State of Gravity updates
|Posted on Thursday, February 10, 2011 - 01:52 pm: |
State of the 'Gravity-G' message - to be continued...
Angular momentum of a particle
This page will highlight new developments concerning the possible 'variable G' discoveries forthcoming, such that will seriously impact current understandings in astronomy and cosmology, as well as basic physical tenets such as 'conservation' of energy and angular momentum, paving the way for new research on gravitic energy propulsion mechanisms - in violation of the mass-energy equivalence. At present this forum is unable to accept new unsolicited contributions or postings, but Humancafe editors can post ideas submitted by email: email@example.com
* * *
To recap the variable-G hypothesis presented here, this is what has come of it thus far:
1. The Pound-Rebka Harvard gravitational redshift experiment can be shown to approximate the Hubble Constant for distant cosmic light redshift, if gravity-G 'constant' is at about 10X-6 range, or about 5 orders of magnitude greater than measured on Earth. This was done independent of any other algorithmic derivations, simply a deduction based on experimental results.
2. The Cosmic Microwave Background radiation, at 2.725 Kelvin, approximates gravity-G in the 10X-6 range, if using the Boltzmann constant to work out energy equivalent, per the Axiomatic Equation.
3. MOND approximation for deep space may be some 5 orders of magnitude greater than same approximation, per the Pioneer Anomaly vis-a-vis Axiomatic Equation, within our solar system.
4. Mercury's precession, though explained with Einstein's General Relativity theory of gravity, lends itself to a much simpler explanation, using the Sun's angular momentum transfer to Mercury's perihelion orbit. Complexity need not be a factor.
5. Planetary interior energy may result in micro-black hole at planet's center, which then manifests in various ways: a) as an approximate 'inner core' boundary, if using the Schwarzchild equation; b) as a variable planetary spin at perihelion/aphelion positions; or c) as accelerated atmospheric winds on a planet's surface, especially evident on the gas giants, and perhaps planetary spin. (See more on Jaszz Spin ratios)
6. The state of gas giants and their moons.
This is an introductory list that begins to hint at variable-G Newton's 'constant' away from our planet's known gravity constant, thus paving the way for verifying what this 'constant on a curve' might be for our solar system and beyond. How to measure?
How to measure G?
|Posted on Friday, February 25, 2011 - 01:54 pm: |
Inching forward towards understanding 'variable G' gravity: How to measure?
Dark matter theory challenged (by MOND) by gassy galaxies result -- BBC Science News
Lambda-CDM theory holds that dark matter "haloes" surround galaxies and clusters, and polhode motion*
Not necessarily understood yet, but they are getting some hints that G is not the same everywhere. Puzzling they keep calling high G non-luminescent matter 'dark matter' as if it were something exotic and different, though this high-G matter may in fact exhibit different electro-magnetic properties from matter here. 'Dark matter' regions may be at the atomic level more like what you find in high spin neutron stars, so called, than ordinary matter. There should be a way to measure for variable-G here close to Earth, IMHO.
* * *
So let us examine a possibility:
1) If p = mv, and m is growing in mass from (Equivalence principle) greater value (Newton's) gravity G, the p must be growing in value.
2) And, if L= r x p, and p is growing with G, and p = mv, then L = mvr, must also be equivalent.
3) Therefore, if m = m in both cases (same material mass), here and far out in higher G space, then higher per Equivalence nominal m in p = mv at constant v will equal higher p; but higher-G m in space (away from Earth) will convert the same nominal m into 'local G' equivalence (same mass), so that L = r x p becomes higher L per higher p. (BTW, this breaks 'conservation of momentum', in a traditional sense, but 'conserves' it through the Equivalence principle.)
4) Now, if higher L = mvr, then per equivalent mass m in both cases (still 'same' mass), the resulting v should be higher in proportion to the higher-G. And this can be measured simply anyplace in space, at any distance from the Sun to measure for variable-G, where in higher G, the spin should increase.
This can be further collaborated with how distant space probes traveling in the solar system are discovered to either spin-up or spin-down. Depending upon the direction of the probes, and their either right-hand or left-hand spin, assuming there is a galactic local 'Coriolis' effect, then as probes travel through varying G increasing with distance from the Sun, there should be anecdotal evidence of these spin variations. To date, this is still inconclusive. But a dedicated test for variable-spin in space would be one way to test for variable-G. This can even be an experiment performed on Mars, or any other distant body away from Earth's known 1 G. Lower G should (factoring in right/left hand rule) spin down, while higher G should spin up.
*(Please note, the Gravity Probe-B polhode images is for effect only, not directly relevant to variable-G.)
Some updates on Probe B: Funding cut, Physics World, 2008
Update Einstein Relativity Mission, they found 'something', 2009
Relativity Mission Probe B decommissioned, 2010
Or, what did they find, really?
Holographic technicolor SUSY?
|Posted on Tuesday, March 15, 2011 - 03:25 pm: |
Oooops!! ... Sorry SUSY!
What if Supersymmetry is wrong?
(interactive - arxiv.org paper)
Perhaps Holographic technicolor model may do it?
It's an elegant idea and if correct, could solve some of the most perplexing problems in physics. It endows the elusive Higgs particle, which is believed to be responsible for giving every other known particle its mass, with just the right mass of its own to keep the whole edifice of particle physics from crumbling around us. Without SUSY, the Higgs mass is heavily influenced by the quantum behaviour of the vacuum.
As it interacts with the vacuum's virtual particles, its mass skyrockets, growing so large that the standard model breaks down. SUSY saves the day – for every virtual interaction that drives up the Higgs mass, there is a svirtual interaction that drives it back down.
...(see diagram above)...
Lane prefers an alternative theory. With physicist Estia Eichten of Batavia, Illinois, Lane showed that particles could come by their masses without a Higgs boson if there is a fifth force in addition to the four we know about: technicolour. It is similar to the strong force, which binds quarks together, but operates at much higher energies. "There's already a precedent for it in nature," Lane says, adding that it could also provide a new candidate for dark matter.
The LHC will be able to put the theory to the test. Just as quarks pair up to form mesons, techniquarks pair up to form technimesons with masses ranging from 250 GeV to 700 GeV – well within the LHC's reach. If technimesons exist, the LHC should find them within the next few years.
Still whistling in the dark, but inching closer to gravity as a function of quantum space, making it a G-variable inversely proportion to quantum energy?
|Posted on Thursday, March 31, 2011 - 02:32 pm: |
Gravity shmarity... We're not there yet.
NewScientist: Dark matter could make planets habitable...?
Space.com article, related
NewScientist: "For decades, theorists have calculated that dark matter could be gravitationally captured by planets and stars. Dark matter surrounds galaxies in so-called halos, and dark matter particles, feeling the force of gravity, orbit their galaxy's centre of mass.
"When these orbiting dark matter particles pass through objects, such as planets, they occasionally slam into atoms, losing energy and speed. If they lose enough energy after one or more collisions, they could become trapped by the planet's gravity, ultimately settling in its core. There, they are likely to hit other trapped dark matter particles and annihilate."
This is truly a confusing piece of science reporting. 'Dark matter' so-called may be no more than higher-G atomic mass, which interacts gravitationally with other atomic mass, and is found only in the dark spaces far between hot energy generating stars, or enveloping galaxies in distant halos where the aggregate star energy is weak. It does not migrate into the planet's interior, except as a hybrid version of the micro-black hole at the planet's center, which in its spin lends motion to both inner core, interior plate tectonics and atmospheric winds. A planet far removed from its host star would exhibit higher gravity-G, so would inhabit a region of 'dark matter' per higher G mass-equivalence, but that is all. The rest of it is pure fantasy, science fiction at it's best.
Dark matter no-show at sensitive underground lab... deep under a mountain lab, no mysterious 'dark matter' detected?
The Universe is much more simple... Think about it.
Still hunting for that 'mysterious' Dark Matter: Dark matter particles may be heavyweights after all - NewScientist
Also see: Mass of the Universe
|Posted on Saturday, April 09, 2011 - 01:45 pm: |
How many multi-verses does it take to make a Universe? Or, beyond a reasonable understanding of the Cosmos with modern String theory?
Is the Search for Immutable Laws of Nature a Wild-Goose Chase? - Discover Magazine, April 2010
We tend to think in terms of universal laws of physics, but our modern physics has taken us over the deep end where there may not be any 'universal' laws of physics unified into an understandable whole, but rather there may be many laws variable over time, and not necessarily unified into one whole theorem, perhaps many 'multi-verses' of physics. That is how far adrift we have come, that the basic theorem that reality is understandable, and scientifically testable with this understanding, is perhaps beyond such simplicity of thought; but rather is so complex and metaphorical, or probabilistic, that to unite universal physics into One universe is beyond the ability of the mind. But is this true? Or is this multi-verse, String theory universe the real wild-goose chase?
Think how much simpler if instead of unifying all physics with a Big Bang inflation origin, thus squeezing the whole universe into a grapefruit sized reality before time and space existed; how about if we tweak a little the basic underlying fundamental assumption of all this, including fundamental to both Eisntein's General Relativity and String Theory, that rather than a 'universal' law of gravity we have a variable law of gravity? So the universe is not 'homogenic and isotropic' throughout, but is variable gravity-G dependent, in fact dependent upon the electromagnetic energy environment defining its gravitational environment, or a universe of the Gravity-G variable. Then, magically, it all starts to fall into place. There are no Strings, but there is an inverse relationship between radiant e.m. energy and the gravitational 'constant' G. There is no 'clock ambiguity', but there is light redshift at the Hubble constant from a much higher G (5 orders of magnitude higher) in deep intergalactic space defining 'gravitational' redshift (per Pound-Rebka experiment) that defines why distant cosmic light is redshifted; and not because of Doppler space expansion. Ditto for the Big Bang, that there was none if there is no space expansion, no Lambda constant, no original singularity from which all space-time sprung 13.7 billion years ago. In fact, the universe may be hundreds of orders of magnitudes older than that, and it all falls into place if we tweak gravity rather than time. Isn't this a much simpler universe, one that is understandable in-toto as a whole theorem?
Time to stop chasing the (cosmic) wind? Or chasing 'gravity waves'? What's to look for?
It gets crazier by the minute, in that 'early universe': Did the Universe Begin As a Simple 1-D Line?, testable with 'gravity waves'.
Also see: Why String Theory is not Scientific Theory
Puzzling Pluto atmosphere
|Posted on Wednesday, April 20, 2011 - 12:30 pm: |
Pluto's Atmosphere Found Poisonous and Surprisingly High
Pluto's atmosphere has cold carbon monoxide gas (Space.com, April 2011)
The atmosphere of Pluto was known to extend more than 60 miles (about 100 kilometers) above the surface, the researchers said, but the new findings raise that height to more than 1,860 miles (3,000 km) — equivalent to a quarter of the distance out to Pluto's largest moon, Charon.
This is not surprising, given that Pluto is at about 32 AU, which also means its gravity 'constant' is about 32 G, all of which adds up to its ability to hold a large atmosphere for such a tiny planetoid (smaller than our Moon), so fit all the pieces as they should. Higher G means more 'stickiness' at the gaseous molecular level, so the atmopsphere can be much taller than same for lower G. Look at the gas giants, or Titan, for example. Same principle at work on Pluto.
Puzzling Pluto still a mystery... stay tuned... Charon atmosphere in next?
Also see: First ring system around asteroid: Chariklo found to have two rings - surprising news, but not so surprising if factor in Chariklo's ~15 AU orbital distance from Sun, which means about 15 G gravity equivalence, so rings can form on this tiny body... but only (if... if) we live in a Variable-G universe. ;-)
Closing in on Pluto-Charon orbits: NASA probe sees Pluto and its moon Charon like never before - NASA, August 2014
Also see: Pluto Density Anomaly
Earth's G seasonal?
|Posted on Friday, April 29, 2011 - 02:02 pm: |
What if gravity-G changes with the seasons? - by Marcus Chown, New Scientist, Wed, 15 Apr 2009 (Scott.net)
As the Earth orbits the sun, the strength of its gravity could vary because of interactions with an undiscovered force, nicknamed the "X-field".
Echoes of seasonal planetary spin?
(See: http://www.humancafe.com/discus/messages/88/185.html#POST4580 for earlier discussions.)
Okay, here is the line-up as how this 'seasonal-G' should play out:
1. In a variable-G environment where gravity 'constant' grows at the rate of 1G per 1 AU, it should register slightly greater at planet's aphelion, and slightly smaller at perihelion in its orbit around the Sun.
2. This (slightly) variable-G phenomenon should register in a Cavendish type gravity experiment; it should show these (very small) seasonal variations, where G will be slightly greater at aphelion and slightly smaller at perihelion.
3. As a phenomenon of variable planetary spin, this same variation should show up as slightly faster spin (shorter day) at aphelion (northern hemisphere summer), and slightly slower spin (longer day) at perihelion (northern winter).
4. As a 'seasonal-G' variable, these slight differences at perihelion and aphelion should be measurable consistently, and annually.
This is only a slightly variable phenomenon because the Earth-Sun system of gravity and spin equal out nearly totally: Orbital velocity accelerates slightly at perihelion, but slows at aphelion; counter to where spin accelerates slightly in (higher G aphelion), and slows slightly in (lower G) perihelion.
But these things are all measurable, and if Newton's G is a variable as hypothesized (and perhaps confirmed by Pioneer Anomaly), it should show up in our measuring instruments when clocking both gravity-G and planetary spin, seasonally. If so, then we have one more chink in the search for understanding gravity, that it is not a 'universal constant' (as Einstein, Newton, Strings Quantum-G, et al thought... Why did they in the first place?), but a variable G, which changes our understanding the universe totally... We're inching closer on this mysterious "X-field".
(Ps: Plasma spin may simulate in microsm what is happening at Earth's, or any hot body's including the Sun, at its center. It could be that simple, modified by orbital Energy density and interior heat differentials, as affected by orbital location. Could Earth's hot interior be magnetic field generating spinning plasma? Not a solid metallic core? Interesting idea.. .. it must be hell down there!)
Roswell UFO 'gravity' quest
|Posted on Sunday, July 31, 2011 - 02:43 pm: |
Roswell and greater New Mexico - in search of 'Modified Vector Dynamics' - and friends.
Taos Pueblo - Wiki (click image for article)
Why did I travel the length and breadth of New Mexico this past week? I really came to see the Taos Pueblo Indian Corn Dance held by women in celebration of the spirits favoring a good harvest, such as now encouraged by the Tiwa Farms project there. In fact, it was a beautifully performed dance held at the four directions of the pueblo, accompanied by men chanting and drumming, a moving experience even if under threatening skies and occasional fine rain that covered us. If calling for harvest, rain is a good thing. But alas, pictures were strictly forbidden during this special and sacred dance, so none can be shown here.
Taos Indian corn harvest
San Ildefonso Pueblo Corn Dancers (interactive)
Saint Francis Church, rear - Taos NM
But I also came to see friends and visit old haunts. Having lived in New Mexico's Santa Fe area for nearly 7 years, it was a familiar place for me, rich in memories. Seeing friends helps bring back those pleasant times to mind, the beautiful landscapes, the dramatic skies and storms, green chili, and that old wild-west exploration spirit where new ideas can still flourish without ridicule, and spirituality is tied into nearly all there is there, from stones to healing hands. That is and always had been the draw of the mystery of New Mexico, as much for Georgia O'Keefe as it was for Robert Oppenheimer. I found the same draw.
La Puebla - Penitente Church
Where Cinzia and I met in La Puebla - our personal 'mecca'
Santuario de Chimayo - has healing soil (interactive)
Another reason I traveled from Taos all the way down, via Santa Fe and Albuquerque, to Roswell and White Sands in the south was to follow developments that happened over six decades ago. This was the time when the atomic bomb was developed and tested at White Sands, and when alleged UFO were crashing both near Roswell and nearby Socorro, as well as up at Aztec in the Four Corners area of New Mexico. What intrigues me is, how could they (if they exist) power their crafts with such incredible speeds and agility? My search into this phenomenon is not so much as to whether or not these events happened, which to me is inconsequential, but how such a system of propulsion could possibly work; that is what I wanted to research. Going to Roswell's UFO Museum, especially it's research library, perhaps was my true ulterior motive for this research into 'technology' now unexplained, or scoffed at.
Sunset over Los Alamos - from Santa Fe Forest
Lightning over Santa Fe night - on iPhone
Santa Fe is a city of art, even graffiti!
What did they power their (alleged) craft with? Some ideas already came to mind in earlier musings on 'alternative physics' of gyroscopes precession. By various routes this led me to Roswell, and in particular to John Searl's work, though he is discredited (in my opinion) by failure to produce falsifiable results.
'Nowhere' New Mexico, a ranch road
Display at UFO Museum... They're here!
Also display, with periodic 'light and smoke' shows
UFO Museum marquee at Roswell NM (sorry if tilt, can't right it, but okay on others) I'm kitch at this shop (tilt?)
The research library at Roswell UFO Museum was the most interesting part of the exhibit. But there I failed to find any substantial material for my MoVeD research. Though, upon suggesting John Searl the librarian was able to produce a rather comprehensive report, catalogued and shelved, within the short time I was there. But was Searl on the right track with spinning magnetics? I don't believe so. It looks more like 'static electricity' was generated by his 'rings'.
John Searl's 'alleged' early flying saucer
After Roswell, where I also met my friend George D. for breakfast at IHOP, we had fun talk about the 'incident' back in 1947; he knew some of the people who allegedly were there to witness; I then set off for final leg of my travels, White Sands National Monument.
Not snow... it's all sand!
My foot on white sand
So there it is. My research into Modified-Vector-Dynamics continues, and three motorized high spin gyroscopes just arrived from England. We shall see...
Rio Grande river at Albuquerque
Farewell New Mexico, until next time. It was a beautiful visit.
Reverse engineered UFO?
|Posted on Thursday, August 04, 2011 - 10:22 am: |
Is this really true? Or clueless fiction?
(interactive - click image for Wiki reference)
Lazar's alleged 'reverse engineered' analysis of how this ET craft works (he even if sincere may not really understand what he saw). Power generating source may be accurate, where matter/anti-matter annihilation may be used to produce electricity, but propulsion of three on-board engines is probably wrong, IMO. The most probable cause is "modified vector of G-force" (pro-gravity) generated by the three cylindrical engines.
iPhone photo taken at Roswell UFO Museum, sorry for poor quality due to lighting conditions. - IDA
See videos at Skytrackers.com page, for your entertainment.
[PS: In the experimental tests below, I figured out a way to eliminate the serious 'wobble' encountered earlier, and the MOVED G-force effect became about 4X more pronounced, which gave me insight into how this mythical UFO engine (if it exists, maybe it's really one of ours?) might possibly work.]
Modified Vector Dynamics - abstract
|Posted on Thursday, August 04, 2011 - 09:24 pm: |
Modified Vector Dynamics© (MOVED). - Patent approved: US 20130186711 A1
by Ivan D. Alexander (first tests July-August, 2011)
When internal gyroscope mass is put into spin (via internal motor), a natural precessional lateral vector force results from Earth's gravitation g force acting upon it. This effected precession causes natural spin to outer sphere, within which gyroscope is housed, that is counter to direction of internal gyro spin. When the outer sphere housing gyroscope is spun externally in direction of precession spin with added external force, the lateral precession is made perpendicular to itself and now exerts a vector force on the gyroscope/external-sphere along the axis, so motion results. This resulting motion is the redirected g vector force of Earth's gravitational pull, which is now shifted from vertical to horizontal, causing the whole apparatus to move in the direction of resulting force; what is here called "Modified Vector Dynamics G-force" (as illustrated in the schematic drawing). This new vector force is able to produce motion, that is believed to be consistent and accelerative, in any direction it is directed. This is a usable force of propulsion employing Earth's gravity to power this G-force motor, in effect a pro-gravity force drive.
(Patent filed August 2011, published 25 July, 2013)
Gyro used (supplied by Gyroscope.com)
(To be continued...)
Gyroscope V-force precession
Atom and inertia.
Axiomatic Equation paper.
Why it works
References authored by Ivan D. Alexander - Humancafe forums
MOVED test test
|Posted on Sunday, October 09, 2011 - 04:56 pm: |
Modified Vector Dynamics (MOVED) Gravity Force© prototype test
MOVED G-force motor prototype (illustration only, not real prototype experiment)
When this motorized gyros sphere (above) was tested, by suspending it on freely moving strings, and powered up it had limited results: When spun slowly (in direction of natural precession), it wobbled erratically like wanting to break free of its moorings; but when spun faster, it stabilized and tended to thrust (slightly) in direction of its axis. This was result expected, though disappointing in that it was ever so slight, so for now results are inconclusive. However, should this principle be perfected and amplified, it may be an important source of future propulsion force by 'redirecting' vector gravity acting up on it into a "forward-backward" vector depending on direction of spin. It is the author's future aim to modify how interior gyros are positioned to better balance and amplify this modified vector effect.
The ultimate purpose is to create a powerful motor of locomotion employing 'redirected' gravity (not anti-gravity, but pro-gravity) with Earth as a base reference plane upon which it gains its thrust energy. Out in space, especially if gravity G is greater in the outer solar system, this vector effect should be substantially stronger (background space-gravity potential in relation to Sun), which would yield a constantly accelerating thrust making the outer planets easily accessible. Out in deep space, far from any hot star, this effect could be orders of magnitudes greater than within our solar system, making deep space exploration (star travel) potentially a human reality. However, this is still all very long into the future. For now, just getting it off the ground is our humble goal. In fact, this crude mechanism may be ultimately unworkable, except as an example of principles at work. The real product would be powered by electrically stimulated bands of contained hydraulized electricity vortices fired in continuous succession to provide powerful thrust. This may be what actually powers alien space craft, such as witnessed by (all discredited) observers. (Bob Lazar may know something of this, perhaps?) We're looking at harnessing "gravity in a bottle" if this works, to achieve what we now do crudely with 'gravity assist' maneuvers in space flight… Stay tuned…
Follow up on tests for above mechanism:
The sphere containing three motorized gyroscopes was tested in three configurations, all with the sphere free hanging with axis of spherical spin parallel to the Earth plane ( _|_ to Earth's g): first test gyros axes were at ~45 degree angle to sphere's axis; second test was with gyros parallel to sphere axis; third test was with gyros perpendicular to sphere's axis. In the first, when gyros were powered up and fully spinning (12000 rpm), and sphere was spun in either direction of precession or against it, it wobbled violently; but when spun faster, it stabilized. In the second test, the wobble was minimal, faster spin was same. In third test, wobble was most pronounced at slow spin, but moderated at faster spin, though not completely. In the second test, at higher spin there 'appeared' some movement in direction of sphere's axis, either forward or back depending on direction of spin, but this was so faint as to be virtually undetectable, so at this time that test remains 'inconclusive'. (The other two tests were too dominated by wobble effect to be noticeable.) Due to the difficulty of properly balancing this crude apparatus, other effects may have been present but not noticed at this time. In effect, all three tests gave Null results as per expectations, though there were surprising results of motion not anticipated.
A separate test was conducted for all three configurations were performed as above on the sphere free hanging from a single filament (see picture) to test for natural precession (for clockwise spinning gyros as seen from above); in all three tests precession was counter-clockwise (as seen from above); when sphere was spun it exhibited similar responses to the above horizontal tests: wobble at slow spin, more stable at higher spin.
Standing back from it all, there appears to be a 're-directed' gyroscopic vector force at work in all these tests, in response to Earth's g acting upon both the spinning gyroscopes and sphere (what powers precession as a first cause). This is most obvious is the third and first tests, where low spin resulted in violent wobble of the whole apparatus. One explanation could be that Earth's g was being re-directed into the natural precession of each gyroscope, which translates into aggregate precession for the sphere (counter-clockwise), which then resulted in sideways motion of the whole apparatus; but this sideways motion was mitigated by faster spin, which gave the sphere new gyroscopic stability as a whole. This same effect was less evident in the second test because all three gyros were parallel to each other and parallel to the axis of spin for the sphere, as well as Earth's plane ( _|_ to Earth's g). The result then is less sideways motion but instead re-directed along the axis, or in perpendicular to normal precession, so little if any wobble occurred.* However, if so, the effect was not immediately obvious, so this for now is still only a guess.
The important point here, given these three tests, is that Earth's g has been re-channeled via positioning of gyroscopic action to give us dynamic force in another direction than normal precession. This, of course, is what was sought for, though not totally satisfied in that the direction of vectors resulting from spin proved more complex than expected. Therefore, though 'something' happened, tests proved inconclusive. We know which way Earth's gravity is vectored… (Viz., If Earth's g enters the system, where does it come out?) What direction does the re-directed vector take in each of the three tests? More tests for this 'redirected' vectors effect are needed.
*Significant footnote: Upon further test of gyros positioned perpendicular to sphere axis, it was observed that spin globe one way 'forces' gyro stems out, while spinning counter forces them to retract in; this could be first real evidence of perpendicular (MOVED) force to lateral gyroscopic action. Assuming that, per earlier tests, gyro dynamics regardless of position are universal in the aggregate where whole apparatus acts as if it were precessing, this find may indicate that we are on right track, and gyro action shifts from lateral to vertical along gyro axis, with Earth plane g as reference base. Therefore, earlier reported 'wobble' now makes sense.
This is what MOVED G-force is searching for: Secret of the Flying Saucers. Are we on right track?
Also see: The Eric Laithwaite's 1974 Lecture
"The Engineer Through the Looking Glass" incredible videos of gyro demo lecture, compliments of Intalek.com
[PPS: Additional testing, this time with a sensitive hanging scale, showed that earlier reported observed "rise and fall" of spinning gyros inside a spinning, or counter spinning, globe had similar, albeit very faint but measurable results. Though they turned out counter-intuitive (as by example of 'action & reaction' on a gyro suspended from a string and twirled either with or against natural precession, though opposite by 'pushing on a string'), the results were consistent. This may be significant, so should warrant more testing (perhaps related to chronofield effect test). But the question remains the same: Can it ever be usable as a force?... It would need HUGE amplification, if so.]
Patent published 25 July, 2013: US 20130186711 for MOVED G-force motor (but we're not there yet).
Ideally, the rotating cylinder would hold bands of electrically stimulated spinning fluids, which would 'kick' in the MOVED-G manner transferring acceleration along axis of cylinder spin with each pulse. Such pulses would be many per second, while motor cylinder is in continuous spin, thus transferring acceleration along motor axis continuously. It is our belief that same can be achieved with fast rotating plasma, which could allow thousands of 'pulses' per second, to effect a strong continuous transfer of acceleration along motor axis, which would make it a powerful machine of lift and directional, accelerative motion. The interrupted electrical charge returns kinetic motion to neutral after each pulse, while new charge kicks in new acceleration, continuously. If so, this can be a very powerful form of continuous accelerative locomotion useful not only 'under the hood', but also for airlift and space travel.
The Pluto Effect
|Posted on Thursday, November 10, 2011 - 04:27 pm: |
The Pluto Effect
Pluto's Satellite system - Discovery News (interactive, click image for article)
There may be a relatively easy test for Variable-G gravity 'constant' in our outer solar system. Though now believed Newton's G is a universal constant, there may be anecdotal evidence that it varies with distance from a hot star like our Sun. Though never tested for before, knowing that Pluto has many moons, and tracking their respective orbital paths around Pluto, we may over time discover that their paths are not uniform, but vary with Pluto's eccentric orbit around the Sun. By observing Pluto's moon orbits during the upcoming fly-by (NASA's New Horizons mission flies past Pluto in 2015) we can later observe these same moons with future fly-bys and compare their orbital characteristics. If gravity G is weaker closer to the Sun, but stronger further out, at about the calculated rate of 1 G per 1 AU (since Pluto's eccentric orbit takes it from 30 to 49 AU), then this variable should be measurable. Expectations would be that at Pluto's perihelion, the moons would be slightly farther from the planet and slower velocity (gravity G is weaker); whereas at aphelion (where G is higher), the same moons would be closer in and faster velocity. This observational data could also over time be collaborated with observations from Hubble, for example. And though the timeline of Pluto's revolution around the Sun from one eccentricity extreme to the other is over an Earth century, small variations should be evident over a period of a decade, if this 'Pluto Effect' is real.
This could be a meaningful test for the hypothesis that Newton's G is not a 'universal constant', that does not require a dedicated test for it in our solar system. Of course, such test would still be required to confirm this conclusively.
Just in, Pluto may have 10 more moons?! It makes no sense for a planetoid smaller than our Moon, unless the gravity G 'constant' is substantially greater than here. Ditto for its surprising atmosphere.
Also see: NASA updates on New Horizons flyby Pluto, 14 July 2015
More on Pluto Density Anomaly
Useable force, perhaps?
|Posted on Friday, November 25, 2011 - 11:11 pm: |
I find it strange that my Gravity universe is so different from how physics is now understood.
For example, in my above MOVED experiments, when measured on a sensitive hanging scale (to within 0.01 pounds/0.005 kilograms), I discovered that when the gyros are spinning they are ever so slightly 'heavier' than their dead weight. These differences are minuscule, for now, but the effect had been noted in other experiments when the spinning gyros were placed on a platform and the platform was either spun in direction of natural precession (heavier), or against natural precession (lighter), so this effect (though slight) seems to be consistent. The only way I can make logical sense of this is if my earlier (off-the-cuff) hypothesis is correct, that in each spin there is exhibited a 'virtual' microscopic black hole. If so, then gravity attracts that virtual black hole (ever so slightly) but counters it under precession. This is better illustrated by twirling a spinning gyroscope on a string, where this effect (though self contained) is immediately obvious: one way the gyro flops down, the other way it rises up.
Strange as this sounds to me (and anyone reading it), it nevertheless seems to fill some sort of gap in our understanding of the 'pure' physics of gyroscopic action as a "conservation of angular momentum" effect. But is that all there is? If I allow for 'lateral' thinking on this, perhaps there is something else at work, something that we haven't figured out yet. Is 'virtual black hole' aligned with gravity 'heavier', but perpendicular to it 'lighter'? Strange idea… But if it really exists, can it be useful? Can it be harvested as a useable force?… Just asking….
One example that seems most strange his how a gyroscope will lose "weight" when it is free to precess, as per this experiment by Prof. Eric Laithwaite:
(interactive, demo video)
Demo showing gyro "losing weight" when in full precession. But take away its precession by blocking it, or stopping spin, and it sinks like a stone. But when with precession, here is what it looks like: Eric Laithwaite - gyroscopic gravity modification.mov - believe it or not...
Here are some Russian kids trying it in their Test Flight (video)…. but with limited results. Null results shown per their set up.
Experiments to date have shown this MOVED G-force to be so small as to be nearly negligible, but like a tiny flame fanned into a real fire, I predict that within a hundred years we will be using it to power all of our terrestrial and space craft on a grand scale. But between here and then, there is gargantuan engineering work to be done. We will do it.
Not so strange, but it still needs much work...
Next Phase G-force research
|Posted on Sunday, December 11, 2011 - 06:35 pm: |
Is Magnetically-self-confined Plasma-Torus next phase of research to reach fully operational MOVED G-force motor?
Self gravitating toroidal plasmas generated electrically over a poloidal magnetic field may be the real breakthrough needed.
Toroidal-poloidal spin - Wikipedia
Still to be discovered magnetofluid dynamics, whether from liquid or gas generated plasma, what materials and how to contain high rate of spin.
The goal of this research is to substitute 'gyroscopic action' of spinning wheels with spinning toroidal self-gravitating plasma, in control-activated bands within the greater spin motors aboard.
Differentially Rotating Plasma Rings with High Magnetic Energy Densities may be one way? Probably employing Euler-Lagrange equations, not as now used in Fusion physics experiments, but much simpler mechanics, as rotating plasma is naturally self-gravitating.
The toroidal rotation of hot plasma is a natural Modified Vector Dynamics effect, except we do not know, besides vibrations noted, what effect it will have on inertial mass. Experimental evidence would clarify how much directional mass effect generated, if any. It's all engineering science from here, and we'll need lots of it. Unfortunately, if is also capital intensive to build these prototypes.
One step at a time… and eventually we will tame re-directed G-force to full amplification efficacy.
Why it works
|Posted on Thursday, December 15, 2011 - 05:46 pm: |
Why does this work?
(interactive - a discussion on Energetic Forum)
Example of (magnetic) zero-point energy torus - but MOVED G-force is not magnetic!
Though this illustration is shown only because it may approximate what happens inside the MOVED G-force motor, if taken as an inertial mechanism (rather than magnetic) it may be showing what is happening at the 'zero point' of spin, per right hand rule.
Why should gyroscopic spin result in precessional motion activated by gravity, so that to add weight to the counterbalance arm of a gyroscope accelerates its precession? This may not be fully understood with current physics, but there may be speculative physics that might explain it. Further, it might also explain why G-force can be re-directed in the MOVED G-force motor along the axis, as demonstrations have shown.
Here is a progression of possible ideas:
1. Gyroscopic spin captures Earth's gravity potential and redirects it into torque precession.
2. Precession is a conservation of angular momentum, so adding acceleration (gravity-more weight) adds angular momentum, hence faster precession.
3. Two counter rotating gyroscopes 'cancel' their angular momentum precession, but not for the whole body where mounted, which continues to precess as if gyros' angular momentum were not canceled.
4. If the counter-gyros are perpendicular to the whole body axis (motor), though no precession for the two counter-spin gyros, there is lateral precession exhibited for the whole apparatus, same as for independent gyro (though canceled), and perpendicular to the axis of whole body (counter-clockwise for clockwise spinning gyros).
5. When whole body motor is spun on its axis, the precessional motion is transferred along the axis of the whole, so it now captures 'zero point' gravity potential along the axis.
6. When added spin, acceleration force, is added to the whole, the action-reaction (Newtonian) sends the acceleration along the whole body axis, in either direction depending upon direction of spin.
7. By transferring acceleration (via gyroscopic spin) to the whole body spin, we have mimicked the 'added weight' scenario, so a momentary acceleration of motion registers along that axis, in either direction depending on direction of spin.
Now stand back from it a moment. What have we done? Is this not a re-direction of Earth's gravity field potential into a new directional force, so motion results? This motion can only be sustained if, and only if, the pulses of acceleration are continuous in order to effect sustainable motion. It is not the spin that controls this motor process, but the acceleration added to that spin.
Therefore, for the MOVED G-force motor to work, it needs constant 'pulses' of acceleration to maintain directed motion. Obviously this is not practical with the apparatus set up consisting of gyroscopes (as above), but it is possible with electrically induced spin in either fluids or gas, enhanced into faster spin by microwave energy stimulating it into a very fast spinning plasma.
The science is simple, but the engineering henceforth is demanding, as we have not yet designed anything like it before. But that's how it works.
I might add, it was a simple statement by a physicist friend of mine that gave me sudden insight into why this motor works. He said, in passing: "It's the transfer of your hand's energy added to spin that transfers acceleration to the gyroscopic spin's direction, which is what moves it." That immediately came clear to me, as I had been looking at 'spin' being the catalyst for redirected precession (which merely effects gyroscopic action). No, it's the 'acceleration', which is totally Newtonian, that does it. No new physics here, but a way to re-direct known physics of the conservation of angular momentum, now transferred along the axis of spin… (thanks Anthony!) This is a totally 'inertial' force, as per the Equivalence Principle (thanks Albert), and not magnetic in nature. (Though, fast spinning plasma to power the spinning motor may have magnetic by-products, so may need a 'Faraday box' for passenger cabin?)
In the end, why this works is because the Earth generated G-force potential is captured by gyroscopic action, and when spun in a whole apparatus it redirects that G-force potential from its lateral precession into a vertical equivalent along the axis; which with acceleration force added it becomes (as if) the acceleration registered by increased rate of precession, but now along the axis. This is a usable force, as presented to the US Patent Office (Patent US 20130186711). Thus it moves.
Also see: Impossible space engine may actually work, suggests NASA - not same idea, but may be remotely related as both 'violate' conservation of momentum, which is new, and both promise 'infinite acceleration'.
Why UFOs glow with plasma
UFO spotted by US fighter jet pilot (2004) footage released.
|Posted on Friday, March 16, 2012 - 08:36 pm: |
'Dethroning' Einstein has been coming more into vogue of late.
Are his halcyon days over? Einstein's General Relativity (and Special) is coming increasingly into question...
(interactive - click image for link)
Discover Magazine cover: "Overturning Einstein", March 2012
In the Discover article "Gravity off the Grid", science writer Zeeya Merali makes a credible case for Machian gravity/space-time, such as proposed by English physicist and independent researcher Dr. Julian Barbour. But about half way through the article, it once again becomes a convoluted stretch to believe that Einstein can be dethroned by Barbour et al's theories of Quantum Gravity. For example:
The idea of "emergent time" is indeed intriguing. But later Barbour's associates fall back into the 'dark matter' trap, that it must exist, though they (rightly) call 'dark energy' illusive, but for wrong reasons. In truth yet to be fully discovered, it will be much simpler if the universe is not spanned by a 'universal constant' gravity G, but rather is variable: viz. Newton's G is much greater in intergalactic space (where space 'appears' to be expanding); and G weaker in intragalactic/inter-stellar space (where 'expansion' slows). By way of explanation such as posited by the Axiomatic Equation, the universe is indeed simple… and so is the math... that space 'expansion' is a high-G gravitational redshift optical illusion. It may very well turn out, in the end, that all the known 'cosmological constants' are in fact interrelated, and some are same for parallel reasons. At the end of the day, Dark Matter, so called, will be nothing more than cold ordinary baryonic matter in a ultra high gravity G environment (perhaps X50,000+ G of ordinary matter here), made exotic because of its high G environment, and nothing more.
Barbour pressed on where Einstein had feared to tread, coming closer to Mach by dispensing not just with Newton's rigid grid but with the very concept of space-time. In general relativity, time is a dimension interwoven with the dimensions of space. In Barbour's universe, on the other hand, time is emergent: It is a measure of how space changes but not a fundamental component of it. (my italics)
But keep plugging. Einstein is about to be dethroned, just a matter of time.
Also see: Brilliant, Beautiful Mind of Einstein
Einstein's Relativity carousel
Dark Matter non-baryonic?
|Posted on Tuesday, January 08, 2013 - 02:38 pm: |
Why Dark Matter 'appears' non-baryonic
Lambda Cold Dark Matter
Dark Matter appears largely non-baryonic as it cannot be detected by normal light or other electromagnetic radiation. This renders it 'invisible' to astronomical observation except for its gravitational interaction with ordinary matter. The evidence for Dark Matter is primarily from observed gravitational lensing and greater orbital velocities of stars in galaxies (per Zwicky). At present, Dark Matter is believed electric charge neutral, constitutes about 84% of matter in the universe, and hypothesized it does not form atoms. Rather, it is expected to be of exotic heavy mass particles called WIMPS, the search for which has thus far proved illusive. Some have challenged this theory (per MOND), see study at arXiv.org available online. However, if Variable-G is a factor, there may be an easy explanation why DM is 'invisible' to us.
The hypothesis for a variable gravity G 'constant' is still speculative, as it had not been found by dedicated tests in the outer, or inner, solar system and is currently believed to be a "universal constant" by physics. Should it be found otherwise, that hypothesized Variable-G grows with distance from the Sun (at about 1 G per 1 AU), there would be cause to think this G 'constant' is orders of magnitudes higher in deep intergalactic space far from hot electromagnetic energy. Per hypothesis from three separate calculations done to date (see Countdown to Strangeness), including the Boltzmann Constant-CMB and deep space Hubble gravitational redshift*, there appears to be correlation that deep space gravity G is about 4-5 orders of magnitude greater (approx. 50-100,000 times) than the Newton constant G as measured here on Earth, as predicted by the Axiomatic Equation. But another calculation using the cut-off frequency for Photoelectric Effect (see June 3, 2004, AXIOMATIC CUT-OFF FREQUENCY FOR GRAVITY?), at about visible light lambda=397 nm (violet), there seems to be correlation again with deep space gravity G in the 10X-6 range (as opposed to 10X-11 range, Earth), so this may give a clue as to why 'dark matter' is invisible to us. If deep space gravity is high enough to effect the Photoelectric Effect, then it may be cutting off electromagnetic interaction, since radiating light may not interact with whatever baryonic matter is diffused in deep space. Below a certain "cut-off" threshold, matter ceases to be visible for very high G effect on baryonic mass, hence rendering it "non-baryonic" to observations.
In effect, Dark Matter only 'appears' to be non-baryonic because it inhabits cold deep space where gravity G is high enough to trigger a Photoelectric Effect on whatever atomic, baryonic mass is diffused there, so it becomes invisible to our radiation powered observational instruments. All that is left is the gravitational observation, as already observed, that any gas or dust in deep intergalactic space has very high mass, what had become known as illusive Dark Matter.
*(Hypothetically, if dark matter interacts with light gravitationally, and light redshifts through gravity (Pound-Rebka), then it could be inferred that distant cosmic light (line of sight) redshifts at the Hubble constant/Lambda cosmological constant naturally. The light we see from deep space is already redshifted by dark matter, if so, without the need for Doppler space expansion hypothesis.)
Also see: Is cold Dark Matter 'hot' electrically?
Dark matter blowing bubbles?.. It get's crazier: Earth may be crashing through dark matter walls - NewScientist
Meanwhile, they keep looking for the 'invisible'... 1st Results from Space Station Particle Detector Experiment Coming in March - Discovery News
Just in: Will we ever… understand what dark matter is made from? -BBC Science News
But we are edging closer... Dark matter rival boosted by dwarf galaxies (MOND) -NewScientist
Also see: Mass of the Universe and Standard Model deviant?
This just in, Discovery News: Dark Matter Mystery Could Be Solved in 10 Years
"The only way to prove that dark matter does not exist is to show that all these data have been misinterpreted, for instance because the law of gravity we adopted — Albert Einstein's Theory of General Relativity — is wrong," Bertone said. "Despite much effort, no satisfactory theory of gravity exists today that can be reconciled with all observational data without assuming the existence of some forms of dark matter."
Also see, just in: Dark Matter map yields first results - BBC
"It's also possible, with the same data, to show that dark energy is not a good theory for explaining what's going on - and in fact, general relativity itself is wrong."
This just in: Still in the dark about Dark Matter
Variable G, not there yet
|Posted on Sunday, February 24, 2013 - 01:28 pm: |
Variable G revisited, concept had been broached before, but without traction.
DIRAC suggested in 1937 that the gravitational 'constant' G might vary with time. There had been some attempts to see Newton's G gravity 'constant' as possibly variable by astronomers, some of whom had been discredited, of the likes of Brans-Dicke, Van Flandern, Arp and others trying to understand the "missing mass" paradox. But this was dead ended...
First to postulate "variable G" was perhaps Toivo Jaakkola, Finland, (interactive -in memoriam)
in his Action-at-a-Distance and Local Action in Gravitation: Discussion and Possible Solution of the Dilemma (c.1978-1995).
The strength of gravitation is a variable, G(r), the locally measured value of which is Newton’s constant G0. The cosmological value corresponding to the gb’s and the CBG is denoted by Gc. I have called the proposed mode of the gravitational action “pressure-induced gravitation” (PIG)... On a cosmological scale a(r) = ac = H/c, G(r) = Gc ~ 10 G0...
Another was Variable G by W. H. McCrea (1978)
... I.e., where variable mass 'might be' variable G dependent, per Equivalence?
So far as the right-hand side of the equation (1) is concerned, the effect of letting G vary with time is indistinguishable from the letting the gravitational masses vary and keeping G constant... Here, however, we are led to admit the possibility of a variation in the effective mass of a body without mass going anywhere else or coming from anywhere else. In fact, it is not clear why Newton expressed his second law of motion in the form he did in terms of rate of change of momentum unless it was to cover just such a possibility. [The situation is reminiscent of that of relative mass in the mechanics of special relativity, but the similarity is not close.]
Or again Jaakkola, by Jean-Claude Pecker, Paris (1996), quoting Toivo Jaakkola:
- (Apeiron No. 4)
"The coupling of electricity and gravitation, which is the cause of the redshift and the exponential weakening of gravitation.... makes Newton’s law inapplicable on the cosmological scale... The gravitational parameter G changes from a constant to a physical variable which is constant only over the homogeneous distribution on the cosmological scale…"
However, these concepts never gained traction in a world of mainstream cosmology, frenetically proving "Einstein was right!" over and over again, which makes General Relativity dominant in all gravity theory. In fact, variable-G may be the missing link in cosmology to explain many puzzling phenomena, from large atmosphere gas giants in the outer solar system, to cosmic redshift Hubble constant, to the "missing mass" dark matter, to super fast spinning stars, to galactic 'black holes', to gassing out comets in the inner solar system, to the Pioneer Anomaly, to tiny Pluto's many moons. It all fits so well with a "variable gravity G" concept, ushering in a new era of fundamental physics and cosmology…. There was no way to prove a variable gravity G from our Earth's position, same as there is no way to find 'dark matter' here. At this time, the concept of gravity-G not being a universal constant would appear to be 'pie in the sky' were it not for coincidence that other methods had collaborated to calculate deep space gravity, which seem to confirm a variable G: Viz. Deep Space Gravity, which indicates how high G (gravitationally) redshifts distant cosmic light at the Hubble constant; and The Boltzmann Constant, when applied to CMB, seems to indicate the same high G in deep space. These support the calculations derived from the Axiomatic Equation, as applied to figuring variable G; at this time, this is all still anecdotal. For proof, we need to measure G away from Earth's orbital region... But not there yet.
Also see: Mass of the Universe
First math why Newton's gravity G 'constant' may be Variable, per Axiomatic equation. (See Sept. 16, 2003 - towards New Physics)
Julian Barbour's curious astrophysics (sans 'dark matter'): Einstein was wrong - he didn't go far enough?
Gravity, the perfect illusion
MOND revisited, why it is valid
Galactic Black Hole mystery
Planet Energy short hand
|Posted on Monday, June 24, 2013 - 02:30 am: |
Total Planetary Energy calculations short hand.
Sometimes the simplest things are the hardest to find. Back when we first theorized total planet energy, c. 2003 by combining products of solar radiance, planet's kinetic energy and solar distance, to give a template of combined radiant and gravitational energy, the calculations achieved were laborious and cumbersome, but reasonably useful to calculate energy E and local gravity G. From these results were then calculated relative proton mass and the proton-proton gravitational constant, from which was derived Newton's G for each orbital region around the Sun. But upon reviewing equations to balance both sides with function (f), it became obvious there is a simpler way to arrive at the planetary orbital total energy, where quite simply it became:
(f) = 1/AU^2 (dimensionless)*
so that, on both sides of the Axiomatic equation, taking Earth's (base) value E=9e16j and multiplying it by 1/AU^2, we get the same result calculated long hand. Therefore, dividing known (E=mc^2) as 90 petajoules for Earth's value (for 1 kg mass) by any planet's astronomical units squared gives us a handy short hand for the total energy levels of planets based on their relative solar distance, or at least pretty close approximations. For example, in original long hand calculations:
MERCURY: 60.55E+16 J
VENUS: 17.33E+16 J
EARTH: 9.0E+16 J
MARS: 3.66E+16 J
JUPITER: 0.335E+16 J
NEPTUNE: 0.01E+16 J
PLUTO: 0.006E+16 J
Instead, we just multiply
9.0E+16 J by 1/AU^2= E for each planet's AU, so now we get:
The results are almost same, and our universe just got simpler.
So same as found on planetary spin where (AU)^1/2, square root of astronomical units, plays a role in bringing planetary spin ratios to unity, and also hypothesized for Pioneer Anomaly, where (in centimeters) acceleration towards the Sun is about -a=-1/AU^1/2, so is it with total planetary energy calculated to find variable G; they all seem to fit nicely together. One has to wonder why?...
Could it really be that gravity G is variable on a curve at about 1 G per 1 AU? It would all fit handily if so.
*(same rule applies to both proton mass and proton-proton gravitational constant g, where both Earth values multiplied by AU^2 gives their respective values for any planetary orbital distance)
Also see: Variable-G paper
MOVED G-force Patent US 20130186711
|Posted on Sunday, August 04, 2013 - 12:43 pm: |
Modified Vector Dynamics 2
US 20130186711 A1
Gyroscopic precession is the result of angular velocity of rotation and angular velocity produced by torque which acted upon by vector force of gravity will cause precession. The resulting precessional vector force at right angle to torque is currently well understood, though not understood how this precession vector can be modified by right angle to produce the same force as a directed vector force; how angular momentum could be made directional. Inventor shows in principle how this Earth gravity G-force is re-directed using gyroscopic action housed within a larger apparatus, when whole apparatus is spun in either direction, whereby the angular momentum is transferred along the axis of spin. The result is a directional force caused by acceleration of spin of whole apparatus, which may be a usable force in future propulsion systems.
1. This propulsion assist power objective is met with the Modified Vector Dynamics (MOVED) G-force, per invention FIG. 1, applied to a motor with sustained pulse acceleration directed along the axis of spin of the whole apparatus, so a resulting re-directed vector force moves the vehicle in a dedicated manner, along motor axis, to enhance propulsion in the direction desired.
2. When this motor is taken to full efficacy, per invention FIG. 2, the “assist-power” would become “full-power”, which would enable the motor to work at its best capacity as a stand alone power source of motion and lift in future vehicles.
CROSS REFERENCED TO RELATED APPLICATION
This current application replaces the prior filing of U.S. Provisional Patent application 13/216,082 filed on Aug. 23, 2011.
FIELD OF INVENTION
The present invention relates to the apparatus using counter-spinning mass housed within an external sphere to re-direct Earth's gravity from natural lateral precession into a vector along the axis vertical force. This new directional force can then move the whole apparatus along its axis by using the MOVED G-force to effect a utilitarian force. Based on this principle can be designed future motors for propulsion in any medium, including space.
Gyroscopic precession is the result of angular velocity of rotation and angular velocity produced by torque, which acted upon by the (downward) vector force of gravity will cause it to precess. The resulting precessional vector force at right angle to (moving in the direction of) torque is currently well understood and amply documented. What is not documented, nor perhaps understood, is how this precession vector can be modified by right angle to produce the same force as an either up or down vector force simulating either “lift” or “sink”, or how this angular momentum action could be made “directional”. Inventor will show how, in principle, this Earth gravity G-force can be re-directed using gyroscopic action housed within a larger apparatus, when the whole apparatus is spun in either direction, whereby the angular momentum is transferred along the axis of spin. The result is a directional force caused by acceleration of spin of whole apparatus, which may be a usable force in future propulsion systems.
SUMMARY OF INVENTION
Gyroscopic action principle has been used successfully for purposes of vehicle stabilization and alignment. This new motor is designed to use the same gyroscopic principle, commonly called “conservation of momentum”, to re-direct it into its vector equivalent along the axis of spin. This is same principle, in effect, as illustrated by tying a spinning gyroscope to a string and then twirling the string either clock-wise or counter-clock-wise to effect the gyroscope's “rise” or “fall” at the end of its tether, though results will be shown opposite. When two gyroscopes, spinning in same direction, are attached perpendicular to the axis of a larger sphere apparatus, pointing opposite so their precessional force cancels out, their precessional motion can be re-directed along the whole apparatus's axis, in either direction depending upon direction of spin, so a force results that moves the apparatus in such direction. This is the underlying principle of the Modified Vector Dynamics G-force motor, whereby Earth's gravity captured by gyroscopic action, what results in natural lateral precession, is now made perpendicular to the whole apparatus's natural precession. It has been found that a small force results, one that could be amplified by design, so that actual motion along the axis results. For right spinning gyroscopes, clockwise spin, the natural precession is counter-clockwise for the whole apparatus; when the apparatus has force applied to accelerate it to spin in direction of precession, counter-clockwise, the result will be an axial force in one direction, while spun counter to precession, clockwise, the resulting force will be in the opposite direction. For an upright axis of whole apparatus, added counter-clockwise will make it ‘heavier’ by fractional kilogram; whereas if spun clockwise, it will be ‘lighter’ by fractional kilogram. Tests have demonstrated that if above described (right spinning counter-balanced gyroscopes enclosed) apparatus axis is horizontal to Earth's gravity, counter-clockwise spin will move it to the right, whereas clockwise spin would move it to the left. Though effect is still small, it demonstrates the principle involved, which is totally Newtonian, where Earth's natural G-force enters the system and manifests as gyroscopic action, which in turn with accelerative-force added to effect spin of the whole apparatus, a momentary G-force induced reaction will be vectored along the axis of the whole apparatus. Upon this principle is what powers the Modified Vector Dynamics motor. To gain full effect of this motor, a constant pulse of accelerative force must be added continuously to gyroscopic action, if the re-directed vector motion is to be sustained. Further efficacy will be explored to amplify this MOVED G-force effect. It is the inventor's opinion that full efficacy will be achieved by substituting gyroscopes with multi-leveled bands of fluid, or dense gas, stimulated into fast spin with electro-magnetic pulses within the stacked bands, which are then rotated continuously, so a continuous re-directed vector force results to propel the motor in desired vector. This amplification may further be enhanced by microwave pulses (MASER) to turn fluid, or gas, into a fast rotating toroidal plasma within the rotating bands, which may greatly increase the gyroscopic effect. At this time, pending further research, it is not yet known what materials would work best for full and usable efficacy, but the basic principle of Modified Vector Dynamics is the same, to use Earth's G-force and redirect it along the motor's axis.
DESCRIPTION OF DRAWINGS
FIG. 1, demonstrates the basic gyroscopic action housed within a spin induced motor. The motor axis (1) is shown horizontal to the Earth plane, with two right-spin gyroscopes (2) perpendicular to such axis powered by electric motors (3). The enveloping housing (4) has angular force added to spin it in either right spin (5) or counter spin (6), so motion results perpendicular to motor's natural precession (7), vector-F directed along the axis (1).
FIG. 2, demonstrates envisioned MOVED G-force motor using stacked bands (8) attached to a supporting swivel rod (9), whereby inside each stacked bands is an electric magnet (10) over which is a fast rotating toroidal plasma (11). The electric pulses are made of three sets of alternating and continuous (A,B,C and D,E,F) activations. The motor is then rotated in toto (12) in chosen direction to re-direct the vector force (13) in direction desired.
There is no new physics here, this is totally Newtonian. The added spin acceleration, with either mechanical or electric force, to the whole apparatus translates into a redirected vector force. It is the inventor's vision that three such MOVED G-force motors fastened inside a craft will give it triangulating motive power in any direction desired, both vertical and lateral motion, and full range in between by swiveling it. When the motor's efficacy is substantially enhanced to effectively use both the Earth's and Sun's gravitational forces, there is unlimited possibility for space travel with a continuous accelerative force to take us to destinations desired in a much shorter period of time than now achieved with chemical reaction rocket engines. In effect, this is ‘gravity on board’ our space crafts to simulate what are now ‘gravity assist’ maneuvers, to take us to distant bodies in space, both in our solar system and out.*
Publication number US20130186711 A1
Publication type Application
Application number US 13/216,082
Publication date Jul 25, 2013
Filing date Jan 25, 2012
Inventors Ivan D. Alexander
Original Assignee Ivan D. Alexander
[Inventor's Note: The invention is not yet effective as a useful propulsion source, as the transfer of pulse acceleration to spin is still too weak, but it illustrates the principle involved, that MOVED G tests show that electrical induced pulses of acceleration can be transferred to directional axis of whole apparatus as shown; this transfer of acceleration pulses 'kicks' the whole apparatus in either axial direction dependent on direction of spin, which is the main claim of this patent. IDA]*
See also: USPTO related patents:
*Addendum: Each band of electro-fluid of the spinning motor takes in 'gravity' in the form of 'inertial mass' (per Equivalence) to transfer the electric accelerative impulse into a directional 'kick', which then dissolves as a directional neutral force into the lateral spin of the fluid; this is what makes it work. Think of a swimmer with each stroke moving forward, or a bird's wings in flight, or a bee's; the principle of the inertial drive, MOVED-G motor is the same. What makes it different is the frequency required to generate sufficient directional trust; which in fluid may be in thousands of cycles per minute, or in plasma thousands per second, while a swimmer or bird may do only a few per minute, or insects a few beats per second. But in principle the directional motion is the same.
Dark Matter near Earth?
|Posted on Saturday, January 04, 2014 - 02:15 pm: |
Is Earth surrounded by 'dark meatter'? - Discovery News
Interestingly, the hypothetical presence of dark matter could have another subtle effect on our planetary neighborhood. During measurements of spacecraft flybys of Earth, very slight anomalies in spacecraft speed have been detected. For example, NASA’s NEAR asteroid spacecraft used our planet for a gravitational speed assist in January 1998. During the flyby, in addition to the extra velocity the flyby provided, there was an additional mystery boost of 13 millimeters/second. This tiny boost, which has been spotted in other spacecraft flybys, is known as a “flyby anomaly,” and one of the contributing factors could be the gravity exerted on the spacecraft by an invisible halo of dark matter.
New Scientist - GPS satellites suggest Earth is heavy with dark matter
In 2009, Steve Adler of the Institute of Advanced Studies in Princeton, New Jersey, showed how dark matter bound by Earth's gravity could explain these anomalies.
Dark Matter hypothesis - American Physics Society: Dark-Matter Wind Sways through the Seasons
As the Sun and the entire solar system orbit around the center of the Milky Way, they pass through a halo of dark matter thought to be present in our galaxy. This movement should generate a constant dark-matter “wind” on our planet, a stream of particles that dark-matter searches are hoping to capture. The Earth’s orbit around the Sun also causes an annual modulation of this wind, which could be used to recognize a genuine dark-matter signal in experiments. A new study in Physical Review Letters suggests the modulation could also be profoundly affected by a so-far neglected phenomenon: the distortion of the path of dark-matter particles due to the gravitational focusing of the Sun.
In our previous calculations, Newton's G per Axiomatic Equation showed in Earth orbital region as about 7.24E-11 m^3 kg^-1 s^-2, which is slightly greater than Earth's measured 6.67E-11 N (difference may be accounted for by Earth's interior heat). Could this be the illusive 'dark matter' in Earth's vicinity? At least they're looking for what may or may not be 'invisible' dark matter ... Counting down to Variable G.
Also see: A possible flyby anomaly for Juno at Jupiter (PDF 2017)
Gravity waves found?
|Posted on Sunday, March 16, 2014 - 02:18 pm: |
Have cosmologists found gravity waves?
Gravitational waves: have US scientists heard echoes of the big bang?
We know gravity waves exist but just haven’t detected any yet. Credit: www.shutterstock.com
The Daily Mail writes:
Have we found a message from the dawn of time? 'Major discovery' set for Monday could give scientists their first glimpse of the birth of the universe
• Announcement set to be made on Monday is shrouded in secrecy
• Believed astronomers may have found proof of gravitational waves for the first time
• Minuscule ripples in the fabric of the universe carry energy across space
• Could give scientists their first glimpse of how the universe was born
But it is unlikely they found 'gravity waves' per se. Rather, the announcement will deal with 'echoes' of the Big Bang in its first nano-seconds, which may mimic what scientists had been searching for the past century, as predicted by Einstein's General Relativity, 'gravitational waves', which had eluded detection to date. More than likely, they will announce some shadow of microwave background energy, which could be interpreted (per General Relativity formalism) as background gravity waves. It remains to be seen what is actually announced tomorrow… But if Big Bang is an observational illusion artifact due to very high gravity-G intergalactic space gravitational redshift, then the exercise will once again prove futile. But it is exciting nevertheless, what new scientific discovery isn't?… Stay tuned, tomorrow.
THE NEXT DAY: Major Discovery: 'Smoking Gun' for Universe's Incredible Big Bang Expansion Found - Space.com
Astronomers have found the first direct evidence of cosmic inflation, the theorized dramatic expansion of the universe that put the "bang" in the Big Bang 13.8 billion years ago, new research suggests.
If it holds up, the landmark discovery — which also confirms the existence of hypothesized ripples in space-time known as gravitational waves — would give researchers a much better understanding of the Big Bang and its immediate aftermath. ...
The brief and astonishing inflationary epoch transformed the infant universe from mere quantum fluctuations into something of macroscopic size, adherents of the theory say.
Beginning just 10 to the minus 35 seconds (roughly one trillionth of a trillionth of a trillionth of a second) after the universe's birth, the idea goes, space-time expanded incredibly rapidly, ballooning outward faster than the speed of light... (my italics)
So they found 'ripples in space-time' in the first instant of Big Bang? Mind, these are some of the brightest minds in astrophysics, perhaps headed for Nobel Prize.
So they found 'polarized light' twisting in the CMB, which per their Einsteinian cosmology model means they found 'gravity waves'? It remains to be seen what this means really, or is, but interesting. And so... Big Bang Mythology continues, while learned scholars continue their disputations.
Gravitational waves from inflation generate a faint but distinctive twisting pattern in the polarization of the cosmic microwave background, known as a "curl" or B-mode pattern. For the density fluctuations that generate most of the polarization of the CMB, this part of the primordial pattern is exactly zero.
And then it gets better: Our Universe May Exist in a Multiverse, Cosmic Inflation Discovery Suggests -Space.com
Also on BBC Science News: Cosmic inflation: 'Spectacular' discovery hailed
Inflation was first proposed in the early 1980s to explain some aspects of Big Bang Theory that appeared to not quite add up, such as why deep space looks broadly the same on all sides of the sky. The contention was that a very rapid expansion early on could have smoothed out any unevenness.
But inflation came with a very specific prediction - that it would be associated with waves of gravitational energy, and that these ripples in the fabric of space would leave an indelible mark on the oldest light in the sky - the famous Cosmic Microwave Background.
The BICEP2 team says it has now identified that signal. Scientists call it B-mode polarisation. It is a characteristic twist in the directional properties of the CMB. Only the gravitational waves moving through the Universe in its inflationary phase could have produced such a marker. It is a true "smoking gun".
Here is a little more detailed explanation of 'twisted light polarity' discovered:
Gravitational Waves in the Cosmic Microwave Background -by Sean Carroll -Astrophysics and Theoretical Physics
[Some afterthoughts: Curious minds will seek to inquire further, whether this discovery of polarized 'twisted light in CMB' observed by the BICEP2 team is in fact what it is theorized to be, the distant echoes of the first trillionths of a second of Big Bang inflation, or perhaps something else. For example, could it be some parody of the Olbers' paradox, if the light received from 13.8 billion years ago as Cosmic Microwave Background, the most distant signal possible within our observable universe, and which must pass through all of deep space from that distance, that it per force passes through all the galaxies in our line of sight; and that all such galaxies in the path have black hole centers; that the CMB light observed had undergone spin aberrations en route from spinning black holes to give it the observed twist reported? We can check that by overlay matching galaxies with the reported B-mode curls shown. Also, perhaps such polarization curl could be an artefact of maximum redshift, so what we see is a natural phenomenon and not necessarily caused by 'inflation' in the beginning of spacetime, nor 'gravity waves' per se. There may be other considerations, especially if all gas and dust in the (invisible) darkness of intergalactic space, what appears to be non-baryonic but filled with dark matter, is subject to substantially higher gravity-G, and it has this observable effect on light. Do we know this, or are we still guessing? Despite the fact that Einstein's General Relativity generated Big Bang cosmology 'expanding universe' received a Nobel Prize, it may yet prove an embarrassment if gravity is found to be a non-universal constant, but constant on a curve. There may be much we still do not know, except that we have 'curve fitted' observation within the parameters of accepted cosmology theory, so are interpreting it as such, but not necessarily true. Inquiring minds have room to doubt, and would want to know. - IDA]
Also see: Are gravity waves falsifiable?
BICEP2 Papers: http://bicepkeck.org/index.html#papers
Some questions by Cosmologist/Theoretical Physicist Matt Strassler: If It Holds Up, What Might BICEP2's Discovery Mean?
Just in: Gravity waves legit?.. Or just dust and rumors?
...also: Cosmic inflation: Confidence lowered for Big Bang signal - BBC Science News
LIGO finds ripples of 'gravity waves'
This just in:
GW170817 LIGO neuron stars collision verified in visible light
G-force inertial drive revisited
|Posted on Saturday, July 05, 2014 - 12:47 pm: |
G-force Inertial Drive revisited
When the MOVED-G force inertial drive was tested with spinning counter-balanced gyroscopes, it exerted a small vector force, as measured in fractional kilograms. The theory behind this force was written then:
The idea behind this result is that it is not the acceleration pulse that moves the apparatus, but its tiny remainder force of gravitational inertia that leaks out in a directional force. This is a 'best guess', as no such mechanism is known at present. In effect, this tiny force, as represented by the mass of gyros and Earth's (weak) gravity, is what gives the apparatus its small kick. But each accelerative kick must be repeated continually, without sacrificing its gain (to other counter forces), in order to sustain accelerative motion. In the US Patent Application filed, it says:
The important point here, given these three tests, is that Earth's g has been re-channeled via positioning of gyroscopic action to give us dynamic force in another direction than normal precession. This, of course, is what was sought for, though not totally satisfied in that the direction of vectors resulting from spin proved more complex than expected. Therefore, though 'something' happened, tests proved inconclusive. We know which way Earth's gravity is vectored… (Viz., If Earth's g enters the system, where does it come out?) What direction does the re-directed vector take in each of the three tests? More tests for this 'redirected' vectors effect are needed.
So per this reasoning, it is the "Earth's gravity captured" (as inertial mass cum force, per Equivalence) that results in motion observed, albeit weak for apparatus tested. To amplify this weak force, it may be needed to use electrically stimulated fluid spin, so each electric pulse causes accelerated fluid spin, which then returns to a neutral state without sacrificing the (gravity) impulse gained. The whole apparatus, with spinning fluids counterbalanced inside, is likewise in spin, what causes the gyros precession transfer to the apparatus axis, directional depending in direction of spin. (Viz., Spin one way gives directional force along the axis, spin other way reverses it, for consistent fluid spin.) To make this work means that such gained force is not lost inside the apparatus, or more succinctly, that the directional force gained is not reversed once accelerative impulse stops; it merely dissolves into the spin of the whole apparatus after each kick without creating a counter force. This is key to capturing the weak gravitational force that entered the system, what gave it a small directional vector force.**
When two gyroscopes, spinning in same direction, are attached perpendicular to the axis of a larger sphere apparatus, pointing opposite so their precessional force cancels out, their precessional motion can be re-directed along the whole apparatus's axis, in either direction depending upon direction of spin, so a force results that moves the apparatus in such direction. This is the underlying principle of the Modified Vector Dynamics G-force motor, whereby Earth's gravity captured by gyroscopic action, what results in natural lateral precession, is now made perpendicular to the whole apparatus's natural precession.
If this works as described, then it merely becomes an engineering feat of stacking spinning gyro fluids and increasing the rate of accelerative electric impulses. The greater the rate, the greater the force, so accelerative motion results, and the whole apparatus becomes an engine of directional motion. Should it prove correct that gravity-G is not a universal constant, but greater in the outer solar system and beyond, the inertial kicks should prove stronger with distance from our Sun; at Saturn, if gravity-G grows at the rate of 1 G per 1 AU, the inertial force would be almost ten times what it is on Earth, for example. And if so, then we would have a powerful engine for powering our spacecraft in outer planet exploration, and beyond. This MOVED-G motor could in fact overcome the limitations of rocket powered motors, a kind of 'gravity force onboard', which would be capable of taking us far deeper into space, even interstellar space, not achievable with rocketry.
Impossible space engine may actually work, suggests NASA - not same idea, but may be remotely related as both 'violate' conservation of momentum, which is new, and both promise 'infinite acceleration'.
From the research paper EmDrive:
Microwave thrusters without propellant is invented by Roger Shawyer in a British company that research on satellite thrusters (SPR Ltd), he has already started the theories analysis and prototyping. Roger Shawyer has designed a conical cavity resonator, similar to the transverse wave TE mode, with a quality factor of 50,000, rectangular waveguide radiates the microwave into the resonator, using a non-resistance test turntable, the practical results show thrust produce by the resonator with the microwave output power of 300W is 86.2mN, this measurement match the calculation.
The vibration of charge particles (where object is made from), near their equilibrium positions can be seen as charged oscillators, this oscillators can emit or absorb radiation energy of E=nhf, n is the quantum number, h is the Planck’s constant and f is the oscillators frequency. Light and electromagnetic waves also have properties of particles, are photons that travel at the speed C, each photon has energy of E=hf, f in here is the frequency of light or electromagnetic waves. According to relativity, E=mc2, the mass of photon is m=E/C2=hf/c2=h/c (lambda)[*]...(italics mine)
*[see Axiomatic Equation, mass derivation: m=h/c(lambda) ==> m=hc/lambda(proton m) etc., used for developing variable-G hypothesis.]
Also see: Why UFOs glow with plasma
**Addendum: Each band of electro-fluid of the spinning motor takes in 'gravity' in the form of 'inertial mass' (per Equivalence) to transfer the electric accelerative impulse into a directional 'kick', which then dissolves as a directional neutral force into the lateral spin of the fluid; this is what makes it work. Think of a swimmer with each stroke moving forward, or a bird's wings in flight, or a bee's; the principle of the inertial drive, MOVED-G motor is the same. What makes it different is the frequency required to generate sufficient directional trust; which in fluid may be in thousands of cycles per minute, or in plasma thousands per second, while a swimmer or bird may do only a few per minute, or insects a few beats per second. But in principle the directional motion is the same.
Relativistic Mass conundrum
|Posted on Sunday, November 02, 2014 - 01:50 pm: |
Relativistic Mass conundrum
In the Wiki page on Relativistic Mass it says:
If a stationary box contains many particles, it weighs more in its rest frame, the faster the particles are moving. Any energy in the box (including the kinetic energy of the particles) adds to the mass, so that the relative motion of the particles contributes to the mass of the box. But if the box itself is moving (its center of mass is moving), there remains the question of whether the kinetic energy of the overall motion should be included in the mass of the system. The invariant mass is calculated excluding the kinetic energy of the system as a whole (calculated using the single velocity of the box, which is to say the velocity of the box's center of mass), while the relativistic mass is calculated including invariant mass PLUS the kinetic energy of the system which is calculated from the velocity of the center of mass.
The classical equation for momentum is p=mv, where momentum is conserved. In relativistic mass, the energy of velocity is added to the system whereby at relativistic velocities approaching v=c speed of light, the energy and mass grow to infinity, so momentum is thus conserved at m=E/c^2. But what if velocity is not due to kinetic energy? What if velocity is approaching relativistic velocities from its internal closed system, where energy remains constant, since no new energy, whether kinetic or internal particle energy, is added to the system (internal reference frame only, Newton's apple in elevator), so momentum remains invariant, and thus conserved? Then if momentum is conserved, at increasingly high velocities, and for equal momentum, the mass would have to 'decrease' rather than increase. This, of course is in direct violation of Einstein's relativistic mass increase at relativistic speeds, but it satisfies the conditions of conserved momentum. How can such an acceleration of mass occur without increasing energy? The answer can only be if the velocity is increased within the closed system to leave energy side of E=mc^2 equation invariant. And the only way this could happen is if acceleration is from gravitational 'pull' rather than kinetic push. If kinetic push, then energy must increase and mass remains constant as rest mass except at relativistic speeds where it increases; but if pulled by gravity (not out of reference frame but inside, onboard), then energy remains constant, and to conserve momentum, mass must 'decrease'. At relativistic speeds, as velocity approaches the speed of light, mass decreases to the mass of a photon, which in essence means mass at near light speed approaches zero.
This relativistic mass conundrum had never been considered because accelerative mass was never considered possible without increased kinetic energy to force it moving faster. But in the above mentioned scenario, where mass is accelerated internally through gravity, or extreme gravity forcing it faster, if momentum remains constant (conserved), then with higher velocities it must decline equivalently; at v=c, mass drops down towards zero, but not totally (See How fast we can travel in space below for why this is so). Why is this significant?
This relativistic conundrum has to do with space travel at relativistic speeds if, and only if, the gravity-G of deep space is orders of magnitudes greater than measured here on Earth. Such gravity would be crushing for any spacecraft traveling there. But if mass is dropping commensurately with velocity, then at high velocities, it essentially is able to 'outrun' its relativistic mass, as at high speeds it balances out into lower mass, so the spacecraft (and its occupants) are spared the relativistic mass conundrum. Rather than being crushed by high gravity-G, the higher the velocity, the lower the internal mass; so occupants would feel no change. This of course is not from an observer's point of view (reference frame), where relativistic mass increases, but from the spacecraft's point of view, where mass feels constant.
Of course, none of this scenario is relevant if gravity-G is constant, but it becomes paramount if gravity-G grows with distance from a hot star and is some five orders of magnitudes greater in interstellar space. Then to travel there would require very high velocities for the spacecraft to survive the journey. But such velocities cannot be achieved with kinetic energy accelerations; it can only happen if we learn to harness the great gravity-G force out there to propel our craft. At this time the promise of a Moved-G type engine is still a distant dream, but if it could be built to achieve wormhole-type velocities powered by very high G, gravitanionally at full power, this is the only way we could outrun its crushing force. It also defaults to practical constraints on this type of travel, which means we cannot stop and exit the spacecraft in deep space, any more than we can step outside a bathysphere in deep ocean. The effect would be crushing.
Addendun: Note, this relativistic mass hypothesis may be falsifiable, to test for diminished 'inertial mass' in an accelerated gravity vehicle. Though not exactly as described above, where gravity acceleration is generated onboard, the same lower mass effect may be measured in any falling vehicle, such as in space reentry free fall. If aboard the reentry vehicle is a spinning disk, as Earth's gravity accelerates the vehicle (though our local G is very weak), there should be an observable effect: during reentry free fall, the disk's rate of spin should slow slightly (perhaps related to chronofield effect?). Of course, this would violate hard Equivalence Principle, as the inertial mass is lowered, while vehicle gravitationally accelerates. This could be an easy test to check if momentum stays internally constant while gravitational acceleration increases velocity, where mass is decreased, so spin is slowed; and none of it would be felt onboard.
See also: Rosetta's comet is spinning down approaching Sun
Einstein's relativity carousel
How fast in space?
|Posted on Sunday, November 16, 2014 - 07:04 pm: |
How fast can we travel in space?
(Continuation of Relativistic Mass conundrum above.)
Starship in Close Encounters
To travel in space, you must think Big.
For example, per Engineering Tool Box-acceleration we can calculate:
To reach v=c in deep space at
v=300000000 m/s you need acceleration
a=500000 m/s^2 for time t=600s (10 min)
which is gravity G equivalent a=50968g (about average G in deep space)
and if a same acceleration time is t=1200s (20 min) your velocity is
The operable equation here is Average Velocity using gravity g, no matter what the G:
This acceleration is continuous, so to reach Alpha Centauri, for example, at distance 4.366 light years, let's say in one year, you need to achieve average velocity for distance:
Distance d=(distance of c in 1 yr) 9.46e+15 m * 4.366 ly= 41.3e+15 m, distance to Alpha Centauri, for an average velocity for one year (1 yr =31.54e+6s) of v=41.3e+15m/ 31.54e+6s= average v, which is v=1.31e+9 m/s (of course, that's 4.366 times speed of light, you break 'light barrier' three times! - Warp 4 Mr. Spock) a velocity achievable at 50968g acceleration within about 43 mins. What happens at those velocities? Is the spacecraft 'pure energy', so like neutrinos can go through solid mass? Or in a Star Trek fashion jump into some hyperspace dimension where ordinary matter becomes invisible to us? … Probably not, but don't know, will have to get there first.
This velocity would be reached through continuous deep space higher G acceleration (assuming G grows at about 1G per AU) until G peaks about half way (in coldest part of interstellar space), then starts to regress as approaching target, where G declines approaching hot star, and where the G powered spacecraft begins to slow until it reaches humanly tolerable G levels, of about ~<5 G, where it can cruise at leisure. (Note: If this space gravity-G acceleration is calibrated to be just a fraction below full power of background G, and the spaceship is traveling in perpendicular orientation to its direction, the occupants on deck would experience a gravity g same as if on Earth, so to ease the hardship of the long journey; that's how onboard gravity 'pull' power works, where remainder inertial mass gives negative acceleration on cabin floor, and how 'they' do it.) Of course, if this acceleration works exponentially, the distance to Alpha Centauri would probably take less than a year to get there.
Now, that's space travel! Think Big.
Simple space gravity equations
|Posted on Saturday, November 22, 2014 - 10:26 pm: |
Some simple (deep) space gravity equations:
(this is a continuation of How fast can we travel in space post above)
If the operative gravity g equation is: va=(sqr root 2gd)/2, as per above, then it stands to reason these follow naturally, simple algebra:
2va=(sqr root 2gd), which by squaring gives us:
(2va)2=2gd, which is also:
d=(2va)2/2g, or g=(2va)2/2d.
Now, if we assume gravity acts equally on all mass, so it is the same on a pebble as it is on a starship (why astronauts can walk in space at the ISS), the let us assume that if
d=gt2 and g(m)=ma, and if m=1, then g=a when gravity acceleration is internally driven, no matter how high the G. Therefore,
ag=(2va)2/2d, and conversely d=(2va)2/2ag, if, and only if, m=1 (same as in Axiomatic Equation).
[However, factoring in time t, the equation defaults to d=vt, so that agt=(2va)2t/2vt, which simplifies to: agt=(2va)2/2v, and thus agt2=(2va)2t/2v.]
Remains to be seen whether these will prove useful when we learn to travel space using gravity-G engines, which could propel our ships at multiple superluminal velocities. However, this then causes another challenge: can we find real time, entanglement-type, collapsed wavelength communications* to talk to our ships? For now, this is all a fine fiction, but maybe someday….
*(See also: X-Rays: Next-Gen Way to Travel and Talk in Space?)
Gravitational Fly-by Anomalies
|Posted on Wednesday, December 10, 2014 - 01:42 am: |
Why are Gravitational Fly-by Anomalies anomalous?
Gravity-assist swing-by (click image for more info)
Thinking outside the box, there may be two things at work here that account for the fly-by anomalies:
1. Possibly inertial mass transfer from the planet's spin, its mass angular momentum transferred to the fly-by probe; or
2. the variable-G factor, where the inertial mass of the probe is slightly higher out in space (away from Earth's hot energy) than it is on Earth, so the G equivalent (distant from Earth, but still in its orbit) is G=~7.24e-11 N(m/kg)2 (in space) vs. 6.67e-11 N(m/kg)2 (measured on Earth's surface, value of G we use in all our computations), or what some have called a 'dark matter halo';
3. or it could be a combination of both 1 & 2.
Regrettably at this time, though the fly-by anomaly effect had been measured, there is still no known math to explain this phenomenon, except for a proposed equation by J.D. Anderson et al:
where we is the angular frequency. etc. (see original page - click on equation)
This fly-by anomaly is something worthy of further study, especially as it may apply to larger gas planets of the outer solar system, where such effect should be more pronounced.
Also see: Mercury's precession as a function of Sun's angular momentum transfer.
Why UFO magnetic plasma glow
|Posted on Thursday, March 19, 2015 - 02:25 pm: |
Why Alien spacecraft radiate electromagnetic energy and have plasma glow.
Alien spacecraft (all images are interactive)
It had been reported on Alien craft sightings that they radiate a strong electromagnetic field, often disabling our electrical equipment or digital cameras, and they appear to glow with ionized energy. (See MUFON reports.) Upon reflection of their Alien propulsion system (as theorized on Humancafe), the physics driving their propulsion system may actually generate the reported electro-ion effects. If the inertial drive is due to transfer of acceleration (per US Patent 20130186711 A1) from spin to axis direction, then several factors are involved that generate conditions observed. First, the electrical impulses accelerating spin in an electric fluid, what is the MOVED-G inertial drive's basic system, then the spinning electric fluid will generate its own magnetic field, as its own dynamo effect; so the more pulses per second, the greater the effective magnetic field. This effect may be amplified further, so it can be a powerful byproduct of the craft's power system. (See Bob Lazar's UFO.)
Electric fluid spin
Self gravitating plasma spin
Second, if taken to the next level, where the electric pulses driving accelerated spin are thousands of pulses per second, such as could be achieved in self-gravitating plasma spin, then the electromagnetic effect would be amplified into a force high enough to ionize the air molecules around the craft, so it would glow as reported. The more the power, the brighter the plasma glow, and the greater the electromagnetic effect. This might explain why at low power, when the Alien craft is hovering, for example, there is little glow; but when it accelerates, the glow is intensified.
Glowing plasma of Alien craft
In the end, this form of Alien craft propulsion simulates what happens naturally in a galactic black hole, where the self gravitating energy surrounding its extreme gravity generates strong spin and electromagnetic energy emanating from the axial jets. Or to put it another way, the Aliens powering their spacecraft have found the secret to harnessing the self-gravitating power of the galactic black hole. This is a truly 'gravity on board' effect, if so. It also explains why their craft had been observed to radiate strong magnetic energy and light.
Welterweight Pluto takes on Heavyweight Einstein
|Posted on Saturday, July 18, 2015 - 12:31 pm: |
Welterweight Pluto takes on Heavyweight Einstein (short story)
The fight of the century
It was the Big Event, the fight of the century. The odds were heavily stacked against the welterweight, but the anticipating crowd was raucous, jubilant, anticipating a quick win. Millions were bet, back and forth as the fight dragged on past the sixth round. It was all muscle and sweat, the air thick. The heavyweight was too much of a gentleman to take down his lighter opponent in one blow, though few doubted he could. Rather he played with him, giving the jubilant crowd a go for their money. They were grappling. The bell rang, ready for the next round.
Then Einstein went down with a heavy blow, unsuspecting that the welterweight had it in him. He hit the mat hard, but was relatively quickly back on his feet. No one expected the surprise that lightweight Pluto, with such low density, could deliver a heavy wallop. But there it was, and he did it again, the heavyweight once more lying on his back. He raised his head, a puzzled look on his face. All thought he had it, how could they all be wrong? How could this be? Now in the ninth round, his face was swollen, the heavyweight lay there listless. Pluto danced around, careful to avoid the heavyweight's legs to not get caught in his famous relativity grip. But he knew what he was made of, his veins running through with water ice, pumping hard in the surprisingly high gravity of his welterweight mass. His muscles bulged and rippled like mountains floating on ice. Nothing suggested such mass until it was measured in an impressive array of instruments during a New Horizons encounter, just a flyby! The heavyweight gets up, he's up on the ropes. His trainer, Prince Ton, is trying to help him up. But then he's down again... So there it was. In a flash genius moment, the Greatest was down for the count. The crowd grew quiet.
Nine, eight, seven... And the winner held up both arms in dancing jubilation as the crowds roared! Cameras were rolling, typewriters clattering away. This was a game changing fight, some said a Paradigm shifting fight. Pluto took down the greatest. The heavyweight lay still, but the fight was not out of him yet. He'll be back, calling for a rematch, too many fortunes at his back. Tonight he wasn't showing his stuff. Some started mumbling that he took a fall for the mob. We'll see if this was a clear win. But if it was, history was made today. And all who bet on the heavyweight will have to go back to their bookies, and pay. Or as they say, "back to the drawing board". Relatively speaking, you don't give up a good fight.
Ice mountains on Pluto
This just in: More Pluto pictures set for release -BBC
Pluto's rings, higher gravity-G for this tiny planet suspected?
The three-axis stabilised spacecraft can boost this if it switches off its power-hungry inertial measurement unit and spins itself up to maintain a steady orientation. However, it cannot do this and take images at the same time. (italics mine)
It is also hunting for rings. It is possible Pluto is surrounded by concentric circles of dusty, icy particles, and these would scatter sunlight in a way that might be easier to detect from "behind" the dwarf planet.
What is Pluto made of? There may be less rock and iron than they think, if Gravity constant is higher, at about 30G. They'll be calling for a rematch!
Pluto flyby video - Space.com (14 July 2015)
Watch this space...
Pluto's Atmosphere Anomaly
|Posted on Thursday, July 30, 2015 - 01:48 pm: |
Pluto's Atmosphere Density Anomaly
The recent New Horizon flyby to Pluto has lifted the veil of mystery from this tiny dwarf planet of our outer solar system. What had to now been a blurry image of our 'ninth' planet as seen by the Hubble telescope was revealed to be a reddish complex world with mountains and plains, possible cryogenic volcanoes, and a surprisingly large atmosphere for a small planetary body of about 18% mass of our Moon. The atmosphere is composed largely of nitrogen with traces of methane and carbon monoxide, which appears to have its own weather patterns of precipitation, most likely methane-hydrocarbon snow flakes. By contrast our Moon, a rocky body, had virtually no atmosphere, whereas Pluto has one surprisingly tall. This atmospheric disparity could be attributed to Pluto being an ice body, which is more dynamic than the rocky composition of our Moon. As solar energy hits the nitrogen and water ice on Pluto, it may sublimate into its tenuous atmosphere, a large part of which is blown off into space by solar wind, so there should be continuous renewal during the Pluto year (~246 Earth years) as the mini planet swings from about 30 AU to 50 AU in its orbit around the Sun. It is currently believed Pluto's atmosphere sublimates while closest to the Sun at its perihelion, but condenses back down to ice further away, so at its aphelion it should be compressed back down to its frigid surface. At this time there may be some question as to how this happens, or if in fact it does happen; prior measurements showed about 1.5 micro bars atmospheric pressure close in, but about 3 micro bars further out. Perhaps this could be expected, as density would increase with lower temperature, or perhaps it may suggest an alternate explanation.
Pluto's atmosphere vs Earth's
In fact, prior observations show an anomaly to Pluto's atmospheric dynamics in that rather than compressing further out when temperatures drop, its atmosphere actually increases.
This was a surprising discovery, one which requires further study. But it may also be one that demands an alternative explanation to current theory, as current hypothesis that the atmospheric dynamics are linked to Pluto's polar regions warming and cooling seem ad hoc and may not hold up over longer observations. In fact, the reason for Pluto's atmosphere expanding further from the Sun may be surprisingly simple.
Further analysis of the data reveals that the pressure in Pluto's atmosphere more than doubled between 1988 and 2002. One might naively expect an overall collapse of the atmosphere: the gases should freeze onto the surface as the planet moves farther from the Sun and cools.
Reality is not so simple though, as a team of the Observatoire de Paris with several collaborators showed that Pluto's atmosphere is expanding, rather than contracting, a quite surprising results published in the 10 July 2003 issue of the journal Nature.: "Large changes in Pluto's atmosphere as revealed by recent stellar occultations", by Sicardy et al.
It can be a given that Pluto's largely nitrogen is in thermodynamic equilibrium with its surface nitrogen ice, so there should be fluctuations due to temperature change. Nitrogen ice should sublimate closer in, but re-condense further out. However, if the opposite occurs, where the atmosphere grows rather than shrink further from the Sun (nitrogen ice sublimating near pherihion but recondensing aproaching aphelion, scouring new nitrogen from (50 G) space) another dynamic may be at play. If so, the expected atmospheric dynamics would be reversed.
All this may still be speculative, but the nitrogen atmosphere sublimation may be from cause other than mere temperature change. It may be more a possibility if gravity dynamics for Pluto's highly eccentric orbit be considered, so ice sublimation may be more a function of gravity 'constant' G fluctuations than heat. (This would make it more akin to why comets gas out in their eccentric orbits, where they condense further out in their orbits, but decompress closer in.) At about 32 AU (~32G), where Pluto is now, if factoring a variable-G, the internal composition pressures would be released, or gassed out; while further out at 40-50 AU (40-50G) they would be compacted. In fact, both could be curve fitted to approximate each other, both temperature and variable-G scenarios, except where one would predict smaller atmospheric parameters further out, the other would predict larger atmosphere. This latter would be a function of higher gravity-G at higher AU for Pluto's orbit, so the atmospheric divergence should become apparent with distance from our Sun. This gravity phenomenon, as yet unknown, could be easily measured over time in how Pluto's moons respond to variable gravity in its eccentric orbit (gravitationally more dynamic further out), something that can be measured. Of course, there could be other factors, such as cryogenic volcanic activity variable. But if Pluto's atmosphere shows greater density and is taller farther out, rather than compacted down as now predicted, this could be a significant discovery. And if so, it may be one more indication that gravity-G 'constant' is not universal as now believed; rather it is variable as predicted by this forum's Axiomatic Equation, as we count down to universal gravity Strangeness.
Also see: Pluto Density Anomaly
Lifting the Veil on Pluto's Atmosphere - Space.com
Pluto by-pass video - YouTube
This just in: Methane ice dunes found on Pluto
Nasa's New Horizons: Excitement ahead of Ultima Thule flyby - BBC Science
Why outer planets gaseous
|Posted on Friday, September 18, 2015 - 01:47 pm: |
Why outer planets are gaseous, and inner planets rocky.
New images of Pluto show a hazy atmosphere with likely weather made of frozen nitrogen and other soft ices, probably frozen gasses. This is surprising, as our own Moon, larger than Pluto, exhibits virtually no atmosphere. The other outer planets, Neptune, Uranus, Saturn, Jupiter, at beyond 5 AU are all gas giants; while the inner planets, Mars, Earth (Hera), Venus, Mercury, all within a 3 AU radius from the Sun are rocky. The asteroid belt between Mars and Jupiter are also of rocky composition, mixed in with water ice. Why such gradated distribution?
If we consider that heavier elements sink towards a gravity center, such as happens in Earth's interior where heavier metals sink towards the planet's center, it could be analogous to heavier elements, from the primordial cloud that eventually coalesced into planets, likewise gradated into layers of heavier near the Sun, while lighter farther out. If so, then it would be no mystery that Mercury's density is largely rock and metal, while Pluto's light density is largely frozen nitrogen and water ices.
Now, if we factor in a variable-G scenario, then the composition gradation makes sense. The heavier elements near the Sun at less than 5 AU exist in a low gravity G region, so heavier elements bind more easily while lighter elements remain more volatile, so the planetary bodies are rocky; but beyond 5 AU, there lighter elements bind easily because of 5 G and greater gravity G, so the outer planets become gas giants, as lighter elements in higher G act more like heavier elements, per Equivalence. Subsequently, heavier elements are more scarce farther out is that they had already sunk towards the Sun in early planet formation, why they are rocky; while the lighter elements condensed into planets farther out, why they are gaseous. (Jupiter may have a larger rocky core, being on the rocky-gaseous cusp, and thus attract a larger gaseous atmosphere.) But this scenario can only play out over the billions of years of planets coalescing if, and only if, the gravity-G is gradated as predicted by the Axiomatic Equation.
The enigma in this scenario is again Pluto. It has a surprisingly high atmosphere, but not enough to be a gas giant. There, whether from its small size or extremely cold temperatures, at about 30-49 AU, Pluto appears to be a frozen body. But it could have been a frozen ice body as a small gas giant, given its 30-49 G orbital region, but it coalesced into a soft ice planet instead. Still, the overall thesis fits, that inner planets are heavier, rocky worlds, while outer solar system is largely gaseous. The size and composition of the planets is then a function of the material available within the primordial solar disk, their densities per the variable-G scenario. If so, then it all fits.
See also: Protoplanetary disk regularity
First indications for variable-G
|Posted on Tuesday, October 06, 2015 - 03:02 am: |
First indications for a variable-G, in highly eccentric comets and orbits.
The first clue gravity-G may not be a constant (as now believed in physics), but rather variable on a curve (lower G closer into the Sun, greater farther out) may be evident in how comets are gassing out approaching perihelion, and how they are layered like an onion. With each orbital cycle, on cometary bodies with highly eccentric paths, material accretes while far from our star (higher G), but releases it closer in, so they develop a layered composition. Heavier molecules of matter are retained on closer approach, while lighter molecules (water and gasses) are sublimated in lower G nearer the Sun, hence their cometary coma visible. This coma sublimation is already evident at Saturn's cold region. The result is a density 'heavier' comet surviving perihelion, to resume the accumulation cycle as it swings farther out.
The second indicator may be the cryogenic volcanism on very distant bodies, like Pluto and Charon, where their very cold environment is active from below and thus changing the composition of the surface. Same as sink holes found on comets, both worlds should show the same phenomenon. The 'layering' effect on Pluto may be responsible for the alligator like surfaces found on its geological smooth plains. It is unlikely such surfacing and layering could be from temperature changes due to solar heating alone, given the extreme cold at Pluto; it better fits they are resultant from the accretion and sublimation cycle, due to gravity compression and decompression over millions of years, because of variable-G effect on their eccentric orbits.
To better understand this variable-G strangeness phenomenon, one which also differentiates gaseous planets from rocky planets, it would be opportune to better understand internal density of planetary and comet bodies, to see how they vary at different points of their eccentric orbits. This would be another clue to how variable gravity measures with distance from the Sun. Of course, the obvious test necessary is to test Newton's G at orbits both closer and farther from our hot star, or any star. For example, is the rocky-gaseous planets distribution same for exoplanets as here? Do 'cold' stars (with much greater G) have large 'Jupiters' closer in than our system? How do we test variable-G in space with calibrated inertial spin momentum? These are all questions that will lend clarity to how future space travel will be affected, if we humans hope to launch our probes, and ourselves, beyond the constraints of a (relatively) low gravity-G on the edge of our solar system. We must test it there first, and if found variable, the G encountered in deep space may be orders of magnitudes greater than experienced here, maybe thousands of times stronger. If so, we may have to rewrite gravity in ambient space, and all cosmology with it, from the ground up.
Also see: Welterweight Pluto takes on heavyweight Einstein
Gravity waves 'falsifiable'?
|Posted on Saturday, February 20, 2016 - 01:58 pm: |
Are General Relativity's gravity waves 'falsifiable'?
Competing theories of cosmology
It can be argued that a hypothesis is not falsifiable, only data observed is falsifiable. Now that gravity waves had been observed by LIGO, the former null results have moved the hypothesis from improbable to probable. But it is not yet proof gravity waves, as hypothesized by Einstein, are in fact real. There is still room for alternative theories of what LIGO had actually found. For this discovery to be 'falsifiable', hence real, there must be a confirming validation from other observable data. Though they immediatey looked as soon as signal found by scanning the skies in approximate location of expected merging black holes (as calculated per General Relativity), to date they have found no such visible evidence. Either at the light spectrum, or other electromagnetic spectrums, from X-ray to infrared, nothing has shown up (though a false GRB was reported), which fails the 'falsifiability' test. For example, if gravity travels faster than light, or in Newtonian sense is an instantaneous force, then the light reaching us from the merger is yet to arrive; or it may arrive 1.3 billion years hence! We hope by then Gravity will be better understood. And though per Einstein's-science-theology (it all reverts back to his revered Relativity cosmology) gravitational waves have been found, in real terms the LIGO signal alluding such waves remains a cleverly designed mathematical inference; but to date, it remains a grand illusion, its purported gravity waves unfalsified, and thus 'inconclusive', fabulous media claims aside.
This just in:
First ever Black Hole imaged
Strange Noise in Gravitational-Wave Data Sparks Debate - Quantamagazine.org (June 2017)
(It may be ‘noise’, not what it seems)
Was It All Just Noise? Independent Analysis Casts Doubt On LIGO's Detections - Forbes (June 2017)
GW170817 LIGO neuron stars collision verified in visible light
Fourth gravitational wave is detected, with European help - Phys.org (September 2017)
'Gravity waves' confirmed, or inertia waves detected (momentum transfer)*, now confirmed with e.m. energy validation: Neutron star smashup seen for first time, 'transforms' understanding of Universe - Phys.org (October 2017)
*(It may also be a case of observational simultaneity, where the two coincident events, gravity detection being one phenomenon, while e.m. energy detection the other event in same sector, but both are not necessarily the same event.)
Stephen Hawking’s final interview - a Beautiful Universe - BBC
Also see: Space Gravity at 3.97e-7 G
LIGO/Virgo Binary-Black-Hole Orrery
Van Flandern - speed of gravity
Planck's constant strangeness
|Posted on Monday, February 29, 2016 - 11:10 pm: |
Planck's Constant (6.626e-34 J-s) may be changeable, and perhaps strangely dark.
Planck's constant may be changeable?
There seems to be some odd interrelationships for Planck's constant. At 397 nanometers, at about the ultraviolet lambda (0.7557e+15 Hz), a photon quanta of light can dislodge an electron from metallic potassium, what is called the photoelectric effect. At red lambda of light, this photoelectric effect stops. The Planck constant figures in this photoelectric effect as E=hv (Planck's constant times photon energy frequency), as per Planck-Einstein equation (a physical constant that is the quantum of action, central in quantum mechanics), same as formulated by Prince Louis de Broglie; the unit of energy in Planck constant is 'energy multiplied by time', also called a 'quantum of action', expressed as J-s. This equation can be expressed as E=hc/lambda (since frequency is also expressed as f=c/lambda where lambda is equal to, per de Broglie, lambda=h/p). Note how this is similar to the Axiomatic equation, a modified Planck-Einstein equation, where Energy is E=hc/(lambda*proton mass).
Is this Planck constant strange, or significant? Its origin lies in Black-body radiation investigated by Max Planck in late nineteenth century, where in a black-body equilibrium temperature of light absorbed equals the spectrum of light emitted, e.g., Planck's law. But at 397 nanometers (3.97e-7 m) lambda and frequency, the 'quantum action' changes, as per photoelectric effect. This in itself is not strange, except this is also the 'gravity equivalence' value, where deep-space gravity 3.97e-7 G is isotropic. This is further supported by the strange coincidence where one can calculate a 'proton mass' value from Planck's constant, if divided by the deep space gravity value, Planck's h/deep space G=Proton m value:
6.626e-34 m^2 kg s^-1 / 3.97e-7 m^3 kg^-1 s^-2 = 1.67e-27 kg (kg per meter seconds)
The SI units may be strange, though these can be broken out, for example, so Proton mass kg is expressed as a 'unity per meters in time'. But if Planck's constant is a proton mass function couched within a universal space G constant, then if the proton mass is different, so would the h become different, per this relationship, as the only constant then is the universal space G. For example, if we take the proton equivalence on Mars, which is at about 1.5 G, which is (Earth measure) proton m=3.86e-27 kg, then if we figure Planck's constant for Mars, we get:
3.86e-27 kg * 3.97e-7 G = 15.32e-34 G kg (as opposed to Earth's 6.626e-34 G kg; i.e, approximately Earth's Planck's constant times 1.5 squared), so it is slightly higher than on Earth.*
Now if we look at deep space proton mass, which works out to be approximately 3.65e-18 kg, we can arrive at deep space Planck's constant:
3.65e-18 kg * 3.97e-7 m^3 kg^-1 s^-2= ~14.5e-25 m^2 kg s^-1 (per kg meter per second)
which is orders of magnitudes higher than on Earth.
What these exercises show, if they are reality, is that Planck's constant is contingent on what is the energy flux E from a nearby hot star generated in the region of space where it is being measured (per Axiomatic equation), in proportion to what both Energy and proton mass are locally. Of course, we know empirically what h is on Earth, but we had not measured or observed it elsewhere, at this time. However, the value for Planck's constant when figured outside Earth's value yields (per Axiomatic equation) a proton mass value in 'local' kilograms, so they would be different from same figured with Earth's Planck value.
So if we take deep space value of Planck's, the local values for proton mass would be in local kilograms. For example, if Energy in deep space is (per Boltzmann CMB), approximately E=0.413e8 J, and Planck's deep space local is 14.5e-25 m^2 kg s^-1, we can calculate 'local' proton mass with:
E=hc/(lambda*proton_m) Axiomatic equation
~0.413e8J=14.5e-25 m^2 kg s^-1 * 3e8 m s^-1/ (1.32e-15 m *local proton_m)
~0.413e8 kg m^2 s^-2* 1.32e-15 m/ 43.5e-17 m^3 kg s^-2= proton m local, which equals
0.545e-7/ 4.35e-16 =
local proton mass =~0.125e9 kg/kg (approximately)
Or 'local kg' deep space proton_m= ~1.25e8 kg/kg
This deep space local proton mass is incredibly high, nearly value of unmodified proton micro-center gravity at Strong force, which is tremendously greater than Earth's 1.67e^-27 kg, and orders of magnitudes greater than proton_m figured with Earth based proton mass for deep space (which was =3.65e^-18 kg, as per Boltzmann's constant). At proton_m for deep space =1.25e8 kg/kg, we have a value that approaches local light speed c; think extreme gravitational redshift equivalence; so in effect, if we divide light by deep space kg, it is absorbed, or canceled out by local proton mass. There light does not shine, and does not interact photoelectrically with matter, though it is still acted upon by gravity at deep space G.
Therefore, per this outside the box leap of logic, we can relate Planck's and deep space protons back to deep space gravity-G, if at ds_G=3.97e-7, we get light 'disappearing' into the darkness of space, though it is active gravitationally. In effect, at this orders of magnitudes higher G, protons, all atoms, drop out from view, they becomes 'invisible' to us, as was posited by Why Dark Matter appears non-baryonic. If so, this may be one more indicator that 'dark matter' is nothing other than ordinary matter at very high deep space G acting non-baryonic, while gravitationally redshifting cosmic light at the Hubble constant. Therefore, if so, matter in deep space, dust and gas, is of necessity 'dark' and it interacts gravitationally only.
In the end, Planck's constant could be a variable, which translates into orders of magnitudes higher values for deep space where Energy is very low (at CMB), and gravity-G very high. And this is significant, as it may be one more step towards a Grand Unified Theory.
*Please note: If testing such variable Mars Planck's constant by using the Axiomatic equation yields a Mars proton mass that is higher by about 1.5 squared, as shown below, it may be a validation empirically of a variable Planck's 'constant' yet to be discovered.
Viz., shown numerically, per above:
Mars Proton-mass times deep-space G = Mars Planck's constant
Per Axiomatic E=hc/lambda*proton_m
For Mars values:
3.66e+16J= 15.32e-34*3e+8/ 1.32e-15*(? Prot_mass?)
4.83e+1 (?)= 45.96e-26
Mars (?)Prot_mass= 9.52e-27 Mars_kg (vs. 3.86e-27 Earth_kg)
If Proton mass measured on Mars proves the higher number, then original calculations of Proton mass for the planets could be recalculated in principle with 'local' higher G equivalence; higher G equals higher body density, which conversely translates into lower 'density' kilogram equivalence. Therefore, if so, per this methodology, using deep-space G constant offers a short cut to local kilogram equivalence for any planetary orbit, where G is a variable dependent upon distance from the Sun.
Also see: Shortcut to Proton mass
Proton as a micro-Planck scale 'black hole'?
ESA LISA Pathfinder
|Posted on Wednesday, June 08, 2016 - 11:02 am: |
LISA Pathfinder satellite to test gravity in orbit.
A possible mission extension would perform some measurements to confirm the general relativity theory. By flying through the saddle point where the Earth and Sun's gravity cancel out, the spacecraft might prove whether Einstein's theory still holds when gravitational accelerations are extremely small. If it does, it would test theoretical alternatives of general relativity, such as Modified Newtonian Dynamics (MOND) and TeVeS. - Wiki
It will be interesting what their 6 month mission found. Can Lagrangian points be used to test for variable-G?
Summing variable gravity-G
|Posted on Wednesday, September 28, 2016 - 01:03 pm: |
Summing up variable-G gravity hypothesis.
Here is what we can surmise to date, what could be paradigm shifting in how we understand gravity, that Newton's G may be a variable-gravity value. The ultimate test will be to measure Newton's G at different distances in our solar system: where it should read lower G closer into the sun, and higher G at Mars and beyond at the gas giants planets (to >30G at Pluto), with commensurate variable body densities.
These are the theoretical findings to date:
1) The first hint gravity, Newton's G=6.67e-11 m^3 kg^-1 s^2, may not be a 'universal constant' was discovered when developing the Axiomatic Equation (2003), which postulated that for variable Energy flux levels, as measured with distance from a hot star, it yields inversely proportional gravity-G at orbital 'constant' levels.
2) The variable gravity thesis was further developed in exploring how variable-G cum the Pioneer Anomaly (2006) fits in relation to distance from the Sun, at about (1/AU)^1/2, confirming the surprising find that variable-G may grow at the rate of 1 G per AU.
3) Further explorations yielded collaborative corollaries for variable gravity, listed in Countdown to Stangeness: that deep space interstellar gravity clocks at about 3.96e-7 G for cosmic light gravitationally redshifted at Hubble constant (2005), it is also at about 3.4e-6 G for CMB per Boltzmann constant (2009), and about 1.36e-6 G for 'cut-off' lambda of ~400 nm (see 3 June, 2004 post), supporting the variable-G hypothesis (and why per photoelectric effect Dark Matter appears non-baryonic).
4) It was discovered that a variable gravity had been postulated by Dirac (variable in time), and by Toivo Jaakkola (sum space gravity ~10G), in early speculations on the variable-G hypothesis.
5) It was later discovered that deep space gravity per MOND hypothesis, as well as a function of proton-mass and ambient-space hypothesis (2016) background gravity, that it clocks at about ~3.97e-7 G.
6) Another coincidental calculation, hypothetically, is that if interstellar space energy is figured at E=3e8 Joules (square root of c^2 mass-energy conversion, or space Energy before light c modifier, where E=c joules), then multiplying this by neutrino phemtometer lambda, 1.32e-15 m, gives us 3.96e-7 G, same as in proton-mass calculation above (per kg/kg). All of which again seem to support a variable gravity-G hypothesis.
This is where we are now, that coincident corollary calculations seem to support a deep space 'universal' gravity-G at ~3.97e-7 m^3 kg^-1 s^-2 as the operative value, with implications for merging gravity into the other known forces. What remains is a dedicated test for gravity measurements beyond Earth's orbit to see how the hypothetical gravity-G curve fits with distance from the Sun. And if so, then cosmology as now understood (no Big Bang), including Einstein's General Relativity, the mass of the universe, etc... all will need revisions. This is the present 'state of gravity G message' per the variable-G hypothesis.
Also see: Gravity -the perfect illusion
Spherically symmetric ADM gravity with variable G and Λc By Giampiero Esposito et al. (2018)
For this purpose, one adds to an action of the Einstein–Hilbert type (but with variable G, so that G is brought within the integrand) two compensating terms  such that the action reduces to the York–Gibbons–Hawking [8, 9] form for fixed G and Λ, and takes the same functional form as the ADM action for general relativity.
In the first part of our paper, we have extended the Hamiltonian analysis of spherically symmetric gravity [10, 16] to the case of variable Newton parameter and variable cosmolog- ical term, obtaining eventually the non-linear differential equation (3.1) for G(r), under the non-trivial assumption that Eq. (2.40) can be taken to hold. We have then shown that the treatment of Λc and G as dynamical variables, together with the fixed-point condition, gives encouraging chances of emulating the presence of dark matter in long-range gravitational interactions, at least at galactic scale.
TRAPPIST-1 System understood?
|Posted on Saturday, February 25, 2017 - 10:12 pm: |
Do we understand TRAPPIST-1 System?
TRAPPIST-1 Ultra cool brown dwarf - Wiki
In the Notes of above Wiki link, it states the gravity estimates for this brown dwarf were figured per:
This would be expected, that we apply Newton's universal gravity constant G to calculate mass and sizes of discovered planetary system based on their distances from their sun and orbital velocities.
3^ The surface gravity is calculated directly from Newton's law of universal gravitation, which gives the formula
g = GM/r^2
where M is the mass of the object, r is its radius, and G is the gravitational constant.
However, TRAPPIST-1 is no ordinary star. First it is an ultra-cool brown dwarf, so its energy output is very low. Second, its planets orbit exceptionally close to their sun, completing orbits in days rather than years; they are entirely within the orbital distance of Mercury in our solar system; so their orbital velocities are very great. Third, they may exhibit orbital resonance, and possibly tidal locks, the kind we have with our moon, or Charon has with Pluto.
So where does that put this cool brown dwarf relative to our known solar system? Most likely, the Trappist system is a very high gravity-G, per the Axiomatic Equation, so its orbital characteristics are closer to what we see on Pluto (about 40G per equivalence), so we have planets very close in, orbiting at very high velocities, something like Pluto's Charon analogy. (Charon orbits in about 6.4 days, though their barycenter is 'off world' for both.) Therefore, all the calculations regarding this planetary system may need to be recomputed at higher Newton's G equivalence, including the total energy output of the brown dwarf (at about 2550 K, it is closer to Earth's interior heat than hot stars, which per Axiomatic would mean higher G equivalence for this cool system), which would in turn affect planetary densities: per higher G, they would appear more dense than actually are. Planetary mass, calculated with a consistent G, would probably come in close to estimated, since "mass is mass" no matter by what G calculated. But orbital velocities, assuming readings are correct, should mimic what we see at higher G region, per equivalence, such as Pluto Charon system, where orbits are only days.
The rest, as to whether planets are rocky, can sustain water, and perhaps harbor life within the habitable zone, these are all conjectures at this point. At nearly 40 light years distance, and measuring mostly in infrared, it will be difficult to fix with any real certainty of what planet system characteristics are observed. However, this is potentially an exciting find for other reasons than prospective life. It may be a key to better understanding variable-G.
Jupiter Juno mission update
|Posted on Friday, May 26, 2017 - 02:18 am: |
Jupiter Juno mission 2017.
Juno Mission - Space.com (click image)
Juno's measurements during the first few close passes also show that Jupiter's magnetic field is nearly two times stronger than scientists had predicted. And the probe's gravity data suggest that "there's a lot of strange, deep motions that possibly are going on inside of Jupiter," Bolton said.
"What Juno's results are showing us is that our ideas of giant planets maybe are a little bit oversimplified," he added. "They're more complex than we thought; the motions that are going on inside are more complicated. It's possible that they formed differently than [suggested by] our simple ideas."
Juno peers below Jupiter's clouds - BBC Science
It is early days in the mission still (it is likely to run for several years yet), but the first gravity sensing data is pointing to some weirdness in respect of Jupiter's centre. Theories had suggested it either had a relatively small rocky core or no core at all (one suggestion was that the planet's gases went all the way down to the centre in an ever more compressed state).
Scientists are now considering something in between - a diffuse core. "It really looks fuzzy," said Dr Bolton. "There may be a core there but it's very big and it may be partially dissolved, and we're studying that."
The mystery of Jupiter deepens. What of the core? What gravity anomalies? Still watching...
Also see: THE JUNO MISSION GRAVITY SCIENCE EXPERIMENT: A SEMI-ANALYTIC THEORY
Gravity anomalies at Jupiter
|Posted on Sunday, December 03, 2017 - 04:02 am: |
Gravity anomalies at Jupiter, per Juno mission.
Juno at Jupiter
In their paper "A possible flyby anomaly for Juno at Jupiter" by L. Acedo et al (November 27, 2017), the authors state their intentions:
Introduction: The objective of this paper is to develop an orbital model specially suited for the perijove time-frame. This model should take into account, at least, the tidal effects of Jupiter’s Galilean satellites and the known zonal harmonics of the planet. By comparing with the telemetry data we disclose a small, but significant, anomalous acceleration whose components in spherical coordinates are of the order of magnitude of a few mm/s2 and decay below the measurement error bars after a period of 30 minutes before or after the peri- jove. As we will see this is compatible with the expected order of magnitude from Anderson’s phenomenological formula  and some modified models of gravity [1, 6].
In their calculations, they discovered this flyby anomaly:
3.2 (pg 10) Our interest is now to implement the whole orbital model as defined in Sec. 2. In the first place, we have plotted the difference among the radial coordinate in the zeroth-order keplerian approximation and the data compared with the same difference for the prediction of the orbital model. This is shown in Fig. 4. We see that the agreement is very good but the model systematically underestimates the altitude of the spacecraft as if some outwards anomalous radial acceleration were acting upon Juno during its approximation to the perijove. (bold mine)
Then finally the authors conclude:
Conclusion: In our model model we have taken into account the tidal forces exerted by the Sun and by Jupiter’s larger satellites, i. e., the Galilean satellites: Io, Europa, Ganymede and Callisto and also the contributions of the known zonal harmonics . We have found that the multipolar field contributions due to Jupiter’s oblateness are far more important near the perijove than the tidal forces and that they provide a very good fit of the trajectory. Nevertheless the agreement is not perfect within the error bars for the models and small discrepancies persist after considering the aforementioned perturbations. We have interpreted this discrepancy as an anomalous extra acceleration whose component is mainly radial. This acceleration is in the range of a few mm/s2 and exhibit two, almost symmetric, peaks around fifteen minutes before and after the perijove...
In the context of this discussion we should also mention that similar anomalous accelerations are also found in several spacecraft flybys of the Earth . In this case, they are only a 1.5 % of those found in the case of the Juno’s flybys of Jupiter.
So something is different on Jupiter's flyby anomaly than Earth's. It could be an early hint of gravity-G being greater at Jupiter than on Earth, meaning per Equivalence, greater inertia per greater gravity-G (about 5X Earth's) to account for the greater flyby anomaly at Jupiter.
See: Is Earth surrounded by dark matter?
It was 19 years ago this month we first opened the forums at Humancafe for discussions (now closed) and explorations of natural phenomena and ideas, and it was about 5 years later we first theorized a 'variable' gravity-G. Perhaps this Juno mission is giving us the first real hints that Newton's (and Einstein's) gravity-G is not a universal constant, but variable with distance from the Sun (as implied by Pioneers anomaly). But to date, no dedicated test had been performed to falsify this hypothesis. Though, there is growing anecdotal evidence it may be so.
Also see: The Problem with Gravity: New Mission Would Probe Strange Puzzle - Space.com
|Posted on Wednesday, May 02, 2018 - 02:10 pm: |
Proto-planetary Solar disk Regularity: Proton mass and planetary Mass cum Variable gravity-G, resulting in flatter protoplanetary disk.
Protoplanetary disk may have been flatter than we think. Some 4.6 billion years ago the Sun ignited its fusion reaction from gravitational collapse of compressed dust and gas pulled together under intense (very high G) gravity, leaving behind a detritus of matter which surrounded the newly formed star. By the variable gravity-G scenario, this disk distributed itself around the star, from which were formed the planets. Per this scenario, the planets closest to our hot star were either in the very low gravity-G of the inner rocky planets, or further away in a subsequently higher G of the gaseous giant planets. This innately affected their planetary composition, where the inner planets (lower G) compressed with heavier elements, while the outer planets (higher G) compressed from lighter elements, with resulting inevitable planetary density ratio differences: inner planets more dense while outer planets less dense. Yet within the variable-G scenario (where G grows about 1G per 1AU), their masses remained as now measured (per universal ‘constant’ Newton’s G), so only density was different via an adjusted kg’/kg as shown. Here is a table showing the adjusted Proton mass and densities for planets, derived from multiplying adjusted planet Densities by adjusted gravity-G (1G per 1AU) and known planetary Mass (Viz. MARS: 6.42e23 kg X 1.5G x adj density 0.407= 3.92e23 kg:
|PLANET AU|| adj Proton mass|| relative Density|| relative Proton mass|| adjusted planet Mass |
|MERCURY 0.4|| 2.48e-28 kg|| 6.72/1|| 1.66e-27 kg|| 8.87e23 kg |
|VENUS 0.72|| 8.67e-28 kg|| 1.93/1|| 1.67e-27 kg|| 6.76e24 kg |
|EARTH 1.0|| 1.67E-27 kg|| 1/1 kg/kg|| 1.67e-27 kg|| 5.97e24 kg |
|MARS 1.5|| 3.86E-27 kg|| .407/1|| 1.57e-27 kg|| 3.92e23 kg |
|JUPITER 5.2|| 4.49E-26 kg|| .037/1|| 1.66e-27 kg|| 3.52e26 kg |
|SATURN 9.5|| 1.498E-25kg|| 0.0112/1|| 1.678e-27kg|| 6.36e25 kg |
|URANUS 20|| 6.1e-25 kg|| .003/1|| 1.83e-27 kg|| 5.2e24 kg |
|NEPTUNE 30|| 1.5e-24 kg|| .001/1|| 1.5e-27 kg|| 3.07e24 kg |
|PLUTO 40|| 2.58e-24 kg|| .0007/1|| 1.80e-27 kg|| 3.6e20 kg|
What is immediately apparent is that from adjusted Densities result in adjusted Proton masses for the planets that approximate Earth’s Proton mass, e.g. 1.67e-27 kg; while the resulting adjusted planetary Masses (bold) flatten out towards similar readings as that of ALL the planets, with exceptions for Jupiter and Saturn, which are higher (but Mercury, Mars, and Pluto are lower). What can this mean?
The first curiosity, that adjusted Proton mass times planet (adjusted for variable G) density yields a value approximating Earth’s known proton value is unsurprising, since they are mathematically linked as a function of each other, merely a marker. But the second curiosity, that the adjusted planetary Mass should be flatter than now calculated (with constant G) is noteworthy, because it shows a relatively flat protoplanetary disk in the early solar system, indicating that planets accreting from swept up disk detritus arrive at about the same mass (as adjusted for variable G) within Earth’s parameters. So Mercury, which is directly blasted by solar wind, is somewhat smaller though much denser; Mars lost something to its heavyweight neighbor Jupiter (and asteroid belt); while Pluto, farthest from the Sun, is relatively smaller than the rest, and less dense, showing it at the sparser fringe of our solar system (less material for accretion). The bulge at 5-10 AU are Jupiter and Saturn, which might mean the protoplanetary disk was already thicker there than the rest of the material ringing the Sun, so accreted planets are bigger.
Protoplanetary debris disks
If all this is true, that relative planetary Densities are G-sensitive, and that gravity-G grows with distance from the Sun as theorized, then the protoplanetary disk showing relatively equal distribution regularity, as shown, should come as no surprise. But the state of Gravity Physics is not yet able to confirm this, perhaps not yet ready for some decades, as a variable-G would invalidate much of current Cosmology, and Einstein’s GR gravity theory.
|Posted on Thursday, October 11, 2018 - 03:56 am: |
Still in the dark over Dark Matter.
In the Dark about Dark Matter - Scientific American (interactive)
We’ve been looking for WIMPS and Axions, but to date have found nothing. From article linked above (click image) we have instead:
Beyond WIMPs and dark sectors, sterile neutrinos and axions, there are even more exotic possibilities for dark matter, although they occupy the fringes of physics, including “primordial” black holes, extra dimensions and the possibility that Einstein's theory of gravity is wrong in some way.
So we are in the dark. Perhaps a new theory of gravity is in order? For example a Variable gravity-G?
Also see: Dethroning Einstein
Why Dark Matter appears non-baryonic
Discussion: What if gravitational constant G is not constant? - Physics forum