)

see figures sun5a.gif and sun5b.gif






Since both these graphs for flux have a wavelength of 2 pi.

This can be considered as the circumference of a circle (Sun's core)!
This supports the basic model's concepts.
To match this to a recorded cycle of approximately 11 years for Sun Spots we need to double the value.
We had previously stated that to generate an elliptical path for a planet the circumference of the Sun would need to contain a wave of two wavelengths!
So we have a value of 4 pi = 12.57142857 years for the Sun Spots cycle.
We also know the wavelength of the generating wave in the Sun too, although the radius of the Sun's core may be in dispute.

The core of the Sun is sited at 0.4 of it's radius (say 0.4r).
However the Sun's radiative zone occurs between 0.2 and 0.71 of its radius.
It is possible therefore that the Sun is NOT acting at it's maximum capabilty in generating magnetic flux!

Its minimum capacity to generate magnetic flux is half of it's present operation. This should be the same for it's gravitational attraction.
So the planets would move further away from the Sun IF the flux weakened as the core of the Sun shrunk to 0.2r.
This is highly debatable. The Sun might compensate by producing a wave with a greater amplitude?

Similarly there may be the possibility of the Sun creating a greater and a maximum flux over 1.75 times seen today. This seems so great that I associate it with its evolution into a red giant.

Two Correction Methods for the Sun Spot Cycle (magnetic Flux) Period.

First method

The first method involves using the Synodic Periods relative to the Earth.

PLANET
MERCURY (ME)
VENUS (V)
EARTH (E)
MARS (MA)
JUPITER (J)
SATURN (SA)
URANUS (U)
NEPTUNE (N)
PLUTO (PL)
TOTAL


RELATIVE SYNODIC PERIODS
0.317808
1.6
1
2.136986
0.928767
1.035616
1.013699
1.005479
1.005479
10.043834

So the average value for the relative Synodic Periods (RSP) is:

RSP = 10.043834 / 9 = 1.115981556

Adjusting our value of 4 pi we get:

Cycle length = C1 = 4 pi / RSP = 12.57142857 / 1.115981556 = 11.26040115 years.

The present figures for the range of this cycle is not availble to me but as
it is a range and not a specific value as I have given this should lead to
some re-examination of this Sun Spot activity.

Second method

There is another way to get a correction factor of approximately 1.115.
That is to calculate the flux value for the Sun itself!
The Sun has a tilt of 7 degrees and its equatorial inclination is 83 degrees.
So cos 7 = 0.992546151 and sin (180 - 7 = 173) = 0.121869343
So flux = cos 7 + sin 173 = 0.992546151 + 0.121869343
flux = 1.114415495

I do not offer an explanation for this but just note its use as a modelling factor.

Cycle length = C2 = 12.57142857 / 1.114415495 = 11.27622512 years.

An average value between C1 and C2 may be useful?
The difference between C1 and C2 is given by:

C1 / C2 = 1.001405276

representing an error of 0.14% but this may be coincidental. The validity of these factors may, in time, be made more certain or the choice between them better decided.

Cork Screw Effect

There seems a possibility that a Cork Screw Rule like Maxwell's Rule may exist for gravity. This is an on-going investigation for me.
DRAFT 1-3-2006

[Epsilon=One]

We had previously stated that to generate an elliptical path for a planet the circumference of the Sun would need to contain a wave of two wavelengths!I find this statement interesting. Can you explain your logic?

[alexross]

Hi Epilson= One,
Kepler showed us the elliptical behaviour of the planets.
In a way Newton extended this by showing us how to measure the gravitational forces involved.
Then Einstein came along with relativity and showed how gravity bent space.
I see that none of them explained how the elliptical paths came to be created.
With my process around the Sun's core it is possible to generate either an elliptical path or a circular one. A circular path merely signals the absence of a sine wave (or an opposite and equal wave at the planet cancelling the Suns wave out).
In mathematical modelling you try to identify the major influences at work and use these as factors in your model.
I am using statistics widely available to the public however initially it looks hopeless to generate any meaningful explanation from them.
I have a mathematical talent or gift for seeing patterns and trends in mathematical data.
That is why millions of people have seen the same statistics but not identified the patterns they conceal.
As an amatuer scientist I feel uninhibited in taking logical leaps that would put professional scientists quaking.
I try however to keep this as a positive attribute. I will make these intuitive leaps if I believe they help scientific debate AND avoid misleading people.
After all if there is only a 1% chance of a disaster would I not be wrong to with hold that information. What if it came true?
So my modus operandii is to say: "look here is my views and here is a worst case scenario. I remind you that there is only 1% chance of a disaster but it is not a 0% chance of a disaster ".
Forwarned is forarmed - or as the good book says "by the wisdom of a poor man the whole city was saved".
There is every indication that my models will stand. I did not disguise them as theories or hypotheses because I know that would mislead people (not completely in this case). Anyway there is room for others to carry on with my work and test or use it .
Based upon the two simple design features of a sine wave and splitting the planets into two groups I approach the problem of gravity in a new direction.
The division of the planets into two groups was determined by careful scrutiny of all the published statistics.
I then tested them in a few models and refined each model until I arrived at the models you see.
The initial aim was to have counter balancing magnetic fluxes for each group of planets.
You would expect that to tie things up but the distribution of the planets has always been a mystery - until now.
The benefits of my models (as contained in the first 5 draft papers) to present day science are (as far as I am aware):
1> They give the first model for solar magnetic flux.
2> They give the first model for solar magnetic fields or force.
2> They give the first model for solar gravitational fields or force.
4> They give the first model for solar gravitational flux.
5> They identify gravitational flux for the first time.
6> They establish a direct and quantifiable link between gravity and magnetism (and suggest this link is not too unlike elctricity).
7> They give the first model for solar gravitational fields or force.
8> They do not conflict with Einstein or Newtons work and confirm Keplers work. There will probably be room for debate in where they fit in though!
9> They explain why the planets are distributed in a plane at the Sun's equator.

In addition to this with your participation:
10> They question the assumption that the planets have fixed orbits.
11> They show that the planets may exist in pairs acting as magnetic couples.
12> The initial aim of having counter balancing magnetic fluxes for each group of planets had a discrepancy of 1.3% between the two groups of planets. The reason for this now becomes apparent although I have not disclosed it yet.
There was a 1.3% discrepancy between the groups which I corrected for.
This was reasonable, at the time, since not all the material in the solar system exists as planets. However mathematical models are generally speaking a starting place rather than a final solution such as a theory.
Scientists may therefore have some difficulty in my mathematical approach not being orthodox.
I hope you like the files I emailed.
Regards,
Alex

[alexross]

I repeat this message here as I believe it may help others:
>Hi,
>I really don't see where you are going with this. I am interested in looking at some of your details, so I would like to see you draft papers. Please e-mail them to --
>
>Thanks!

Hi,
It is a pleasure to attach the files for you.
I will try and explain where I am going....
We can look at the history of gravity research and see a continuous development through Kepler, Newton, and Einstein.
While my theories continue to develope our knowledge of gravity they fit more closely to Keplers Laws.
I think the most important points to remember is that I change the way we look at the situation in 2 ways:
1> I divide the planets into two groups. Thus magnetic flux can operate positively and negatively as well as balancing itself.
2> I place a sine wave around the Suns equator as the operating force. I do not define this force. I have an idea of its origin but prefer to rest under the concept of mathematical modelling for now.
I aim to establish new laws and I know that I have opened up a broad debate here.
They are also draft and not finished papers.
It was my more modest ambition to develop a mathematical model for magnetic flux if possible at first. This has never been achieved before. I believed that if it was possible then an examination of the Solar System was a good place to look. I had limited data and statistics but it turns out that the statistics which are widely published in books was enough! The main difficulty was not the mathematics but the conceptualisation in this instance.
That does not say my models cannot be improved. I believe I have opened the door for others to do so (I am happy to let others share the task).
So my theories/models on gravity grew out of the success (mathematically) from the magnetic models.
I am attaching the files for you but they are also available from a post at:

http://www.ima.org.uk/forums/showthread.php?p=76#post76

Please get back to me if you would like to.
Yours Sincerely,
Alex
Mr Alexander Ross BSc(Hons) AMIMA Dip. Int. Trd.
7, Midland Street
Accrington
Lancashire
United Kingdom
BB5 2AX
Telephone: 01254 237482
Fax: 01254 237482

[alexross]

Hi,
I am still needing to familiarise myself with 'push gravity' (I do not like feigning false knowledge).
The problem for me is that my 'simple' theory is fine but has now led me into complicated mathematics as I explore its possible connections with Einsteins gravity. This introduces a secondary learning requirement for me.
As I see it so far (comenting on push theory):
http://www.oddbooks.co.uk/oddbooks/wcwright.html

1 "Wright tells us that he started to think about gravity because his son Tom did not believe in Newton's theory, in particular the standard explanation for high and low tides. Wright found his son's doubts compelling and looked into the question further. He could not understand why, if gravity is an attractive force, all the heavenly bodies are not "stuck together like a bunch of grapes". How could it be that no-one else had previously spotted this glaring, fatal, flaw in Newton's theory? He does not enlighten us."

O.K. I arrange the planets into 2 groups allowing for positive and negative magnetic fluxes.
I also introduce the concept of gravitational flux.
Now I did NOT say that gravitational flux has positive and negative fluxes. I sinmply have not researched this. Assuming it is possible (I see no reason why not) this means gravity CAN act as a push gravity BUT it can ALSO as a pull gravity.
I will also assume that the magnetic polarity of the planets can be considered as the gravitational polarity too.
For example I believe that Uranus and Neptune are in a state of exchanged orbits and so have their magentic sequence out of synchronisation.
The present state of affairs is to have the outer planets alligned as:
Saturn (S), Uranus (U), Neptune (N), Pluto (P), Sedna (Se)The 'normal' state of affairs should be to have the outer planets alligned as:
Saturn (S), Neptune (N),Uranus (U), Pluto (P), Sedna (Se)
This means the 'normal' state of affairs gives a North/South/North/South/North/South arrangement and polarity distribution and more importantly from your point of view PULL gravity.
However the present state of affairs gives a North/South/SOUTH/NORTH/North/South arrangement and polarity distribution and more importantly from your point of view PSH gravity between Saturn and Neptune as well as Uranus and Pluto.
You have to remember that this repulsive effect occurs under the greater gravitational attraction of these planets to the Sun. So they do not go flying away from each other.

2> "A key ingredient of Wright's theory is something he calls the 'magnetic circular squeeze'. This is a force which acts inwards to 'squeeze' objects such as the planets into round shapes. Wright claims that this force is responsible for the fact that the hairs on your head do not taper whereas those on your arms do. What is more:
The incoming magnetic wave has a twist factor in it."
This runs parallel to my theories/models.
In my model magnetism and gravity are bound together in a dynamic system. I will stand aside from saying that they NECESSARILY act together. The fact that I have shown them uniquely acting 'inseparably' within the Solar System does not prove that this is a general case.

3> I am not yet adequately acquainted with push theory to say if it allows for this interpretation or if this represents some modification.
I also realise that it is pretty radical to say that the planets may not have fixed orbits. There is a lot I am saying that is based solely on my modelling. However in my defence I would mention that everyone else has no firmly established view on these matters. I therefore believe that this will create a worthwhile discussionand it does open a line of argument in support of push gravity by explaining how it can occur!
I welcome your comments.
Download files at:

http://www.ima.org.uk/forums/showthread.php?t=48

Regards,
Alex
Mr Alexander Ross BSc(Hons) AMIMA Dip. Int. Trd.
7, Midland Street
Accrington
Lancashire
United Kingdom
BB5 2AX
Telephone: 01254 237482
Fax: 01254 237482

[Epsilon=One]

I am still needing to familiarise myself with 'push gravity'… The problem for me is that my 'simple' theory is fine but has now led me into complicated mathematics as I explore its possible connections with Einsteins gravity. This introduces a secondary learning requirement for me.
As I see it so far (comenting on push theory):
http://www.oddbooks.co.uk/oddbooks/wcwright.htmlThis particular "push" theory of gravity that you cite is not worth spending a moment of time trying to understand. It is ludicrous.

It is very difficult to do the mathematics for gravity because of its universal “entanglement.” The greatest mathematicians are unable to solve GR problems of “many bodies” without almost meaningless extrapolation. And, of course GR is useless for solving problems of accelerating, galactic recession; the Pioneer anomaly (http://www.ph.unimelb.edu.au/~foot/pioneer.html); et cetera.

However, what should be obvious (though not to theoretical physicists), is that forces must directly act on their objects with a "push."

Conventional theories have gravity: 1.) "Acting-at-a-distance" (you might say non-locally); 2.) With its source at the infinitesimal (No matter how small you reduce a particle there is still mass and thus gravity.); 3.) "Pulling" on its object; and, 4.) Acting universally. (Move any particle and all other particles that exist, or have ever existed, are effected.)

Conventional gravity's "pull" usually connotes some kind of "reach," "grasp," and "pull" by at least two bodies, which means a group of at least six forces . . . ???

An alternative, analogous example of gravity, which is heuristic, that approximates the effect, is somewhat as follows: (Add a few more “weasel” terms and caveats as you may require.)

Suppose a large globe is continually filling with large balloons around its extremities. These balloons will compress as more large balloons are added; the compressed balloons will compress balloons even closer to the center, et cetera.

As this compression is going on, lighter particles between the balloons are being forced outward as the balloons compress inward. Balloons and particles are being pushed together (and outward) from all directions; and every balloon compression has an effect on every other balloon compression.

Suppose the balloons are the sought for “dark” matter.

The imagined forces are akin to gravity and Cosmic Inertia.

See: Relative, Hierarchic Compression (http://www.physicsmathforums.com/showthread.php?t=124) (RHC) and Confluent Congruence (http://www.physicsmathforums.com/showthread.php?t=123) (CC).

Of course the above is not intended to be any more than heuristic; but, it does have a lot more logic than any other conventional or alternative theory of gravity and inertia that I know of.

[alexross]

Hm..
I would go along with you, and Dilbert, on the invalidity of the Uncertainty Principle.
I take a rather unusual approach to the work of both my critics and peers.
Perhaps it is really more professional - you decide.
Suppose I accept that Push Gravity is entirely nonsense. In fact let us use a better example - the Uncertainty Principle.
Now just because I disagree with it does not mean I should not try to understand what its advocates are trying to do or say.
Indeed I have found by listening, to say, Roger Penrose that you can identify new techniques for handling theoretical problems.
LISTENING TO CRITICS CAN BE A POSITIVE EXPERIENCE.
In the case of Push Gravity I look for comparisons both in line and at variance with my work.
I know my work is unfinished but I would take this approach anyway.
The most likely advantage to me (I suspect) is to compare the transmission effects (like billiard balls or that office game in which you have balls suspended on strings) with the movement of a flux.
I am aware of the problems of straying too far along unrewarding lines of enquiry and I usually try and avoid this by reading clearly laid out papers.
As you say the general principle of a 'push' is not too wild. Gravity does not always obey the rules as we know them. For instance there is supposed to be an opposite reaction to every action but this is not evident on our own bodies.
The planets also circulate the Sun and do not fall into it. Where is the balancing force? My model actually helps to explain this - if each planet generates it's own sine wave and gravitational effect.
The concept of a push gravity appears to be another attempt to understand this.
I do agree that push gravity is based on a flawed principle of entanglement.
However I approve of an attempt to break free and advance our understanding. If these theorists may a mistake now and again thats alright by me they can correct themselves. I also understand that there are not too many theories on gravity which limits the time I need to read them.
I do think that we are in a new situation for mathematicians and scientists.
Mankinds development is now getting so fast that the old situation in which you can consider ALL other possibilities and theories is becoming humanly impossible.
Just think how many new theories will be tried today all over the world. How is anyone supposed to be able to keep up to date?
In fact scientific bodies are snowed under with new works to publish.
Worse (or better?) still is that the number of eminent scientists is also increasing so we can expect more complicated theories!
I think the end result is that we will have to take a more flexible approach to each other. That is not to say we forgoe scientific cross-examination.
We just give each other a little more room for expression.

Now looking a bit closer at your reply:
Galactic recession - this is simply beyond my model. I have no data on this so I cannot model anything. In the past I did put forward a new relativistic approach showing how space has expanded from the Big Bang. I believe this determines GR. However I have not attempted to convert this to a constant factor (in fact it is non linear).
My own work on Complex Quantum Mechanics (CQM) updates and corrects QM but that is another story.

Reading about the Pioneer 10 and 11 spacecraft: I did not know this but it is not surprising such data should be gathered. My own model would allow for this but it hardly simplifies the situation! I show how two gravitational fluxes can be combined to create an elliptical path. I have left some margin for debate here. Does this mean the gravitational flux follows the gravitational field? Is the gravitational flux trapped within an ellipsoid? Do the two gravitational fluxes remain seperate/isolated but still combined in the effect an elliptic gravitational force?
This is a big challenge indeed. How do we explain these anomolies? If the planets had been frozen in position then I would expect these spacecraft to produce the same results if they flew the same path again.
According to my model as the planets move so do these effects! Now you can try and explain this by solar radiation but I suspect the effect will be too big. What my model may do to help is this: suppose we have a spacecraft in a FIXED position around the site of these anomolies. If the changes it encounters mirrors my model then we have some confirmation. To maximise the benefits we should consider planetary alignments as the spacecraft will drift position and unless we have a lot of fuel it will have a limited life.
I am a conventional theorist and I agree with your 4 points. Where QM is conventional I accept it.

Conventional gravity's "pull" usually connotes some kind of "reach," "grasp," and "pull" by at least two bodies.
Well yes in the Solar System it does not exist in any other conditions.
However if the Sun was isolated it would still exert a pull. You just need to be in its vicinity to feel it. I interpret this to mean that as soon as you introduce a second object they act in sympathy (that is a subtly different concept?).

The trouble with heuristic theories: I hope I am not going to annoy you...
I do not know for sure if you believe in conventional QM.
I am pleased to see you have got on board with the complex quanta.
WAY TO GO.............
Look if QM is saying there is a 3% chance of an electron being here or there I would argue that there is also a 3% chance of a banana being there too!
(less rediculously I could substitute say dark matter for the banana).
So the moral is that proof has to be 100% (or as close as possible to this).
The fact that we cannot always get 100% accuracy is NO excuse. It just means that there is always rome for a better explanation.

Dark matter is described differently in my CQM. There are lots of new ideas here. This is where the idea of dark energy came from.

Relative, Hierarchic Compression: I will have to come back to this you seem to be unfinished here on your web page.
Many particles you mention are unknown to me. I believe there is a fundamental mis-interpretation of quarks and leptons ecetera. The concept of spin, charm ecetera can be replaced with complex energy.
Regards,
Alex

[Epsilon=One]

I would go along with you, and Dilbert, on the invalidity of the Uncertainty Principle.Do you understand why? Do you understand the concept of the universal proof of one (http://www.physicsmathforums.com/showthread.php?t=165), which is closely tied to the Elliptical Constant (http://www.physicsmathforums.com/showthread.php?t=107)?

I take a rather unusual approach to the work of both my critics and peers. Perhaps it is really more professional - you decide.Your approach is very professional. Unfortunately, most professional don’t use it.

LISTENING TO CRITICS CAN BE A POSITIVE EXPERIENCE.When criticized without ad hominems, the only proper reply is . . . Thank you!

I know my work is unfinished but I would take this approach anyway.Philosophy and computer programs are never finished. (I consider science, theology, and philosophy as one discipline.)

Gravity does not always obey the rules as we know them.This is not a fault of gravity; it is that gravity’s illusion is misunderstood.

The planets also circulate the Sun and do not fall into it. Where is the balancing force?The only balancing force given by pomo theoretical physicists is the big bang . . . which never occurred. And, the BB cannot explain accelerating, galactic recession as it only “banged” once.

The balancing force is inertia, which Newton has complete mislead everyone to this day with his "straight and uniform." I refer to inertia as Cosmic Inertia (http://www.physicsmathforums.com/showthread.php?t=139) to separate it from Newton’s folly.

My model actually helps to explain this - if each planet generates it's own sine wave and gravitational effect.This effect is a small part of gravity which accounts for tides, etc. It is analogous to what I refer to as Confluent Congruence (http://www.physicsmathforums.com/showthread.php?t=123).

Einstein was aware of the necessity for a structural force (To his credit, he never accepted the big bang) with his Cosmological Constant. However, he had the source and direction wrong as well as it being a constant. It's obvious that the reaction force to gravity must have acceleration. I can't imagine what Einstein was thinking. I had intended to discuss this, but never had the chance. Einstein was well aware of the limits of GR. I'm quite sure that Kurt Gödel was aware of the structural problem, but I don't believe he ever commented publically about a theory concerning it . . . or the BB.

…I approve of an attempt to break free and advance our understanding. If these theorists may a mistake now and again thats alright by me they can correct themselves. I also understand that there are not too many theories on gravity which limits the time I need to read them.I concur.

I do think that we are in a new situation for mathematicians and scientists.All world-class physicists think as you do; especially since the Hubble space telescope (HST). Everyone that is aware that physics theory is badly flawed just doesn’t have any alternative theories that are plausible and reconcileable with what exists.

Worse (or better?) still is that the number of eminent scientists is also increasing so we can expect more complicated theories!What is needed is simpler theories that everyone can understand. Research and engineering are for the complexities; physics and mathematics must be founded upon simplicity.

I think the end result is that we will have to take a more flexible approach to each other.Such an approach is impossible with the current academic emphasis on grants and sinecure. The academic paradigm is too self-serving.

Galactic recession - this is simply beyond my model.Yes, and everyone else’s model. However, it is one of the most important considerations for any meaningful theory.

Other important considerations are such as: What is fundamental, intrinsic time (FIT)? What is the quantum of space? How do fermions and bosons fundamentally differ when they are from the same phenomena? What is the mechanism for the Universe’s perpetuity? Et cetera.

You are on the right track with your thoughts. I read all your posts carefully.

The remainder of your post involves too much time to properly answer. It will be on my “to do” list . . . as is so much more.

[alexross]

Hi Epsilon= One,
I know you know your stuff! Without govelling let me just eat a little humble pie and admit you are better informed and smarter than me in some respects.
I am sensible enough to realise that I am not on my own territory.
Now to do your reply justice I will take it home and read it again. It took me a couple of hours to do the same yesterday!
I also realise that you are engaged professionally so that your time is limited.
I have tried not to waste it but give pertinent replies.
One encouraging sign is that I am teasing out some of your ideas you have not been able to discuss before.
I do admit to being a LITTLE unprofessional. This has become a character flaw reinforced.
I agree I can give the wrong impression by my behaviour. It is hard to change my spots.
Another problem for me is that the standard of behaviour you are asking from me in physics is not entirely necessary in mathematics. For instance it is largely unneccessary to bother about picking other peoples brains. Mathematical theories are entirely open ended and reveal all. So there is always a large source of material already available.
At the cutting edge of physics however my behaviour could be less acceptable - true.
In my defense I have admitted I do absorb 'good working practice' from others and I would never deny where I got the info.
I am trapped between being amatuer and professional. I will try and raise my game.
Sorry.
Update: I misread your email. I would not be surprised if you had criticised my behaviour. As you can see I am aware of my short comings and have been trying to overcome them.
With regard to your message: I note (with some astonishment) the way in which scientific papers are being presented today. Perhaps you have noticed?
With an introduction you are (as I was trained) to give a concise and simple explanation of the contents of the paper.
If you do this it appeals to a much wider audience. That is why I try (here my teaching practice comes in) to use words of less than 7 letters. I can see that if you are sponsored to write it then a complicated introduction may amaze your target audience (the boss).
Ditto for the titles of some papers. I am sure that among peers this is water over a ducks back and taken with a pinch of salt. However if you lament the attraction of science to children you can see one reason why they see science as mystic.
I do admit I do not really use mathematical operators or other post grad maths so I am not very practiced with them but get by. I do expect papers to be written, unavoidably, with these as content. I just think that even if the main body of a paper needs specialist knowledge an introduction should cover all the salient points so that a school child could understand what they are trying to say. Perhaps I have my head in the clouds?
Regards,
Alex

Alex

[alexross]

This is going way off discussion.
I have a different viewpoint based on my approach in Complex Quantum Mechanics (CQM).
This is not yet acknowledged but when we get that far I can introduce my theory of Fractral Quantum Mechanics (FQM).
When we get to the end of all that (it is extensive) we are ready to see intrinsic time in a new way.
I do not want to put the cart before the horse. Building a solid argument and case as I have done for CQM (for example I have presented the University of Newcastle, Australia and Univ of Central Lancashire with a demonstration of how complex space behaves or interacts with real space) is the way to procede.
Reagrds,
Alex

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

© Mr. Robin Parsons Kingston Ontario Canada MMVI

8:39 AM 4/9/2006

The Pioneer anomaly can have a very simple explanation, if the currently known speed of light is actually as affected to be such due to (as a result of) the Suns' Gravitational sphere of Influence, exiting that sphere could allow for an INCREASING 'speed of light' therefore a satelite (Man Made) moving through that space, would appear to be accelerating as the Radio signal from it, would travel slightly faster, over a short distance, in the space that it must travel through, thereafter decelerating to the Currently known Speed of light......but the time of radio signal transmission would be Partially shortened, thus the appearance of an accelerating craft would arise, even though the Crafts' Actual Speed remained/remains the same.

It is quite possible, it is, as yet, un-tested for, and presently un-testable....but we could test for it.....soon enough if "we" want to....

[Epsilon=One]

The Pioneer anomaly can have a very simple explanation…due to (as a result of) the Suns' Gravitational sphere of Influence… therefore a satelite (Man Made) moving through that space, would appear to be accelerating...but the time of radio signal transmission would be Partially shortened, thus the appearance of an accelerating craft would arise, even though the Crafts' Actual Speed remained/remains the same.Would this theory explain the deceleration of the spacecraft???

As yet there is no alternative theory except that of data error. Other than the rationale of Pulsoid Theory (http://www.physicsmathforums.com/forumdisplay.php?f=63), nothing else has been found plausible. The Europeans are planning in the near future to test the accuracy of the data.

[Epsilon=One]

This is not yet acknowledged but when we get that far I can introduce my theory of Fractral Quantum Mechanics (FQM).FQM would interest me. I am a great admirer of Benoit Mandelbrot.

I have no doubt that his geometry that is primarily limited to three dimensions and a time function is far superior to that of the string theorists (stringers).

When we get to the end of all that (it is extensive) we are ready to see intrinsic time in a new way.If you have an alternative explanation for fundamental, intrinsic time (FIT), I would also be quite interested. It seems any explanation that is reconcilable with IPSO (http://www.physicsmathforums.com/showthread.php?t=142) should be worthy of a Nobel.

...I have presented the University of Newcastle, Australia and Univ of Central Lancashire with a demonstration of how complex space behaves or interacts with real space)...To begin: I do not believe in the concept of any fundamental "space" manifestation; with that said, how does "complex space" differ from "real space"?

[alexross]

Suns Sphere of Influence
Hi Robert,
Thanks for your reply.
I would like to deal with by taking a look at the view you give and then seeing if I can add anything.
O.K.
The gravitational hypotheses currently held need treating with some respect.
Right or wrong, a lot of thought as gone into them.
I can accept that this gravitational effect seems plausable (Please give me some lee way, I am not denying it).
I will have to go back to the Poineer 10 anomoly and look exactly where it occurred.

Done, you can find this at:

http://www.ph.unimelb.edu.au/~foot/pioneer.html

These spacecraft, which are identical in design, were launched in the early 1970's with Pioneer 10 going to Jupiter
and Pioneer 11 going to Saturn.

So I would have to accept that the Suns sphere of influence ends at
Saturn or nearby? The text at the web site is unclear, but this seems
a reasonable assumption.

My model indicates that the Suns gravitational influence ends at Sedna.
I model two conditions (not proofs admittedly) for this. First the spacing and
distribution of the planets.
Sedna is over 13 * 10^9 km away. The next planet should be smaller and approximately twice as far away.
There does not seem to be anything between Sedna and the Oort Cloud (1.6 light years distance).
Even if we found a rock it would be, I assume, too small to class as a planet.
Secondly, the orbit of Sedna also breaks the pattern having an ellipse with
radii of 11.4 to 148 billion km.
I therefore give the end of Suns sphere of influence at Sedna.

PLANET
MERCURY
VENUS
EARTH
MARS
JUPITER
SATURN
URANUS
NEPTUNE
PLUTO


Aphelion
10^6 km
69.8
108.9
152.1
249.2
816.0
1506.4
3005.2
4535.2
7381.2
13,000

This suggests two complimentary pateerns (you could probably redo this
in a combined pattern, but here goes)

PLANET SPACINGS 1
MERCURY - EARTH
JUPITER - URANUS
PLUTO - SEDNA

MULTIPLICATION FACTORS 1
2.17908
5.36489
3.68284
2.45614


PLANET SPACINGS 2
VENUS - MARS
SATURN - NEPTUNE

MULTIPLICATION FACTORS 2
2.28834
6.04494
3.01062
2.86647

MULTIPLICATION FACTORS COMBINED
2.17908
2.28834
5.36489
6.04494 = PEAK
3.68284
3.01062
2.45614
2.86647 = TREND BROKEN (SLIGHTLY BIGGER)

This is a rough and ready guide but does show a pattern.
The reason why Sedna breaks the pattern seems to be the limit to the
Suns gravitational field as we said above.
So I used a factor of 2 above < 2.45614.
The figure I used for Sedna of 13 is probably better as 11.4 reducing the multiplication factor to 2.51367 which is still a small increase.
Going back to your suggestion about INCREASING 'speed of light'.
There is still some scope for this argument as I only present a model.
A mathematical model does not preclude any other possibilities.
However with INCREASING 'speed of light' you would have to accept that
space is distorted in that vicinity. That could be a real problem.
Still Saturn is a big planet.

After the planetary rendezvous, the two spacecraft followed orbits to
opposite ends of the solar system with roughly the same speed, which
is now about 12 km/s.
This being so the effects they experience would be different(according
to my model) if they did the same now.
This helps me make 2 predictions:
1> The same thing will happen but in a different site.
2> There is probably always at least one site in the Solar System
where such effects are evident
Regards,
Alex

OLD MESSAGE:
© Mr. Robin Parsons Kingston Ontario Canada MMVI

8:39 AM 4/9/2006

The Pioneer anomaly can have a very simple explanation, if the currently known speed of light is actually as affected to be such due to (as a result of) the Suns' Gravitational sphere of Influence, exiting that sphere could allow for an INCREASING 'speed of light' therefore a satelite (Man Made) moving through that space, would appear to be accelerating as the Radio signal from it, would travel slightly faster, over a short distance, in the space that it must travel through, thereafter decelerating to the Currently known Speed of light......but the time of radio signal transmission would be Partially shortened, thus the appearance of an accelerating craft would arise, even though the Crafts' Actual Speed remained/remains the same.

It is quite possible, it is, as yet, un-tested for, and presently un-testable....but we could test for it.....soon enough if "we" want to....

[alexross]

Hi,
You will be familiar with the philosophical conjecture that "I think therefore I am".
The problem of proving we have 3 dimensions when we know they exist has been insurmountable?
Or has it? Does not space conform to numerical series and progressions?
I go one step further and state this as a PROOF for the existence of a dimension (not that I preclude non-spatial dimensions).
This is tricky..
One proof not two. I accept that it is not absolute proof but a good means of weighing up the possibilities.
In this sense you can show that complex space is every bit as 'real' as Real space.
I do not like the play on words that arises unavoidably. I try to substitute R3 or 3D space for Real Space and treat complex space as a 4th dimension.
I really know you have the bit in your mouth now but I really would like to work on my gravitational model a little more.........
Regards,
Alex

FQM would interest me. I am a great admirer of Benoit Mandelbrot.

I have no doubt that his geometry that is primarily limited to three dimensions and a time function is far superior to that of the string theorists (stringers).

If you have an alternative explanation for fundamental, intrinsic time (FIT), I would also be quite interested. It seems any explanation that is reconcilable with IPSO (http://www.physicsmathforums.com/showthread.php?t=142) should be worthy of a Nobel.

To begin: I do not believe in the concept of any fundamental "space" manifestation; with that said, how does "complex space" differ from "real space"?

[Epsilon=One]

The problem of proving we have 3 dimensions when we know they exist has been insurmountable?This logic is beyond my understanding.

Does not space conform to numerical series and progressions?No, not the concept of “space” as is usually implied. However, if you consider “space” to be fully active and quantized, then such conformity has logic . . . though, the issue is still quite problematic. However, to use more than three dimensions while discussing orthogonal concepts of the macro Cosmic medium is ludicrous.

I accept that it is not absolute proof but a good means of weighing up the possibilities.Proof should be without qualifiers; anything less is no proof.

… you can show that complex space is every bit as 'real' as Real space.

I do not like the play on words that arises unavoidably. I try to substitute R3 or 3D space for Real Space and treat complex space as a 4th dimension.What is complex space? How does it differ from non-complex space?

[alexross]

Flux Cycles and Planetary Vectors - NEW FILES
I am attaching an updated file of magflux1 as magflx1b.zip at the IMA website.
I did not have room to include magflx1c.zip at the top of the thread so I include it lower down the thread at:

http://www.ima.org.uk/forums/newreply.php?do=newreply&noquote=1&p=78

I have modelled a new connection between gravitational force and gravitational flux.

This also gives an explanation for how the sine wave appears at each planet.
Alex

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

© Mr. Robin Parsons Kingston Ontario Canada MMVI

Would this theory explain the deceleration of the spacecraft???
As yet there is no alternative theory except that of data error. Other than the rationale of Pulsoid Theory (http://www.physicsmathforums.com/forumdisplay.php?f=63), nothing else has been found plausible. The Europeans are planning in the near future to test the accuracy of the data.
As to your first question, well, you tell me, cause what (I) explained tells of how the reading could be off due to spatial effects/affectations, no deceleration required.

Do you understand what (I) wrote?

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

Suns Sphere of Influence
Hi Robert, IT'S R-O-B-I-N...SVP
Thanks for your reply.
I would like to deal with by taking a look at the view you give and then seeing if I can add anything.
O.K.
The gravitational hypotheses currently held need treating with some respect.
Right or wrong, a lot of thought as gone into them.
I can accept that this gravitational effect seems plausable (Please give me some lee way, I am not denying it).
I will have to go back to the Poineer 10 anomoly and look exactly where it occurred.

Done, you can find this at:

http://www.ph.unimelb.edu.au/~foot/pioneer.html

These spacecraft, which are identical in design, were launched in the early 1970's with Pioneer 10 going to Jupiter
and Pioneer 11 going to Saturn.

So I would have to accept that the Suns sphere of influence ends at
Saturn or nearby? The text at the web site is unclear, but this seems
a reasonable assumption.

© Mr. Robin Parsons Kingston Ontario Canada MMVI

Both Satelites/spacecraft EXITED the Solar System after their allotted time at their respective planets.....Pioneer Crossed the Stellar (plasma?) 'Shock Wave' recently....sorta exiting from the Suns' relative (Near) influence......

[Epsilon=One]

As to your first question, well, you tell me, cause what (I) explained tells of how the reading could be off due to spatial effects/affectations, no deceleration required.

Do you understand what (I) wrote?No, I don't understand; because, the "spatial effects/affectations" require deceleration.

[alexross]

Well perhaps you might be better to email me a more complete answer?
Anyway, the cause you gave was the faster than light effect. Surely that means light as been accelerated. It seems reasonable to assume that accceleration occurs close to the Pioneer anomoly.
Also this anomoly is local (another assumption NASA does not tell us everything) therefore the faster than light effect disappears to normal light speed conditions.
This suggests acceleration and deceleration to me. I do not see how you can have one without the other if space does not have a hole.
To be perfectly honest, I did not know that decelleration was the formal explanation of how spatial distortion occurs. In fact I had come to my own approach and position based upon the above.
I can use lateral thinking now.
If normal light speed conditions produce no distortion of space and so to for speeds less than this then a particle that is faster than light must have a different effect (and the distortion space is the only possibility).
To cover the eventuality that the FTL particle does not distort space I can use the fact that this has never been observed and so it is extremely unlikely.
It would also contradict the way a Black Hole captures light.
Having said all this I appreciate that someone may find another explanation but I cannot see it.
This is a tricky area for me to get into if I want to act professionally.
You are standing betwix my model and Einsteins gravitational theories.
I prefer to keep my distance and remind you that we are evolving my approach through this debate too.
Regards,
Alex

[alexross]

Hi,
I have had to ponder your last comments. I believe this will confuse people reading this thread into believing my CQM or FQM is a basis for my gravitational models and not separate theories.
I will start a new thread under "Quantum Physics " but please understand I do not want to reduce my workload if possible.
Regards,
Alex
FQM would interest me. I am a great admirer of Benoit Mandelbrot.

I have no doubt that his geometry that is primarily limited to three dimensions and a time function is far superior to that of the string theorists (stringers).

If you have an alternative explanation for fundamental, intrinsic time (FIT), I would also be quite interested. It seems any explanation that is reconcilable with IPSO (http://www.physicsmathforums.com/showthread.php?t=142) should be worthy of a Nobel.

To begin: I do not believe in the concept of any fundamental "space" manifestation; with that said, how does "complex space" differ from "real space"?

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

No, I don't understand; because, the "spatial effects/affectations" require deceleration.

© Mr. Robin Parsons Kingston Ontario Canada MMVI

The only testing of the speed of light, so far, Has been terrestrial, and, once, respective of Incedent (From Background) light passing Jupiter.....Now, if as we pass the Stellar Shockwave, the Speed of lights' transiting space changes, Increases, even slightly, then the Apparent speed of the Spacecraft would appear to have changed, even though it's actual Speed would remain the same, as the speed of the Spacecraft is measured from 'Signal Times' as Sent from it.....if the Signals' Speed Varies, even slightly, across the regions of space it tranverses through, then the Apparent Speed of the Spacecraft would APPEAR to have changed (even though it Hasn't) BECAUSE the Crafts' Signals' Speed Has actually been what Changed, slightly........

No one has (so Far) any proof (Or dis-proof) that the Speed of Light is Constant Throughout the Universe as All measures, so far, have been 'Local' > Local being: "Withing the Suns Sphere of Gravitational Energy AND Emissive Radiation".....Perhaps (AKA Maybe/possibly) as we exit that influence, it changes, slightly (0.01%..?±?) hence Signal Speeds would change, and therefore, readings of the Speed from the Signal transmission times would not reflect the reality of the Actual Measurable Distance.

Does that clear it up?

[Epsilon=One]

No one has (so Far) any proof (Or dis-proof) that the Speed of Light is ConstantI agree.

Throughout the Universe as All measures, so far, have been 'Local' > Local being: "Withing the Suns Sphere of Gravitational Energy AND Emissive Radiation".....Perhaps (AKA Maybe/possibly) as we exit that influence, it changes, slightly (0.01%..?±?) hence Signal Speeds would change, and therefore, readings of the Speed from the Signal transmission times would not reflect the reality of the Actual Measurable Distance.This may be so.

However, the relative expected location is dependent upon Newton mechanics because the speeds involved are not relativistic.

As, I read your prior analysis, it seems you are predicting an acceleration rather than a deceleration??? Am I wrong?

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

As, I read your prior analysis, it seems you are predicting an acceleration rather than a deceleration??? Am I wrong?
© Mr. Robin Parsons Kingston Ontario Canada MMVI

An Acceleration in the Speed of light, yes, speed of craft, No.

Crafts' speed remains the same, speed of light = slightly faster, gives current result(s).....

If the time of transmission of EMRadio signal is reduced, (Speed of light is faster, slightly, in that region of space) craft appears as to be going slower, yet it's actual 'Newtonian' Speed remains the same as from its' outset......

Better?

{(I) should not have used the plus/minus sign (±) as the % of change (I) implied would have only been on/from the Positive (+) side of it}

[Epsilon=One]

Crafts' speed remains the same, speed of light = slightly faster, gives current result(s).....The distance of the space craft and its speed seem inconsistent with the error for SR effects of light's speed (signal transmission) to be involved.

I am depending upon the expertise of the technicians to have ruled out conventional factors. I expect the effect to be due to a misunderstanding of fundamental gravitational theory. Those involved are skeptical of any proposed theory until the Europeans confirm the data in the near future.

It's a major anomaly that the theoretical physicists are currently betting is erroneous data . . . but, I'm convinced they suspect otherwise.

I have a close relative involved at JPL and expect to be kept aprised.

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

The distance of the space craft and its speed seem inconsistent with the error for SR effects of light's speed (signal transmission) to be involved.
© Mr. Robin Parsons Kingston Ontario Canada MMVI

How so?

Who mentioned "Special Relativities effects?

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

..My forum Private Msg box doesn't work.
© Mr. Robin Parsons Kingston Ontario Canada MMVI
Mine either

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

© Mr. Robin Parsons Kingston Ontario Canada MMVI

Is it possibly/simply an effect of the curvature that MUST occur, that you suspect?

Given enough time, and distance, there must be a Curve Rate that should have been accounted for in all of the Math.....Correct?

[alexross]

I believe you are correct. I suppose they are being cautious. It must be embaressing for them.
Regards
Alex

The distance of the space craft and its speed seem inconsistent with the error for SR effects of light's speed (signal transmission) to be involved.

I am depending upon the expertise of the technicians to have ruled out conventional factors. I expect the effect to be due to a misunderstanding of fundamental gravitational theory. Those involved are skeptical of any proposed theory until the Europeans confirm the data in the near future.

It's a major anomaly that the theoretical physicists are currently betting is erroneous data . . . but, I'm convinced they suspect otherwise.

I have a close relative involved at JPL and expect to be kept aprised.

[alexross]

Yes, I see your point. I tackled it from the perspective of how it effects gravitational theory.
Regards,
Alex

© Mr. Robin Parsons Kingston Ontario Canada MMVI

The only testing of the speed of light, so far, Has been terrestrial, and, once, respective of Incedent (From Background) light passing Jupiter.....Now, if as we pass the Stellar Shockwave, the Speed of lights' transiting space changes, Increases, even slightly, then the Apparent speed of the Spacecraft would appear to have changed, even though it's actual Speed would remain the same, as the speed of the Spacecraft is measured from 'Signal Times' as Sent from it.....if the Signals' Speed Varies, even slightly, across the regions of space it tranverses through, then the Apparent Speed of the Spacecraft would APPEAR to have changed (even though it Hasn't) BECAUSE the Crafts' Signals' Speed Has actually been what Changed, slightly........

No one has (so Far) any proof (Or dis-proof) that the Speed of Light is Constant Throughout the Universe as All measures, so far, have been 'Local' > Local being: "Withing the Suns Sphere of Gravitational Energy AND Emissive Radiation".....Perhaps (AKA Maybe/possibly) as we exit that influence, it changes, slightly (0.01%..?±?) hence Signal Speeds would change, and therefore, readings of the Speed from the Signal transmission times would not reflect the reality of the Actual Measurable Distance.

Does that clear it up?

[alexross]

I have now typed up my solutions for calculating the time it takes the Sun Spot to repeat. I am pleased with neatly tying up my theories on the Moon's Drift too but these need typing.
The Annual Drift of the Moon from the Earth
Introduction (now being typed)

1> These are amazingly extremely accurate models.
The distance between the Earth and the Moon is 238,900 miles.
According to NASA the annual drift averages 3.8 cm per year.
3.8 cm = 1.496062992 inches. The drift cycle is over 20,000
years long (some error must be present here?).
63,360 inches = 1 mile
Thus 1.496062992 * 20,000 / (63,360 * 238,900) = 0.000 001 976
The aim of the modelling will be to match this figure to show
that magnetism and gravity are directing the annual drift.
This is an extremely small amount but the accuracy we achieve
is 3% to 4% of this value (without adjusting the cycle period by
these amounts)!

2> The Annual Drift is shown to be equal to the residual
magnetic flux in the first Annual Drift Model.

3> Very surprisingly gravitational flux can also be modelled in
a second Annual Drift Model.
What is even more extraordinary is that both these Annual Drift
Models act in almost the same manner! The similarities are the
most extraordinary imaginable (jaw dropping) and help to
substantiate the models.

4> This creates very strong connections between magnetic and
gravitational flux.

5> A second more contrived error reduction method reduces the
error to 0.013% to 1.1% of the NASA value. To all practical
extents this error can be treated as zero.

I have started a new thread to ask for help in getting published.
Thanks to everyone for all your help and comments. I am now approaching this last step.
Regards,
Alex[/QUOTE]

[Epsilon=One]

How so?The distance is not great enough; nor are the speeds fast enough for "speed of light" effects to account for the distance of the error.

Who mentioned "Special Relativities effects?You did. Post #30.

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

The distance is not great enough; nor are the speeds fast enough for "speed of light" effects to account for the distance of the error.
© Mr. Robin Parsons Kingston Ontario Canada MMVI

Well, back when SR was Contrived, the Ether was Then? thought of as NON existent, anyways eventually it was and we seem to now have evidence that changes that, presently, so, We would need Change our perspective on just how the Sun affects "Local" Space, as, it too might just be dragging some of that 'Medium of Propagation of Light' around with it, hence we could see (possibly) some stretching of Light Speed in the 'event area' that would be the interactive region of the Suns' Local Gravitational effects, and its' Greater interaction with the Greater Space around that/us.


P.S. Sorry (I) took so long to respond......

[Epsilon=One]

Well, back when SR was Contrived, the Ether was Then? thought of as NON existent...and we seem to now have evidence that changes that, presently, so, We would need Change our perspective on just how the Sun affects "Local" Space, as, it too might just be dragging some of that 'Medium of Propagation of Light' around with it, hence we could see (possibly) some stretching of Light Speed in the 'event area' that would be the interactive region of the Suns' Local Gravitational effects, and its' Greater interaction with the Greater Space around that/us.You are correct in that the Pioneer anomaly is the result of having to push through the "fabric of space" (Dyosphere's (http://www.physicsmathforums.com/showthread.php?t=151) quanta).

This effect of the Dyosphere (http://www.physicsmathforums.com/showthread.php?t=151) would not effect "stretching," etc. the SOL, as this "fabric" is, essentially, what Light's "envelope" is. Otherwise, the SOL would not appear as a constant regardless of the direction of an object.

Thus, the solution to the Pioneer anomaly would be a definition of the quanta that comprises the Dyosphere (http://www.physicsmathforums.com/showthreads.php?t=151).

Incidentally, even though "dragging some of that 'Medium..." has nothing to do with the SOL; it does have to do with the gravitational effect. The Moon's effect on tides is an example.

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

You are correct in that the Pioneer anomaly is the result of having to push through the "fabric of space" (Dyosphere's (http://www.physicsmathforums.com/showthread.php?t=151) quanta).

This effect of the Dyosphere (http://www.physicsmathforums.com/showthread.php?t=151) would not effect "stretching," etc. the SOL, as this "fabric" is, essentially, what Light's "envelope" is. Otherwise, the SOL would not appear as a constant regardless of the direction of an object.
Thus, the solution to the Pioneer anomaly would be a definition of the quanta that comprises the Dyosphere (http://www.physicsmathforums.com/showthreads.php?t=151).
Incidentally, even though "dragging some of that 'Medium..." has nothing to do with the SOL; it does have to do with the gravitational effect. The Moon's effect on tides is an example.
© Mr. Robin Parsons Kingston Ontario Canada MMVI
If it is a "Gravitational Effect" then IT HAS something to do With the Sun/Sol, as that/it is What is generating that gravitational Field...so we dis-agree, again.

Little new.

[Epsilon=One]

If it is a "Gravitational Effect" then IT HAS something to do With the Sun/Sol, as that/it is What is generating that gravitational Field...That's exactly what the anomaly is. There is no known gravitation effect of the standard model that can account for observation.

Gravitation is not only an attractive force.

[alexross]

Hi,
Yes, I agree this is a generally overlooked feature of gravity. It needs a fresh approach to explain its repulsive effects. That is if we want a better explanation.
Regards,
Alex

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

That's exactly what the anomaly is. There is no known gravitation effect of the standard model that can account for observation.

Gravitation is not only an attractive force.
© Mr. Robin Parsons Kingston Ontario Canada MMVI

"NO known gravitation effect" you mean like the 'dragging around' of space, cause that effect took more then a century to prove......

Apparently the 'Current Version' of the Standard Model doesn't accomodate the reality, O.K. so.....what else is new?

(P.S. (I), Gods' Grace, already knew that.......so what else is new?)

No one asks me the right questions, and this (The Internet) is NOT the venue for it.

(Good thing its' {the Internet) here though, cause as you can probably tell, (I) would have gotten 'even less far' if it hadn't been, after all, NO press/media for me, they apparenlty don't think (I)'m Newsworthy...silly/{Stupid} them!)

[alexross]

Jupiter, Saturn, Mars, Venus, Mercury, Uranus, Neptune are all lining up from east to west in a celestial curve in the daytime sky for New Zealanders.
This is a great opportunity to see what magnetic and gravitational effects there are and how they compare to my model.

New Zealanders should take note that they are in a good position to advance my research in this area.

You can find this article at the site below:
Planets Align – Doomsday Or Astronomy Delight?
Thursday, 18 April 2002, 12:22 pm
Article: Selwyn Manning - Scoop Auckland

http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL0204/S00107.htm

Regards,
Alex

[nduriri]

I have now solved the pioneer anomaly and also other 5 cosmological
blunders of the last 85 years,

1) The pioneer anomaly (hidden matter, not serious)

2) The galaxy disk shape flatness (no explanation).

3) The spiral form aspiration of matter by the accretion disk (frame
dragging, science fiction).

4) The matter bipolar jets trajectory (hydrodynamic theory, incoherent
theory since the magnetic field cannot deflect neutral matter).

5) Galaxy rotation curve flatness (dark matter, not serious).

6) The source of matter bipolar jets (contradicts event horizon theory,
science fiction)
See the summary-of-gravitomagnetism page 8 and NEW NEWTON LAW in
www.gravitomagnetism.com

[alexross]

Hi Joseph Nduriri,
I have had a look at your web page and you seem to be applying good sense to frontier physics. ;)
It is always difficult to look over the horizon. I recall that our knowledge of electricity began with someone touching a frog's leg with a copper bar. So I see no need to despise small things. This is NOT a criticism, I am just saying there is a long and difficult road between conceptualisation and successful application. :D
There will always be a big debate in frontier physics, as far as I see it, because although the conventional wisdom or best practice is not entirely solidly based, unfortunately our criticisms seem to follow the same pattern.
YOU are entirely correct in attempting to eliminate this or at least minimise it.
It will take some time to read through your pdf files. To be perfectly honest you bring up some physics I am not familiar with and I do not think it fair to comment or criticise before duplicating your preparedness to consider my ideas. In fact your vector analysis seems to give a good grounding in areas such as the Lorentz gravitomagnetic force. While I could comment on your analysis I see that you have based your ideas on a substantial mathematical position. I therefore believe that even after coming to a proper understanding of your work it will have merit regardless of any fault I may find here ot there.
The possibility of finding a major misconception is not likely. This is the strength of your conventional approach (and any conventional approach in general). :)
I am more inclined to pop you a letter in the post as at present I do not want to fall foul of the Official Secrets Act in the U.K.
I would probably take the approach of commenting on your work and suggesting any other lines of enquiry I can see (this may lead to contradictions which have to be clarified from time to time). ;)
It is always difficult for me to comment on ideas based upon observed results and I usually take these as correct/genuine or otherwise I am in a position where I have to duplicate those experiments (which I cannot). :o
However this appproach does help me to comment as best as I am able.
This can be frustrating for some people as they now expect a definitive, authoritive and committed answer. I am afraid that real life does not always live up to these expectations. :o
Another benefit of writing is that I can get a quicker and more through understanding of where and how our two theories agree such as:

1) The pioneer anomaly (I seem to agree with you that this is not a result of hidden matter).

2) The galaxy disk shape flatness (I give an explanation and I need to read through your work to see if you cover this).

3) The spiral form aspiration of matter by the accretion disk (frame
dragging may be science fiction but I am not conversant with it).

4) The matter bipolar jets trajectory (I agree (further to what I have said) that hydrodynamic theory is very likely not to be the whole truth as against your view that it is an incoherenttheory since the magnetic field cannot deflect neutral matter).

5) Galaxy rotation curve flatness (I agree with you that dark matter is not the best answer).

6) The source of matter bipolar jets (contradicts event horizon theory,
science fiction) I am again needing to familairise myself with event horizon theory. I presume you are commenting on Stephen Hawkings Black Radiation work? I can see there is room for your disagreement.
Regards,
Alex
Mr Alexander Ross BSc(Hons) AMIMA Dip. Int. Trd.
7, Midland Street
Accrington
Lancashire
United Kingdom
BB5 2AX
Telephone: +44 (0) 1254 237482
Fax: +44 (0) 1254 237482
Email: alexross53@hotmail.com

[nduriri]

Thanks alot for your reply, I took the risk of proposing a falsifiable approach and I tried to be as honest as possible, feel free for any comment. Take your time.

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

© Mr. Robin Parsons :cool: Kingston Ontario Canada MMVI

I have now solved the pioneer anomaly and also other 5 cosmological blunders of the last 85 years,
1) The pioneer anomaly (hidden matter, not serious)
2) The galaxy disk shape flatness (no explanation).
3) The spiral form aspiration of matter by the accretion disk (frame
dragging, science fiction).
4) The matter bipolar jets trajectory (hydrodynamic theory, incoherent
theory since the magnetic field cannot deflect neutral matter).
5) Galaxy rotation curve flatness (dark matter, not serious).
6) The source of matter bipolar jets (contradicts event horizon theory,
science fiction)
See the summary-of-gravitomagnetism page 8 and NEW NEWTON LAW in
www.gravitomagnetism.com
Yet at your site that you linked you say:
Originally stated Here (http://blackholethermodyn.site.voila.fr/enter.html)

The terms . . . ‘black hole,’ ‘dark matter’, ‘dark energy,’ ‘frame dragging,’ ‘event horizon,’ and ‘gravity collapse,’ serve mainly as expressions of our ignorance.

Is that not rather contradicting?

[nduriri]

© Mr. Robin Parsons :cool: Kingston Ontario Canada MMVI


Yet at your site that you linked you say:


Is that not rather contradicting?

Thanks for your comment
When I say dark matter, I meant the explanation given by the advocates of dark matter, to me ths is not serious

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

© Mr. Robin Parsons :cool: Kingston Ontario Canada MMVI

Thanks for your comment
When I say dark matter, I meant the explanation given by the advocates of dark matter, to me ths is not serious
Well forgive me then but the manner in which you have posted is rather confusing and not clear, not at all.

[nduriri]

Hi Joseph Nduriri,
I have had a look at your web page and you seem to be applying good sense to frontier physics. ;)
It is always difficult to look over the horizon. I recall that our knowledge of electricity began with someone touching a frog's leg with a copper bar. So I see no need to despise small things. This is NOT a criticism, I am just saying there is a long and difficult road between conceptualisation and successful application. :D
There will always be a big debate in frontier physics, as far as I see it, because although the conventional wisdom or best practice is not entirely solidly based, unfortunately our criticisms seem to follow the same pattern.
YOU are entirely correct in attempting to eliminate this or at least minimise it.
It will take some time to read through your pdf files. To be perfectly honest you bring up some physics I am not familiar with and I do not think it fair to comment or criticise before duplicating your preparedness to consider my ideas. In fact your vector analysis seems to give a good grounding in areas such as the Lorentz gravitomagnetic force. While I could comment on your analysis I see that you have based your ideas on a substantial mathematical position. I therefore believe that even after coming to a proper understanding of your work it will have merit regardless of any fault I may find here ot there.
The possibility of finding a major misconception is not likely. This is the strength of your conventional approach (and any conventional approach in general). :)
I am more inclined to pop you a letter in the post as at present I do not want to fall foul of the Official Secrets Act in the U.K.
I would probably take the approach of commenting on your work and suggesting any other lines of enquiry I can see (this may lead to contradictions which have to be clarified from time to time). ;)
It is always difficult for me to comment on ideas based upon observed results and I usually take these as correct/genuine or otherwise I am in a position where I have to duplicate those experiments (which I cannot). :o
However this appproach does help me to comment as best as I am able.
This can be frustrating for some people as they now expect a definitive, authoritive and committed answer. I am afraid that real life does not always live up to these expectations. :o
Another benefit of writing is that I can get a quicker and more through understanding of where and how our two theories agree such as:

1) The pioneer anomaly (I seem to agree with you that this is not a result of hidden matter).

2) The galaxy disk shape flatness (I give an explanation and I need to read through your work to see if you cover this).

3) The spiral form aspiration of matter by the accretion disk (frame
dragging may be science fiction but I am not conversant with it).

4) The matter bipolar jets trajectory (I agree (further to what I have said) that hydrodynamic theory is very likely not to be the whole truth as against your view that it is an incoherenttheory since the magnetic field cannot deflect neutral matter).

5) Galaxy rotation curve flatness (I agree with you that dark matter is not the best answer).

6) The source of matter bipolar jets (contradicts event horizon theory,
science fiction) I am again needing to familairise myself with event horizon theory. I presume you are commenting on Stephen Hawkings Black Radiation work? I can see there is room for your disagreement.
Regards,
Alex
Mr Alexander Ross BSc(Hons) AMIMA Dip. Int. Trd.
7, Midland Street
Accrington
Lancashire
United Kingdom
BB5 2AX
Telephone: +44 (0) 1254 237482
Fax: +44 (0) 1254 237482
Email: alexross53@hotmail.com

Thanks a lot for your encouragement. I have now defined gravitational radiation of vibrating and circular orbits, please see new Newton law page 5 in
www.gravitomagnetism.com

[HarleQuin]

i was reading your paper and the enthusiasm is undoubted.i was concerned about the 'push' in Gravity....perhaps the clear distinction of repulsion,and gravity might better suit long-term goals. Also,by stating it as repulsion you would not 'burn' any of your bridges so to speak. as a pointer gravity,as coined by Newton,is HIS definition.i just checked and it seems a good bet that Newton even invented the word.so be careful.Gravity,therefore was non-repulsive...according to Newton.

[Ranana_wamn]

you can see all the pages a visitor looks at when browsing the visitors and clicking the look for the last page and thats the last page they browsed, is that what you mean?

[CocoChanels]

in ISPManager Pro under PHP Extensions there are many php extensions installed and almost all are locked they have lock sign when i try to disable php extension Reflection.so for example nothing happends. I dont need some of those php extensions at all and i want to disable them. How to do that???

[geistkiesel]

This is going way off discussion.
I have a different viewpoint based on my approach in Complex Quantum Mechanics (CQM).
This is not yet acknowledged but when we get that far I can introduce my theory of Fractral Quantum Mechanics (FQM).
When we get to the end of all that (it is extensive) we are ready to see intrinsic time in a new way.
I do not want to put the cart before the horse. Building a solid argument and case as I have done for CQM (for example I have presented the University of Newcastle, Australia and Univ of Central Lancashire with a demonstration of how complex space behaves or interacts with real space) is the way to procede.
Reagrds,
Alex
Alex, have you looked at Van Flandern's 'speed of the force of gravity' at all? It might save a headache or two to scan the paper at meteresearch. org / cosmology / speed_of_gravity. asp

How does one reference a link w/o being accused of spamming?

[tuvw601]

north face jackets (www.12hot.com/north-face-jackets.php),north face jacket. Here is a black The North Face Women's mountain jacket