Does Gravity need Rethinking?

Humancafe's Bulletin Boards: The New PeoplesBook FORUMS: Does Gravity need Rethinking?

X-Post on Sunday, October 19, 2003 - 01:48 pm:

Cross-post from SPACE-TALK forums, by Coppernicus2:

Wintermute11, jam,

RE: G^2 = g c^2 pi^2 , or also as: g = (G^2/c^2 pi^2)

Thank you for the nod of approval on this rather mysterious equation on gravity. Like any equation, it is only a tool, only a model of what may be happening. In this case, it seems to compute out okay.

As I currently understand it, it merely shows how Newton's G is an expression of the proton to proton gravitation relationship combined with the light speed squared constant and pi squared. What it seems to show is that there is a way to understand how this proton to proton "g" ==> with c^2 and pi^2 ==> goes to "G". The pi squared is also there because, I suspect, Newton's G has a pi function in it. But what does this really mean?

Here, I must confess, I am somewhat stumped and need to work on it further. The implication that electromagnetic energy applied to the proton to proton relationship gives us Newton's Gravity is a great temptation to think of it as an early "unified" theory of energy and gravity, but this is not yet so.

What the above equation means to me is something quite simple, but this may not be acceptable to others, as it should not be, until it can be proven empirically. I see mass as a function of energy, that the more energy there is, the smaller the proton to proton relationship becomes, and thus the weaker the gravity. Vice versa, the lower the total energy, the greater the gravity. This can be most easily illustrated by subtracting this "g" from mass, when mass is expressed as a whole where m =1, in Einstein's famous equation:

E = mc^2 is then rewritten as E = (m-g)c^2.

We know E = 90 petajoules (9x10^16 Joules) in our solar environment, as currently accepted in physics. But what if this number E is lower, say in the Crab Nebula neutron star's environment? Then of necessity, if m =1, and c^2 is constant, then g has to become greater. And if g is greater, then G becomes stronger too. Note this is a "what if" question, so we cannot know the answer at this time because we do not know the total energy output of that neutron star.

However (here I am treading on very thin ice), I do not know that from the "kilograms of mass" can be missing the "kilograms of gravity". What the rewritten equation says, in effect, is that "g" is missing from mass to make it whole. Yet, I am not totally satisfied. Per this rewriting of Einstein's equation, "g" would of necessity become kilograms, if E is expressed in Joules, which is m^2 kg s^-2. What bothers me is that when "g" is expressed in SI base units when applied into the equation that converts it into "G", it becomes something totally different.

To illustrate: for E = (m-g)c^2, the SI units are: (E)m^2 kg s^-2 = ((m) kg - (g) kg) (c^2) m^2 s^-2, so (m) and (g) must be in kilograms. (Note that "m-g" results in a number, (1- 5x10^-39), or slightly less than "one", that then gets multiplied by c^2.) However when this is converted into: G^2 = gc^2 pi^2, it becomes in SI units: (G^2) m^6 kg^-2 s^-4 = (g) (?) (c^2)m^2 s^-2 (pi^2), which means, ignoring the dimensionless "pi squared", g has to be (m^4 kg^-2 s^-2). So here lies my conundrum: How can "kg" become "m^4 kg^-2 s^-2" ? So this is why I had said earlier that I do not understand why this equation works, if it does work. Now you know where I am stuck, but as it is not in my nature to give up, the search goes on. (Please note in my original Axiomatic Equation, I had it work out to E = Joules per seconds, or Watts, but that's another story.)

Perhaps a better understanding of SI base units would help, as per:
Anybody recognize these SI units for the proton to proton "g" as anything? What relationship does "m^4 kg^-2 s^-2" have with "kg"? Do I need a "fudge" factor, or simply forget it? But it's a sickness of my mind, I can't give up, nor forget it! What am I doing wrong? Hmmm... Just had a thought while writing this: "If "m^3 kg^-1 s^-2" is the gravitational force acting on the mass being weighed, then we have simply taken shorthand by converting this into Earth's gravity weight as "kg". So now, if ... if I divide (g) by (kg), and "kg" is really "m^3 kg^-1 s^-2", then the result is "m kg^-1"... but what does "meters per kilogram" mean? Will have to work on it some more.

Thanks for putting up with my "lunatic" equations. Obviously this is still work in progress... or regress. K

With regards to "gravitons", I'm also of the opinion that they are a kind of "shadow" particle of electromagnetic energy, but do not know really if this is true or not, or even if they exist. I think they should exist and travel at v = c, if for no other reason than e.m. waves need to interact somehow with space, which may have a "Casimir" like gravity to it. However, this for me is still in a very speculative stage.

It's a very big universe, and we are most fortunate to be in it... I'm trying to remember how I came from your future, and hope to return there eventually.

This above post is to raise the question that we still do not know what gravity actually is, though there may be an equation that shows how the proton-to-proton relationship g converts through c^2 and pi^2 into Newton's gravitational constant G.

Ivan --C2
Ivan A. on Monday, October 20, 2003 - 06:41 pm:


Here is one more clue that the idea of a variable-constant gravity, weak in the vicinity of energy rich stars, and strong in the colder regions of dark space, is not so far off, as per the Axiomatic Equation:

Astronomers find first 'dark galaxy'"


By Ivan A. on Tuesday, October 21, 2003 - 10:53 pm:

POSTCRIPT to entry above, Oct. 19, 2003:

On thinking some more of this problem with SI base units:


To illustrate: for E = (m-g)c^2, the SI units are: (E)m^2 kg s^-2 = ((m) kg - (g) kg) (c^2) m^2 s^-2, so (m) and (g) must be in kilograms. (Note that "m-g" results in a number, (1- 5x10^-39), or slightly less than "one", that then gets multiplied by c^2.) However when this is converted into: G^2 = gc^2 pi^2, it becomes in SI units: (G^2) m^6 kg^-2 s^-4 = (g) (?) (c^2)m^2 s^-2 (pi^2), which means, ignoring the dimensionless "pi squared", g has to be (m^4 kg^-2 s^-2). So here lies my conundrum: How can "kg" become "m^4 kg^-2 s^-2" ?

It makes more sense to take "m^4 kg^-2 s^-2" as its square root, since G is expressed as G^2. The result is that the square root of "g" is now "m^2 kg^-1 s^1", but this still leaves me no wiser, since I do not know what it means. What does "meters squared per kilogram per second" mean?

... still thinkin'...


By Ivan A. on Wednesday, October 22, 2003 - 08:50 pm:


Sometimes the obvious is so obvious we just can't see it. "m^4 kg^-2 s^-2" is no more than the root cause of why we have the inverse square law, 1/r^2, which inverted as an "inradiating" force becomes r^2 x force, which works out to be m^2 kg^-1 s^-1, and that's the square root of g, which is also G, the square root of G^2. So the controlling factor here is m^2, or distance squared, per kilogram, per second. Why per second? Because that's how the Axiomatic Equation works out.

(to see more on "inradiating", see Does Modern Physics Need Rethinking, July 8, 2003)

What this represents, in effect, is an inverse of the law for radiation, not as a geometric explanation which is abstract, but as a real inradiating force of the atom: g.


By Ivan A. on Sunday, October 26, 2003 - 06:13 pm:


Or, are luminosity and gravity inversely proportional? Is Planck's constant not so constant? How does gravity play out within the Axiomatic Equation for the Crab?

If we take current readings on the Crab Nebula's neutron star, as per Chandra X-ray Observatory: , we can "guesstimate" the total energy output of that star.

We know it spins very fast, 30 times per second, so that it has very great gravity. This gravity is estimated as a 100 billion times greater than that for the Sun, so that it is a factor of 10^11 times greater than Newton's G = 6.67x10^-11 m^3 kg^-1 s^-1. This means in effect G on Crab is G = 6.67x10^0, a very great gravity indeed.

Using the conversion formula for gravity, we can now "guesstimate" the atomic g, per the equation: G^2 = g c^2 pi^2, so that we get:

(6.67)^2 = g (9x10^16) (9.866) , which gives us g = 5x10^-15

Now, with g = 5x10^-15, we can figure what is the Energy, by first computing the electromagnetic lambda of the Crab's output. This can be achieved with the Axiomatic Equation's portion:

E = hc/l = (1-g)c^2, which can be further simplified into:

h/cl = 1-g, if the c^2 is taken out, so that bringing over the g, we get:

h/(cl) +g = 1, using the knowns:

h =?
c = 3x10^8
m = 1
g = 5x10^-15
l = ?

I have "h" as question mark because for the equation to balance, where it all equals "one", the numerator of the equation cannot be smaller than g. This means "h" cannot be smaller than 10^-15, which means Planck's constant must be greater for the Crab neutron than h= 6.626x10^-39 on Earth.

Taking the original value for h = 6.626x10^-34, per Planck, plugging it in we get:

(6.626x10^-34)/(3x10^8)(lambda) = 1 - (5x10^-15), which is: lambda = (6.626x10^-34)/(3x10^8)(1- 5x10^-15) = l

which becomes 6.626x10^-34/2.999999999..x10^8 = 2.2087x10^-42 = l, so this is nearly exactly what is h for Earth and our Sun, which it cannot be if gravity is so much greater than here, per the equation.

However, if the numerator over the denominator is to equal a number that is 5x10^-15 smaller than one, or h/cl = 1- (5e-15), and we take a numerator/denominator value no greater than 1 - (5e-15), which is 0.99... --> (with 15 digits of 9), or 1/(1+1e-15), and we cap the maximum for h at g, we get different results. This is justified by the fact that if cl=1, such as happens when light self cancels, then g cannot be less than h, if the value for mass is to be at least m=1, (i.e., h/1+g = 1). Of necessity, then h either must approach one, h=>1, or g has to become g => 1, for m=1 to be true. However, if h were to approach one, then g must be less than one, if g is to be any value at all. By this reasoning, strange as it may be, h cannot be less than g. In fact, I believe h will always prove to be measured as greater than g.

Now, if we use a numerator of: h = ~6x10^-14, purely a "guesstimate", it may satisfy this requirement, since it is "one" decimal greater than the g constant of 5e-15. This of necessity would mean that Planck's constant is different for each star where it is measured, depending upon that star's energy output and gravitational constant g. In other words, h, which is approximately equal cl, cannot be less than the local gravitational constant g, by this reasoning. On Earth, in our solar region, h is calculated to be 5 decimals greater than g, (i.e., h=6.626x10^-34 vs. g=~5x10^-39). Now bear with me while I take it to the next step.

If we take the original h/(cl) +g = 1, and substitute the know values, using h=~6x10^-14, we get the following value for l:

6x10^-14/(3x10^8)l + 5x10^-15 = 1, which give us l of approximaly = ~2.01x10^-22 m/s, which is in Hertz approx. 10^30 Hz, which is still a very high output, above gamma ray. To figure total Energy put out by the Crab Nebula neutron star, when can then compute:

E = hc/l = (~6x10^-14)(x10^8)/~2.01x10^-22 = ~8.9x10^16, which computes out to what Energy should be, about 90 petajoules.

This completes my very puzzling, and I may add unsatisfactory, proof. What does it prove? It proves that on the Crab neutron star there is equality of total energy with very high gravity, low electromagnetic energy output, and thus very high spin and low luminosity.

Well, I'm still not satisfied with this output, so consider this only a "work in progress".


By J____ on Monday, October 27, 2003 - 07:00 am:


Now do you understand why substitutions don't work, and cannot be justified...?


By J____ on Monday, October 27, 2003 - 07:02 am:


Now do you understand why substitutions don't work, and cannot be justified...?


By Michael on Monday, October 27, 2003 - 07:54 pm:

hello, if this post is not in the right place I know Admin will let me know.
Just something to add as an observation I found.

Is there a balance point between how packed matter is over a lenght of area. Like water displace, try to view it like Space fabric displacement?
Fing the balance point between a bodies, density and diameter, intensified by its 'a'.
Michael Stransky
copied from thread "formula"
Registered: Aug 03
Posts: 67
Ok recap............from my last

so I have a way of balancing the bodies Diameter and Density inversly proportional to each other.

the focal point of the balance is in the
bodies 'a' * 7155614.676 = the balance point
for diameter in kilometers and density.

other ways to write it to find..for

(2*G*pi / 3)=139.7503982e-12
or the number I have been useing 1/# = 7.155614676

those the diffrent ways you can write it is..

density = (a * 7.155614676)/diameter

Diameter = (a * 7.155614676)/density

a = (Diameter*density) / 7.155614676

** note there are no magical numbers here or numerology,
it is from newtons laws combined with M=VD **

it just makes it easier to get your answer than going through all the other steps!
how it was derived,

Newton Gravitational Laws:
F = (G*M1*M2)/(r^2)

a = (G*D*V)/(r^2) where D is density and V is volume

Stransky’s acceleration formula:
a = (d*D)/(Y) where d is diameter and Y is Stransky’s constant of 7.15e9 kg-s^2/m^3

Set the simplified Newton’s equation to Stransky’s equation:
(d*D)/(Y) = (G*D*V)/(r^2)

Solve for Y and plug in V=(4/3)*pi*r^3


It works on all bodies but I will go over it with error% and follow up with it.
I would love some feed back or even questions to share why I even did this.

future findings to find
to find/explain, the data with my numbers.
as body diameter and density with rotational spin linking it with flux densities. I am trying to explain the approach of it as compared the greater the surface area in diameter lenght how dense is your matter packed, and what kind of revolutions do you have.

By Ivan A. on Monday, October 27, 2003 - 09:14 pm:

Michael, Welcome!

I think you have solved something here "intuitively", though I haven't figured it out yet, but will go over it some more. Sometimes it works out like that, you have an intuitive flash, and then the hard work sets in, so glad to see the derivation. Keep up that hard work, I think you're onto something... and I'll get it yet!



Thanks for the "substitution" update. The way I see it is that it is all Energy. I.e,:

E/c = p, where p is momentum
p = m c , where m is electron mass, so that, per "substitution", where E/c = mc, we get:

E = mc^2, which every child knows.

What I've done further is to say that pc = E (momentum at light speed is Energy, which I got from physics books), and then "substituted" pc with Planck's h times frequency, as accepted in physics, which works out to be:

h f = E, where f is frequency, which is then "substituted by f = c /l, so that it becomes:

E = hf = hc /l = mc^2. So that is all okay, as far as anybody knows, no problem here.

The problem comes when I say that m is really m-g, where g is a small gravitational constant between protons, approx. 5x10^-39. I could leave it here, and never take it to the next step, but I could not resist the temptation. Call it "evil", or "the devil made me do it", but I then said that Einstein's famous equation is really:

E = (m-g)c^2, which means he had left out an important constant.

I would probably not be so tickled by Mr. E's oversight, were it not that I found a conversion ration for g into Newton's G, which is:

G^2 = gc^2 pi^2, and since these work out okay, I rest my case for the Axiomatic Equation:

Em*c = hc /l = (Bm)c^2 = (m-g)c^2 = Eenergy.

Why am I excited by this? It is because Newton's G (squared, to reflect it is interacting with another mass) is a function of gravity between protons (inside the atom) times lighspeed squared, times pi squared. Think how cool this is! Remember lighspeed squared times mass is Energy? We now have a way to go from proton-to-proton gravity to the big G, so that g times lighspeed squared times pi squared is Newton's G! Dig it man! The g (times c^2) in (m-g) is important, because that is how we get to G. This is why we have gravity. This is a BIG Wow!!

Please note that the Axiomatic Equation is merely a further development of the above steps taken, into where E is also electric force times light speed (which is what electricity is anyway), and that because of this (because Em/Bm=c, or electric force divided by magnetic flux equal light speed), the magnetic flux times c^2 is also Energy. I repeat: "It's ALL Energy".

So per the above, E = hf = hc /l = mc^2, we can rewrite this as E/c = (m-g)c, which per the above (with hc /l) is the same as E/c^2 = (hc /l)c^2 = (m-g). This then computes out to be, by cancelling out c, to be:

h/cl = m-g, or also as: h/cl + g = m.

J___, remember this, good buddy? You'll recognize this from earlier posts as the root cause of the whole shabang that started this dialogue back in February, 2002, on the Archived thread: "Is there a Theory of Everything?"

So in the end, it is ALL Energy, and the upshot of it all is that this energy, when mass is one, m=1, it is always equal to approx. 90 petajoules (9x10^16 Joules), which is acceptable in today's physics, and with which I have no disagreement. However, it can also be expressed as Power, which is Joules per second, or Watts. Why did I choose Watts? Because I think that when we measure energy output of stars, we have to do it per second, so either SI Base units will do.

So, does "substitution" work? I really don't know, good buddy. Only if the results bear out empirically. And that will happen when Michael's numbers work out to where they can predict spin, in the way Bodes Law predicted where the planetary orbits should be. And it will also be borne out if the gravity measured far from a hot star turns out to be greater than in its inner orbits. The equation says that gravity and electromagnetic energy, the magnetic flux in particular, are inversely proportional, which for me is very exciting. By this reasoning, further from the Sun we are, or any star, the weaker the magnetic energy and the stronger the gravity. Kind of makes sense, intuitively, but I really don't know if it is true or not. So, let's see what happens when we get to Pluto... very exciting!

Take care, thanks for your inputs and posts. There's still a great deal of work to be done.


By X-post on Saturday, November 1, 2003 - 12:25 pm:

X-Post on the Space-Talk forums at;


Points well taken, and have no disagreement, since our measures of mass at astronomical distances are based on the assumption that gravity is the same as it is here. Hence, Pluto's mass composition is considered relatively light, an "ice and rock" planet, as opposed to Mercury's, which is believed a more metallic planet. These assumptions on planetary mass are based on the measured orbital distances and velocities. Of necessity, should gravity not be a constant but a variable where it is greater per mass the further you get from the star, then Pluto's composition may be even lighter than ice and rock, perhaps all water ice, for example. As I had said, and I repeat myself over and over here, we cannot know this until we get there.


Now, does gravity weaken as it expends energy? Not to my knowledge, and though the Earth and Sun had been expending gravitational energy for over 3 billion years, their gravity seems undiminished. Is this a "violation" of the law of conservation of energy?

I think you missed the point of this statement by me. What I am saying is that gravity is undiminished by the work done, for billions of years. In this respect, if violates the conservation law.


E = (m-g)c^2... I've read your messages and found that everything leading to this equation is full of simple algebraic mistakes, and incorrect assumptions. Your "proof" doesn't hold up to basic scrutiny.

Seems no one tells me what these "simple algebraic mistakes" are, so I am left with broad generalities that it is wrong. The examples you gave me back on the "Gravity and Magnetism" posts, July 28, 2003:


Again, you need to read a basic physics text book. The "E" in your first equation does not represent the same "E" as in your second equation. In E/B=c, E is electric field in Volts per meter. In E=hc/L, E is energy in Joules. You can't substitute one for the other because they do not represent the same thing. You need to understand what these equations represent before you try using them to solve the mysteries of the universe.

You made the mistake of taking Em (an electric value) and thinking I meant E (Energy) in the two equations. Not my mistake. As to where the simple algebraic errors lie in my equations, well I don't know. I've shown it to mathematics doctors, and they think it's fine. Am I using the wrong symbols, letters, substitutions? E is E, c is c, Em is Em, Bm is Bm, and m is m. I fail to see where the problem lies, unless there is disagreement with saying Energy is mass times lightspeed squared which is the same as Energy is Planck's constant times c divided by lambda. But that is the kernel of the new equation, and is accepted physics. Is this where you find disagreement? Or perhaps you are objecting to (m-g), and that you should be objecting, because that is the speculation involved. My presenting this new idea is the whole basis for the new theory, that Einstein was missing this constant. Part of that speculation is that the result is that gravity is not a universal constant. Well, at least, it makes more sense to me than the currently accepted theory of having multi-dimensional space-time fabric universes, which I think is extremely speculative, and unproven, not even useful in everyday physics. Is this the "incorrect assumptions" you are referring to? I am guessing here, but I think it is, and you are right, it is an "assumption". However, when people are not clear in their stated objections, I am left to guessing what they mean, and that is not rewarding work. Can any assumption be wrong until proven so? I think that is the basis of what an assumption is, a new way of seeing things, an educated guess, and that it then must stand up to scrutiny and proofs. My proof rests upon measuring gravity far from Earth's proximity to our local star. And using a constant gravity to prove that mass is what it is for the outlying planets is circular reasoning, so its conclusions rest in doubt. Do you see my point here?

I love all the critics who brush off the equation with a wave of the hand, but they are not particularly useful in their criticisms, since it leaves me in the dark trying to guess what are they talking about. And yes, you are right that lambda is the Greek letter for wavelength, I thought the reader would understand this. Does cancelling electromagnetic wavelength release more gravity? It had never been shown to be correct, to my knowledge and as you pointed out, so this too is speculative. In the close vicinity of the Sun, it will be difficult to prove this, since the star's energy is so pervasive here. My clue comes from how this electromagnetic energy "cancels" coming in from all directions at the center of spiral galaxies, which as a full galaxy is a "unit of Energy" in toto within the vacuum of space, where the gravity is at its maximum. This happens to fit into how works the Axiomaticf Equation, so it is interesting to me. Does this lead to a proof? No, it is only a clue. Again, I will stress that these ideas are not currently acceptable in physics, and so must be treated with great circumspect, as they are truly speculative, until proven or disproven otherwise.

I don't want to beat a dead horse here, and I am sure neither do you, but as speculative ideas, they are at least as interesting as wormholes, or 26 dimensions of quantum space, or slowing time, or a universe that started in a Big Bang that expanded at a zillion times light speed. Truly, which is less speculative, the ones just mentioned, or that gravity is not a constant? I think that the idea that gravity is a variable in the cosmos is the least speculative of all, or certainly the least fanciful. Wouldn't you agree? J


By J____ on Monday, November 3, 2003 - 01:17 am:


You wrote:"So, does "substitution" work? I really don't know, good buddy. Only if the results bear out empirically. And that will happen when Michael's numbers work out to where they can predict spin, in the way Bodes Law predicted where the planetary orbits should be."

What is spin, and how can it be predicted?

Moreover - where and how did spin originate as a factor...?

Thought so!


By Michael on Monday, November 3, 2003 - 03:08 pm:

Hello I just wanted to show how close my results were, and what made me think of something else as an after thought. he is a clip from my thread on space talk.

I just wanted to show somthing, and come to an END of this thread.

Taking all the facts from

What I did was
1. take the voulume metric radius KM * 2000
for my diameter in meters.
2. Take the surface Gravity value m/s^2

Now I ran all those "KNOWN and EXCEPTED VALUES OF THE SCIENCE COMMUNITY" and plugged them into my equation, as such

[note ref I used: 7.55614676e9=3/2Gpi ]
Surface acceleration from Nasa * 7.55614676e9= which gives me a number for each planet, that number I divide the planets mean volumetric radius*2 of the planet the get my results in density Kg/m^3

so here it is...
Planet Nasa Density My Density
Sun 1408 1408 +/- 0%
Mercury 5427 5426 - .00018%
Venus 5243 5243 +/- 0%
Earth 5515 5502 - .0023%*
Mars 3933 3915 - .0045%*
Jupiter 1326 1268 - 0.0457%*
Saturn 687 422 - 0.6279%*
Uranius 1270 1251 - 0.015187%
Neptune 1638 1620 - 0.01111%
Pluto 1750 1736.5 - .007774%

* note I want to keep this short to stay on the point.
I have gone to other websites and they have have deviations from NASA's and some other sites have even posted incorrect pole diameters for equator radius???
thats why I choose one site with one set of data, how often that data is ever up data I dont know? But until the day we even get under the large gas giants cover, we then might be able to tell more information as to where SURFACE is on some of them. till then there is nothing to prove yet until we get there.

I do know this, it could be used as a tool for quick Ideas, or possiablilities. And if we only can only get information on one planets as by the means of its "Proportional mass" it is orbiting. Then I do know, or hope in my life time, that we will have the devices to actually get down to the surfaces of planets so we can actually get a more percise readings and makeup off them.

At last...
I will say I can not,and will not argue over some thing so far away, Or to have to prove 2+2=4 or to argue over x+z=3.98, well anyway 4 and 3.98 sure is close. I was just showing something Intresting I came acrossed.

and here is a follow up to it that made me think wheres the missing mass/density in my equation to the static parameters of one bodies values.
this is another clip I have posted on space talk

looking at the sun vs. Earth and moon against

We all know that when we compute our numbers by the text books to that equation you use Sun and Earth in that equation
It is a proportional ratio between earth and the sun.
then you take that proportional number that you found for earth and use it against earth to the moon.

I am wondering that if one keeps shifting that proportional value without a refrence point to keep it in check, then the formulas will always drift by that same proportional offset geating greater and greater by how much we canculate it.

When I looked at the Earth and moon combined. I have this with nasa data.
Planet Nasa Density vs. My Density
Earth 5515 vs. 5502 -0.0023%
Moon 3350 vs. 3336 -0.00419%

now looking at this

Nasa earth to moon ratios
Earth to Moon 3350
5515 ! 3350 is 1.64626857%

My earth to moon ratios
Earth to Moon 3350
5502 ! 3336 is 1.649280576%

that is just .001829596% diffreance between mine and the data?

but note if I take that ratio of diffrence of
1.001829596% Times 5502 equals back to 5512 near the data of 5515.

What I am saying is maybe the math can shed some light on this.

IS there a way noot to compare the sun and the earth alone.
becuase that would give all the ratio offset to the earth only, and the moon is left out of the eqaution.

So what I am saying is IF EARTH has the Earth(+combined moon effect) vs. the Sun in the equation of
Would that not make the earth have a larger "F" value then it should?
then to compare the moon to that larger Earth(+Moon+)value
would make the Moons value even larger then what it is?

How is it possiable to know if that F value was done to the sun as earth alone. Or a combined earth and Moon ratio to the sun, once you have that F value break proportionally equal that back out to the sun.

so here it is...
Planet Nasa Density My Density
Sun 1408 1408 +/- 0%
Mercury 5427 5426 - .00018%
Venus 5243 5243 +/- 0%
Earth 5515 5502 - .0023%*
Mars 3933 3915 - .0045%*
Jupiter 1326 1268 - 0.0457%*
Saturn 687 422 - 0.6279%*
Uranius 1270 1251 - 0.015187%
Neptune 1638 1620 - 0.01111%
Pluto 1750 1736.5 - .007774%*

Note the * they have multi bodies systems. and if one was trying to compare the F between to bodies and if those bodies have companions how is it possiable for them to pick only the one body and then to keep shifting that proportional value down to the smaller bodies orbiting the m2 in the eqaution.

What I am saying is any of the bodies that I have show have either a companion moon(s) with a great deal of mass to its main planet, or many moons around the center planet.

If this is true about only picking the two bodies like the sun and earth only to find total F force between the two bodies, and also to over look the moon as part of that, would give all of it to the earth, and in turn you would have missing mass.

I am not a rocket scientist, but just asking, because I can only find where they compare only the earth and sun. and not the earth + moon vs. sun.

any links to webpages showing the combined F between the Sun and Earth+Moon forces?
so the only way I will know is to find the proportional relations between a three-body orbit which to this day still cause problems for people. I will have to figure this one out. and may have to come up with the answer from a different approch to it.

By Ivan A. on Sunday, November 9, 2003 - 12:45 pm:

THE FOUR FORCES: Gravity is not an electromagnetic like force.

Per the New Physics, the Atom, as it is shaped by an interaction between a very strong gravitational nucleus and electromagnetic shell, per the Axiomatic Equation, where the proton to proton gravitational constant force, g, ranges from near zero to one, or from very weak to maximum (which can be translated into Newton's G through: G^2 = g c^2 pi^2), is a basic unit of mass which gives us all the matter of the universe exhibiting gravitational force. This resulting interaction inside the atom has a dual charge, with a (positive) proton and (negative) electron shell, moderated by balanced charge (neutral) neutrons. The weak force and electromagnetic force have a common denominator in that they are both modifiers of the very strong gravity inside the nucleus and the space between the nucleus and the electron shell. Because this space is inherently unstable, the weak force manifests to counterbalance where the strong gravity shows up as atomic decay, seemingly spontaneously and thus probabilistically, from our observations. Therefore, these Four Forces are in fact only Two: Gravity and Electromagnetic Energy. Their interactions then give us the other two forces of weak and strong force, which are subsets of the original two. The strong force has by convention a value of "1", which per the Axiomatic Equation is the same as the maximum "g" of the nucleus. This is how the equation was configured, so that both the strong force and g have a value of one, which is also the value of total mass, the total product of the electromagnetic and gravity interaction. So that, if I were to put it into a chart form, it would be:

Strong ForceGravity

Electromagnetic ForceWeak Force

From this perspective, the four forces are made up of only two interacting forces, not complementary but opposed. Both share similarity via the inverse square law, but their characteristics are otherwise different. Gravity cannot be shielded, only be released, theoretically by canceling all wavelengths of electromagnetic energy, per the new physics. Electromagnetic force can be modified by opposing charge, shielded, and manipulated. To manipulate gravity should be the next big breakthrough in physics, when this new theory of the four forces is better understood. This should be the next goal, to cancel electromagnetic energy at all wavelengths produced by our local star, so that gravity could once again be recreated in its pure form. Even if this point of canceled energy is infinitesimally small, the gravity force should prove extremely powerful, and usable as a new energy source to power future motors and space craft. Because gravity is an inexhaustible force, unlike electromagnetic energy, it does not answer to the conservation of energy law, is tireless, and infinite. It may yet prove, per this new theory, that gravity is the natural state of space in the universe, whereby when measured far from any energy producing star, or any galaxy, it will prove to be much greater per mass than as measured here in Earth, or within any inner orbits of hot stars. The exception to this would be neutron stars, or other cool stars, where the gravity per mass within the inner orbits would also prove stronger than here. In strong gravity space, the proton to progon "g" would be much greater than the ~5e-39 measured here. Black holes are an entirely different phenomenon from neutron stars, virtually unrelated except in where a neutron star seeds the center of a loose and chaotically arranged galaxy of stars, for this would then convert into a center on which all the radiating electromagnetic energy of surrounding stars cancels, which then creates a black hole at the center, which will eventually shape the galaxy into a common spiral one.

This is how the new physics of the Axiomatic Equation plays out, that there are only two forces, and that they are interactive because they are opposing forces. Gravity is not an electromagnetic like force. Other than to show how forces may interact, it is impossible to unify two opposing forces into one, by definition.

By Anonymous on Friday, November 14, 2003 - 01:05 pm:


QUESTION: If Jupiter is a gas giant, why does it have a strong magnetic field? If no rocky or metallic core, where does magnetism come from?

ANSWER: Mini-black-hole makes more sense than not for this hot planet. This miniblackhole may be the source of heat, spin, magnetism, and strong gravity... just a guess, but makes more sense than anything else.

By Ivan A. on Wednesday, November 26, 2003 - 09:48 pm:


It occurred to me that the Pioneer space probes, and other distant ships leaving the solar system, have to slow down as they leave the energy rich solar heliosphere and approach the cold of deep space. It is their inertia that increases as their gravity per mass increases, so that the momentum achieved upon launch will be insufficient to keep their velocity constant as they gain gravity per mass, as per the Axiomatic Equation. In order for their cruising velocity to remain constant, the space crafts would need additional acceleration, since their gravitational mass is growing, meaning their inertia is growing too.

Of course, this would not happen if Newton's G, or the gravity wells of GR, were universal constants. This should lead us to understand gravity in the future as a variable constant, whereby the further we are from a hot star, the greater will be gravity per mass, inertia, and the more kinetic energy will be needed to keep momentum equal. Conversely, though it is too small a distance to notice, the opposite would happen as any craft approached the sun, so that a craft there should gain velocity. As this principle applies to any of our crafts coasting out of our solar system, they of necessity would have to slow down, and very likely increase in spin.


Axiomatic Equation:

By Ivan A. on Tuesday, December 2, 2003 - 09:28 pm:


- Look here, Watson, I believe we have a clue of greater gravity...
- Do you mean, Holmes, like who pushed Newton's G down a deep well?...'s article,
"Lonely planet formed just like a star", has a clue:

"There is a key characteristic of forming stars," says Greaves. "Though Rho Ophiuchus B11 is planet-size, it is in the process of condensing from an isolated gas cloud in exactly the same way as a young star." This poses a big mystery, because gas clouds condense into dense objects only when the gravity trying to shrink the cloud is greater than the force of the hot gas pushing outwards."

"The gravity of objects as small as Rho Ophiuchus B-11 would appear to be too weak to overcome the outward gas pressure," says Greaves. Some unknown factor must be at work here, she suggests.

Well, it's a good suggestion. If the Constant "G" is not constant, as suggested by the Axiomatic Equation, then deep space will harbor greater gravity than on Earth. This may be one more clue, that Newton's G is not a universal constant, but rather a variable-constant.

Ivan A. on Saturday, December 6, 2003 - 10:05 pm:



There is something here that needs an explanation, since some think I am trying to 'prove' that gravity is a variable-constant. This is simply not the case at all. What I am doing is trying to 'discover' that this is so, that is why I am looking for 'clues' of whether or not gravity is a universal constant as now believed, or not as I suspect. The reason I listed my ideas on this and other forums was to solicit like-minded minds to look in on this, and try to network with other smart people to see if there is a possibility it is so. I do not feel challenged when others disagree with me, though it can be amusing, since I too am searching like everyone else. The trouble I have, and maybe why I dumped Einstein's Relativity, is that some ideas had reached the level of 'state religion' which makes it very difficult to argue against, since some take offense. No offense is ever meant by the ideas expressed by me, but merely an exploration into something that physics perhaps had overlooked. I truly do not know if my equation is right, and perhaps it is wrong. But then again perhaps the conclusion reached via an erroneous path may be right, that gravity is a variable. Then, and here I encourage all who can to participate with their ideas, we can collectively come to some understanding that would better define why this is so, if it is so. So there are many unknowns still to be uncovered, but that's what exploration of new ideas is all about. So do not be offended if I present an idea, because I am not trying to prove you or anyone else wrong. Nor am I offended, in fact, I am honored with all the inputs of ideas, yours included. Sometimes, these 'rebuttals' can be brutal, or simply not very gracious, but I overlook that, and think of it as the only way you or someone else knows how to express themselves. What I am really after is discovery, by all of us, if there is room for improvement on the state of knowledge such as it now exists. Am I the best qualified to do this search? I think the answer to this is very obvious, of course not. I do not have the training, nor the educational credentials, to come across as an authority. So please bear with me, I am only asking for your help in this, for I think there may be cause to think that we can improve on what is now understood in physics. And if we can't? It's okay, at least we tried to see something from a different point of view. I should conclude with this, that there are many who feel that Einstein's Relativity has in fact already been disproven, but it cannot be made public because it would do more damage than good at this time. However, I do not know this for a fact, so accept it only as an opinion, no more than that. Now, how dare we challenge what had been accepted for the past hundred years by very smart people who had demonstrated beyond a doubt that it is true? Because challenge is what Science is all about. It is not politics, nor religion, though it might be a speculative philosophy until proven or disproven. That is what I want to do, to find evidence either pro or con, not in textbooks, but in the universe itself. And if we do that well, then the proof will come of itself.

I think we're going into Space big time. But we cannot get there with our current level of understanding, nor with the chemical propelled rockets now used. That was invented about the time of the automobile, and like it still using 19th century technology of exploding pistons, rockets will not get us to where we need to go. We will have to discover a new technology to get there, and it starts in places like this.


By Ivan A. on Thursday, December 11, 2003 - 08:17 pm:

CIPA research on Inertia and Gravity.

Zero point fluctuations (ZPF) may lead to a better understanding of what is gravity, and how this 'vacuum within a vacuum' energy may be harnessed in the future. To see CIPA (California Institute for Physics and Astrophysics) go to:

Selected papers:
Nature of Mass
Origin of Inertia
Zero-point Energy

These guys are front-runners on what's happening in physics, not too far removed from my work on mc^2 = E (where REST MASS is Zero-Point Strong gravity minus the proton gravitational constant, in mine).


By C2 on Tuesday, December 23, 2003 - 04:37 pm:


CIPA's article on Inertia, quoting Scientific American, writes:

"This (inertia) is basically a transfer of energy from a field to a particle. Note that this does not address a deeper question: why does the energy "soaked up" from the Higgs field resist acceleration? Perhaps that is not a legitimate question. Perhaps mass and energy intrinsically possess the property of inertia and that is the end of the story." --

No doubt, this is not "the end of the story", for asking why inertia resists acceleration remains a valid question. I had discussed some parallel ideas on the Space-Talk forums, such "The Constant 'G'": , ( defined in the Axiomatic Equation), where the concept of gravity is treated as an intrinsic state of the space vacuum, which when modified by electromagnetic energy it becomes a unit of mass, the atom. This atomic unit of space cum energy then retains its original zero point gravitational energy, now modified into merely a remainder, that we measure on Earth as Newton's G. Through the 'equivalence principle', it is then the same energy that remains as the atom's inertial energy when in motion, what we then call 'momentum'. If so, then taking momentum p = mc = E/c = h/ldeB, we have several ways to express this energy, except that it is missing gravitational energy. A solution to this missing 'gravity-inertia' is to visualize the atom as a product zero point gravity and energy with a remainder of gravity from this interaction, so that what remains is the zero point gravity not used up in the interaction. This means in effect that all accelerated motion relates back to this remainder zero point gravity, its inertia. In this way, both accelerating force and gravity have an equivalence in how is constructed the basic unit of mass, the atom.

The reason I field this question is because if the energy is 'soaked up' from the Higgs field resists acceleration, then what is soaked up is the remainder 'unused' zero point gravitation energy responsible for inertia, also responsible for momentum once it is accelerated and set in motion. Now, if we take Newton's F = ma, and set m =1, then of necessity F/a = 1, which means F = a, so that acceleration is equal to force. By this reasoning, the gravitational remainder of mass is the same force as that of inertia, and hence the momentum resulting from the accelerative force would indicate that p = F, for time = zero. Taken together, where p = mc, we should find that F = mc, with m =1 and t = 0, we find that F = mc = p, which is the force encountered 'inside' the atomic nucleus, its momentum force at any moment of time. To bring this momentum force up to mass, we then need to raise it by c again, so that E = mc^2. This could be understood as what happens to inertial mass when it is accelerated to lightspeed, where it becomes Energy. If so, then momentum is no more than Energy divided by c, p = E/c, as accepted by current theory. Therefore, the atomic mass has built into it inertia, where F = a = mc, and where the gravitational energy of F = ma is actually a function of that inertial energy per mass, or F = p = mc, with m =1, if t = 0. The more gravity, now considered as F per mass, the more inertia per mass, and vice versa.

This should be an observable phenomenon in space where (per the Axiomatic Equation) inertia near the Sun will be less than inertia in the vicinity of Pluto, for example. We should find, if true, that comets gain inertia and slow velocity (since momentum is constant) in the vicinity of Pluto, but accelerate and gain velocity nearer the Sun. In my opinion, we should look for the recessive and precessive effect in both our space vehicles, such as the Pioneer space probes, and for comets enabled to communicate with Earth from deep space.


By Eds. on Tuesday, January 6, 2004 - 03:08 pm:

GRAVITY IS TOPS articles on galaxies in collision.

Our Violent Universe: Galaxy Ripped to Shreds

What is the fate of our Milky Way?
Simulating the Fate of Our Milky Way

Do galaxies in collision violate the 'expanding universe' thesis? Shouldn't they be flying apart instead? More questions, few answers... We need a better understanding of what is Gravity.

By J____ on Wednesday, January 7, 2004 - 12:15 am:


Gravity Probe B delayed again. New launch target date-

April 20, 2004


By Ivan A. on Tuesday, January 27, 2004 - 12:38 am:


This article on the Casimir effect, also explored by both Minkowski and Max Abraham, leads to the same old error, that the attractive force between the plates is due to 'pressure' from the EM energy outside. This is a gross error, since per the Axiomatic Equation, the attractive force between the plates is due to a lack of EM energy there, which recreates the space-vacuum gravity's attractive force where this energy is missing.


By Ivan A. on Friday, February 6, 2004 - 05:39 pm:

GRAVITATOR - physics and motion.

"How I Control Gravitation" by T. T. Brown, 1929.

This paper was written in the hey-days of the 'roaring twenties'. In fact, this 'gravitator' effect had been duplicated since, usually under the title of 'electro-gravity'. In reading this paper, my intuition is that what happens when electrical energy is applied is that the mass interacts with some aspect of the 'space-vacuum', which is why the motion is multi-directional rather than merely up and down in relation to Earth's gravity. In effect, this 'gravity effect' is really motion relative to the space-vacuum energy it encounters. Unfortunately, the effect lasts only about five seconds, so is not sustainable, though it seems to be repeatable after the charge had exhausted itself. I suspect this process will remain a mystery, some distant relative of Crook's radiometer, in how it really works, until such time that we have a better understanding of how gravity and electromagnetic energy interact. My conjecture on the matter is that this relationship will prove that the two forces are inversely proportional, so that adding more electrical power will not yield greater gravity, though it may yield the opposite for a short time. Nevertheless, that there is motion resulting from this 'gravitator' is in itself interesting, warranting more serious research.

See: Electrogravity Physics

By Ivan A. on Friday, February 20, 2004 - 03:36 pm:


New world found beyond Pluto

Note how the estimated size of this Plutino ranges from 840 to 1800 km, which may be a function of using Classical Newton gravity equation for the planetoid's orbit, meaning the planet's size is estimated as larger than it may actually be farther out, and smaller closer in, if the gravity per mass on the edge of the solar system is greater than closer in to the Sun. Also, the large elliptical orbit may be more indicative of comet like orbits, again a function of fluctuating gravity, greater farther out and lower closer in to the star. All this fits in nicely with the predictions per the Axiomatic Equation, if this is true. One more clue that gravity is a 'variable' constant in relation to where it is being measured as an inverse function of how far it is from the star.

By TedS. on Sunday, February 22, 2004 - 12:09 pm:

Bad Astronomy

Ever wondered about those weird rumors that NASA faked the first lunar

landing? Can't seem to manage to balance the egg on its end at the Equinox?

Scared that all the planets in the solar system are going to line up and tip

Earth onto its side? Ease your mind and amuse yourself at Dr. Phil Plait's

long-running site, dedicated to debunking astronomical misconceptions and

rumors in easy-to-understand terms.

By X-post on Monday, February 23, 2004 - 08:54 pm:

'Lunatik' Variable-constant Gravity?

Cross-post from Badastronomy board:

By Ivan A. on Wednesday, February 25, 2004 - 11:14 pm:

LOST IN SPACE, best evidence yet of non-Doppler light redshift.

Neutron Stars Shed Light on Black Holes

Note in these pix of neuron star and black hole how the light redshifts as it spirals into the very strong gravity there. Obviously not due to expanding universe Doppler redshift. This is the best evidence yet that gravity, especially strong gravity such as found in neutron stars, black holes at centers of spiral galaxies, and very likely in the deep of cold space, all produce light redshift. The distant cosmic light redshift we observe is one of these, the result of light having passed through the great gravity of deep space, as postulated by the Axiomatic Equation. This is damning evidence for all those who believe in an 'expanding' universe. "Big Bang is dead" - to paraphrase Nietzsche.


By Anonymous on Friday, March 5, 2004 - 08:57 pm:

Why Gravity needs Expanding Space...

It says: " ...Einstein postulated that inertial mass and gravitational mass were equal. In classic physics this was always observed to be true, but there was no reason why it had to be. If, however, the Universe was an expanding four dimensional sphere, the surface of which was reckoned in cubic units, and all massive bodies were on this surface, and the rate of expansion was accelerating, then the fabric of the continuum pushed against the massive bodies and since the massive bodies had inertia and resisted this outward acceleration, space is curved by the inertia of the massive body and the gravity well is created. The slope of the gravity wells were a function of the elasticity of space and the inertial mass of the bodies, hence, gravitational mass was a function of inertial mass.

"Note also that the same gravity wells could be produced if the bodies were rolling around on the inside of a declerating four dimensional "balloon" but their inertia would cause the gravity wells to point away from the center. The radius vector from the surface of the balloon to the center is the age of the Universe and a gravity well created by such a property would have its interior further away from the origin than the surrounded uncurved region. This would mean the interior of the gravity well would be in the "future" or that clocks in such a gravity well would be running faster, and that is clearly not the case in the real world. Therefore the expansion of the Universe must be accelerating in order for the interior of the gravity wells to be red-shifted, which means that time inside a gravitation field progresses more slowly than clocks not in a gravitational field."...

Sure, it's a mind bender, very few people get it, but we're not Einstein are we?

By Ivan A. on Saturday, March 6, 2004 - 09:10 am:


Dear Anon, thanks for the reference page above.

Well, it shore is a 'mind bender', the idea that space is curved, theoretically centered on the beginning of the age of the Universe? Working the expansion back 12-13 billion years gives us an original 'big shebang' starting it all? Hmmm... Isn't the most distant galaxy observed now about 13.23 billion light years away? What happened, has it expanded away from us by a billion light years since its formation?

So, if I understand it, which I really don't, then the expansion acceleration taking place now will eventually result in gravity too weak to hold it all together? Astronomical Doppler observations indicate this is so, that the universe is expanding, at an increasing rate. But if this is true, shouldn't we be seeing expansion on the outer limits of our observation much 'slower' than closer in? After all, if it's accelerating, then more distant light, i.e, older, should be what the 'early' universe was like, slower. Boy, this really bends it!

How about if we clean the slate and start over:

1. The Doppler lightshift of cosmic light is due to another cause, namely a theorized greater gravity in space, and not an indication of space expansion.

2. Gravity is a function of the spacevacuum, meaning it is everywhere all the time in a very strong form, and manifests materially as an attractive force in mass, in inverse proportion to the countervailing electromagnetic energy affecting this mass; so that gravity is either great or small as a function of space and mass relative to the star energy output there. Therefore, gravity is a weak field around hot stars, a strong field around cold stars, and total in black holes where all light is canceled.

3. Space is in equilibrium, not expanding nor contracting. Imagine if all the gravity 'wells' are taken together throughout the universe, ad infinitum, then their effect on each other cancels out so that what is pulling from this direction is being counterpulled from the opposite direction, etc., so the net result is null.

4. So to make curved space-time work, Einstein had to limit 'infinity' into a big bang origin. Is this not the finest fiction? If the universe has no center, then where did the big bang originate? And if there is no evidence of such a point in space originating it, then how can we be expected to believe that all points in space are its center? Did an original singularity magically appear in every point in space? How? Gravity is an effect of the spacevacuum inertial energy on mass, period. The rest is a fine madness.

5. The mathematical fiction spawned by Einstein's thinking is totally logical and self consistent. Merely, its only flaw is that it is totally wrong, and has no bearing on what the Universe is all about. There are no 'slopes of gravity' and no 'elasticity of space', but the inherent motion within space of all that is in it, in how this motion is a function of the interaction between electromagnetic waves acting upon the inertia of gravitational potentials. The fact that we cannot use these gravitational potentials as a source of kinetic energy merely shows how retarded we still are in our thinking.

6. Gravity needs rethinking. There is no curved space, no expansion of space elasticity, no gravity wells other than an improper illustration of the mathematical derivative of a universally constant force. However, gravity is not a universal constant, since it makes infinitely more sense to see it as a variable, where it is greater in space than here on Earth. Light Doppler shifts as it must pass through this greater gravity to reach us, giving us the illusion that space is expanding, only an observational misinterpretation. Infinity is not finite, nor curved. What happens when you get to the far edges of the visible universe is that there is more of the same, just we can't see it. The fact that space appears to be expanding away from us equally in all directions is but a function of that optical illusion, that the light reaching us had redshifted. We are not at any center of the universe, but merely another point in it. Change takes place within clusters of galaxies, and in toto to infinity, but not as an original blast out of nothingness. Infinity, and the age of the Universe, remain an unfathomable mystery, not to be solved by a neo-Creationist idea like the Big Bang.

7. There are only two forms of energy in the universe, spacevacuum gravity and the electromagnetic waves that modify it. All that is formed from these is the resulting mass and energy observed, which includes the sub-sets of Strong (gravitational) and Weak (beta decay) forces. Inertial mass is its gravitational mass function; so we will need to recalculate all mass of cosmic bodies at a distance, since what we had calculated with a universal gravity constant got it wrong. We must start redoing astrophysics there. At infinity, the Universe is in total Equilibrium, infinitely complex, and yet deceptively simple. It is logically and self consistently what it is. All else is merely observation. Isn't it time we focus on that instead and get it right? And we don't need to be Einstein to figure this out.


By Ivan A. on Tuesday, March 16, 2004 - 05:56 pm:


I've never found a truly satisfactory reason in all my readings why on the opposite side of the globe facing away from the moon or sun, are nearly the same as the tidal bulge facing them. The idea that the gravitational pull on the opposite side of the planet is canceled by the planet does not satisfy me. 'Push' gravity does not explain it either. So I would like to present an idea which I suspect is original, though another may have thought of it: the risen tide on the planet's opposite face away from the moon or sun is due to electrostatic charge.

As outlandish as this may appear at first blush, consider the following suggestions:

1. There is a magnetic field from pole to pole, if off axis, that permeates the globe. This magnetic field gives a negative charge value to the northern hemisphere and a counter positive charge to the southern hemisphere, with a more neutral reading around the equator, where the positive and negative meet.

2. Tides appear to be greater towards the poles and lesser near the equator, which cannot be accounted by for planetary spin, since that would yield the opposite effect. So another cause must be found, which leads to the idea that like charges repel, even in the planet's ocean mass.

3. If like charges for large water mass, such as the oceans, repel, then the waters on the northern hemisphere, as they rise in response to the moon's or sun's gravity, will create a bulge towards the gravitational attraction and one opposite to it. This bulge creates a large negatively charged mass which, being of like charge, will be repelled on the opposite side of the planet, so that there too the water will bulge outwards. So due to like charge repelling like charge, the opposite side of the planet's mass is now counter-bulging in response to the mass bulge on the side facing the moon or sun. On the equator, where the positive-negative charge more or less cancels, there is less tidal opposite face response, so that there is less bulge than where the electrostatic charge is greater. On the southern hemisphere, the positively charged water mass likewise creates its own opposite bulge, same as in the northern.

4. Why does the equatorial water not bulge as much as towards the poles? My best guess is that it is already bulging, because of the planet's spin, so that the additional gravitational pull of the moon or sun does not displace this water as much as in either hemisphere. The result is equatorial waters experience lower tides. I would expect, by this reasoning, that the waters near the artic or antartic circles should rise the most, and then taper off gradually towards the poles, or flatten out towards the equator. Of course, this basic principle is further modified by ocean currents and land mass interferences.

So by this reasoning, the tidal bulges on the opposite side of the planet are actually electrostatic phenomena, where like charge repels like charge, even in the ocean waters. The same would be expected in the land mass, though to a much lower degree. In effect, the planet is pulsating with a gravitationally activated bulge which then triggers a like response on the opposite side of the planet through like electrostatic force repulsion.

Pardon my ignorance, but I am not familiar with the above mentioned electrostatic theory of tides from any known sources, but would love to find out this it is not so. To my thinking, this much better explains why the tides create a like bulge on the opposite side of the planet, than any theory now found in existing textbooks. Blame it on the hot sun, but I got this idea while hiking up and down the rocky peaks near Pena Springs, Anza Borrego desert, last weekend, watching out for snakes and other prickly things. New barbs won't hurt me, so all challenges are welcome.


By X-Post on Wednesday, March 17, 2004 - 02:39 pm:

Cross posted by Coppernicus2 at the Space-Talk forums:

Per Alfnapper's reference above:


The average gravitational acceleration the Moon creates on something on Earth is

gm = G ´ Mm / Dem = 3.36E-05 N/Kg

To get the gravitational acceleration for something on Earth closest to the Moon and furthest from the Moon, we just need to replace the distance value of Dem by, respectively, this value minus the Earth’s radius and this value plus the Earth’s radius. The result is:

gm(closest) = 3.48E-05 N/Kg
gm(furthest) = 3.25E-05 N/Kg

So the Moon’s gravitational pull varies by 2.24E –6 N/Kg between when the Moon is directly over our heads and when it is on the other side of the Earth.

This is the part that puzzles me, that the delta "gm" between the closest and furthest surface on Earth pointing towards the Moon is not a positive-negative relationship, but merely a differential between two negative forces. By this logic, the bulge on the face towards the moon should bulge by a value of 3.48e-05 N/Kg, while the far side of the planet should be 'depressed' (not bulge) by 3.25e-05 N/Kg. This is not how the 3 point analogy (P1, P2, P3), mentioned by both Shambolic and Wintermute11, is understood to mean, rather than the far side bulging out, it should merely be pulled less... not the same thing. Though this is currently accepted theory, it does not hold water. I understand how the gravitational pull causes particles on the facing surface to gravitate outwards, and how this pull is lessened at the Earth's core, but I am not convinced the pull on the far side is so minimized as to cause water to bulge outwards again; it should merely "un-bulge" less.

Likewise per Shambolic's:


The moon will pull on P1 more than on P2, so they will separate. This is equivalent to the bulge facing the moon. But it will also pull on P2 more than on P3, causing those two particles to separate as well. If you consider P2 to be at the center of the earth, this explains the tidal bulge facing away from the moon.

the separations from P1 to P2 to P3 would not be enough to cause the far side to bulge outwards; rather, it should only translate into it bulging 'inwards' less. However, this is not what actually happens, since it bulges 'outwards', so this explanation, though mainstream, does not satisfy enough to be acceptable [i]prima facie[/i]. Yet, though I have not read upon relativistic explanations for the tidal bulge on the far side of the planet, I believe this is the hinge on which this gravitational theory pivots, that the lessened gravitational pull for P3 causes a bulge. I find this hard to swallow, however.

Of course, I truly hate going up against accepted theory (since I expect to get a lot of flack), but reason forces me to question it. This is why I suggested an alternative idea, where the electrostatic like-charge of the hemispheric ocean waters repel. Mind you, this is not a proven scientific theory, but merely a suggestion of how to look at it from another perspective. Coastal topography, land mass, ocean currents, ocean depths, all have their modifying affects, but the principle should be good [i]a priori[/i]. Shambolic rightly points out that the idea of a magnetic field causing charge imbalance in the ocean mass is not currently accepted theory. However, this could be easily tested in a lab with any spherical vessel of saline solution spinning in a bipolar magnetic field: the upper hemisphere should see its fluid separate from any fluid displacement on the opposite side of the sphere. So if you bulge out fluid on one side (the fluid being magnetically charged), the fluid on the opposite side should bulge away in like manner, which would cause it to bulge proportionally on both sides. Has this experiment been tried by anyone to disprove this proposal?

Like I said, this is only a suggestion. For the present, the "relaxed" bulge on the opposite face of the globe is what is generally acceptable. Not to knock your textbooks, just a questioning of the reasoning behind this currently accepted theory. The Coriolis effect, mentioned by tmorten, would influence oceanic currents in how the water mass is redistributed around the planet, but I don't think it can be used to explain the counter-face tidal bulge. I had lived both in Maine and the South China seas, and can personally vouch for tides on the New England coast being very high, while those near the Equator are comparatively negligible... but I could be wrong.

So in my opinion, the question as to why there is a tidal bulge opposite from the Lunar gravitational pull, or the Sun, remains unresolved. If so, then it boils down to: Is there a magnetic charge effect on a hemisphere's water mass, and is this water mass dual charge measurable? Has anyone bothered to look for it? I'd like to know that it is not so, otherwise the far sided bulge of the planet is better explained via electrostatic charge than the 3 point gravity effect.

(Rebutals to above was posted on Space-Talk Forums/Inner Planets at & )

THEORY TRASHED: Please note the above theory has for all practical purposes been discarded, since the 'centripetal-centrifugal' forces of gravity, especially at an angle declination of the moon's orbit, better explain the face and far side bulges of ocean tides. So consider the idea of 'electrostatic tidal forces' as merely a curiosity, but not meaningful otherwise. --IDA/Copper2
By Anonymous on Monday, March 29, 2004 - 11:40 am:

Coming soon, April 17, 2004, launch from Vandenberg Air Force Base in California:
Gravity Probe B: Delay in Space and Time.

By X-post on Sunday, April 4, 2004 - 07:08 pm:

Cross post from Space-Talk, Astrophysics:

Gravity vs. Big Bang Theory?


JoeC wrote:The Big Bang theory does in fact specifically "remove the problem". I believe that the observation that we appear to be at the center of the universe is pretty strong evidence that something interesting, like the Big Bang, is going on.

Excellent point! Thank you! And very good reference, especially the link to "Homogeneity and Isotropy", which shows distance D in terms of 'now' as opposed to its 'redshifted' v=HD adjusted value for D. Remember that lightspeed is a special case, v=c, which is invariable and the only true measure of events in space-time. Thus, to keep it simple, all observations within the 'bubble' of an event going back to the universe's beginning, say approximately 13 billion years, is visible for every observer to be identical, which is 13 billion light years in every direction. All observers will have this same perspective from where they are, giving us the illusion of being at the center of the event, with distance then adjusted for the Hubble Constant. This I believe is an observational fact, which is as good here on Earth as it would be in a galaxy 3 billion light years away, though we would see different patterns of stars. The question that remains with me, and which I cannot shake off easily, is why do we need a Big Bang to validate this observational fact? Would it not stand on its own even without an original date of the universe's creation? Let me illustrate:

If I were a pre-Cambrian protozoan say, 3 billion years ago, and with my supersmart fellow protozoa we built a space telescope and launched it to observe distant stars and galaxies: What would we see? If the universe is let's say only 13 billion years old, would our field of view only take us out to about 10 billion light years, since before that there would be nothingness? Is this true? Or would our super precocious protozoa be surprised to find that they could see beyond the 10 billion light years, and see out to about where the light fuzzes out, say 13 billion light years, with stars and galaxies there? I realize this is a mental exercise, but I use it to illustrate the possibility that regardless of Big Bang or not, the view out to 13 billion light years would still be the same, true whether seen today, or 3 billion years ago, or 13 billion years ago. In effect, we created a Big Bang origin to the universe to explain our other physics in terms of General Relativity, and then measured everything accordingly by that template of understanding using space-time diagrams and equations, further accommodated by Doppler redshift of distant cosmic light. Now, what if... and this is truly the crux of the matter... what if distant cosmic lightshift is NOT due to Doppler motion, and what if there was NO Big Bang, would our observational results change? No, they would not, and we would still see exactly the same thing. What would change, instead, would be our understanding as to why light appears to redshift over great cosmic distances in a very predictable and measurable way. That, I think, is the real issue.

The reason I have difficulty buying into the Big Bang, in my opinion of one, is that I think Hubble's discovery of distant light redshift that sort of launched this whole thing, supported by Einstein's merging General Relativity with Doppler redshift, spawned an idea that is truly unnecessary to understand what we are seeing. Take cosmic light redshift as a given fact, one that cannot be explained away so easily as to say the universe is expanding, and accept it as a function of what light does over great distances (not the tired light theory either), and find the reason why light acts this way, and you will be on your way to understanding the universe's physics without having to create a Big Bang. We should stay true to what we observe and not see it through the prism of a theory that is both ignorant of what is gravity, other than in some geometrical space-time distortion sort of way, and not give our observations the bias this ignorance is forcing us to accept. If we have a better understanding of what gravity does to light over great cosmic distances (remember 'dark matter'?), we will have a better handle on what it is we are seeing, and why it looks redshifted to us. Mind you, this is only an opinion of one, and I expect no support for it, nor can I do it greater justice for now.

So if the universe is not expanding, what have we got? When we look towards the nearest star Alpha Centauri, will it be there a hundred years from now, or a thousand years from now, on its normal course and not moved because of space expansion? I suspect it will not have deviated by one inch. Our records go back how many centuries of telescopic observations? Have we actually measured position changes for galaxies in that time? And why is it that this space expansion does not apply to the stars within galaxies? If the quasi-explosion (which as you pointed out is a bad description) of the Big Bang shows that for all observers, regardless of where they are in the universe, the universe will look the same.. do we really need it? Is this not a superfluous theory that confuses more than it solves? Instead of Big Bang, I propose we get a real handle on Gravity, for that is where the Real Physic of our universe lie.

So in the end, we will not need to bring physics back to some Big Bang singularity, that point of nowhere and nothingness which truly begs credibility, in order to find a unifying theory of energy and gravity. I suggest that when we have a better understanding of how these two major universal forces interact, we will have discovered that our observations of the universe will not need to factor in a Big Bang. What we will then see is what it is, and cosmic light redshift will be understood as a function of gravity in space. When we finally succeed in doing that, then we can move away from the counter-intuitiveness of modern physics into a more real physics instead. Is the universal expansion accelerating or slowing down, or is exactly flat? None of the above...

Well, Gentlemen and Ladies, I think I have exhausted all I can offer for now, such as it is, only an opinion of one. To go from philosophy, which is what this is, to science will require a stronger frame of intellectual reference than I can offer here.

Thanks you all for your attention and time.

By J____ on Monday, April 5, 2004 - 11:40 pm:


Gravity Probe B is on schedule. We received an update today, and all systems are go for April 17,2004.


By Ivan A. on Tuesday, April 6, 2004 - 01:46 pm:


Satellite to test Einstein theory (BBC News)

Yup, looks like we're on our way!


By Ivan A. on Tuesday, April 13, 2004 - 03:41 pm:


The more physics we understand, the more we should realize that we truly do not undersand gravity. Why is it we cannot use this force? We cannot generate it, nor shield it, nor apply it in any way other then letting it do what it does as a function of weight on our planet. The functions of electromagnetic energy is well understood and used in much of our technology, from the simple lightbulb to electric motors to batteries to electronics. Why is there no such equivalent for gravity?

Largely, it is because we do not understand it. Other than in some geometric descrition of it, both as in Newton Classical gravity equations and the more recent and elaborate Einstein General Relativity, gravity is something of an enigma to physicists. But should we not be focussing on that instead, the other side of the equation between electromagnetic energy and gravity? What experiments are being conducted to try to reproduce this gravity force, for example? Electro-gravity "lifters" is the only one I am aware of, and its technology is not usuable. The gravity-electric effect lasts only a few seconds before it dissipates, cannot work in a vacuum, and takes a very long time to regenerate it. Other experiments on gravity involve light bending around distant cosmic bodies. In effect, there really is not experimental stuff being done.

Out of curiosity I have begun a process of elimination regarding gravity and electro-magnetic energy, with virtually no measurable results, so will not bore the reader with details for now. I did discover in the process that two globular light bulbs floating in water will seek each other out and quickly bind. However, there is no reason to think this is anything more than water surface tension or molecular push, so they play tag. I have no reason to think it is gravity related. The key would be to find some way to recreated gravity within a container. The (axiomatic) equation worked out earlier, hf = hc/l = (m-g)c^2, would indicate that less electromagnetic energy means more gravity, and a total cancel of such means very powerful gravity, but this is only conjecture at present. So the search may need to be in this direction, to find ways to cancel electromagnetic-light-energy. It would seem that this is possible only in a vacuum, since the medium of air or water would immediately frustrate any lambda cancelations. Then again, perhaps this is way off.

So let's see what the universe looks like after Gravity Probe B sends back results. And keep looking for evidence of gravity being a variable in space, though there is evidence of that already: neutron stars and black holes. If we could re-generate what causes a black hole artificially, then we might be on our way to reinventing fire, but in its inverse, black energy, which I suspect will be gravity.


By Ivan A. on Thursday, April 15, 2004 - 06:53 pm:

A CURIOSITY IN G, and pi^2 and 'electric gravity'.

F = GMm/r^2, which is the force of gravity using Newton's constant G:

if g = F

then g = GMm/r^2, which

if r^2 = c^2, then

g = GMm /c^2, so that

gc^2 = GMm, however,

per the proton gravitational constant conversion to Newton's G,

gc^2 pi^2= G^2, therefore, gc^2 = G^2 /pi^2, so that (with gc^2 = GMm),

GMm = G^2/pi^2, which is also,

Mm = G /pi^2, so that

G = Mm * pi^2

Well, what do we make of that?... Nothing!

But it is curious... if r^2 = c^2, and if g = F, and conversely,

if gc^2 = GMm = G^2 /pi^2, then

g = GMm/c^2 = G^2 /c^2 * pi^2, so that

Mm /c^2 = G /c^2 * pi^2, which is the same as

Mm = G /pi^2, or

G = Mm * pi^2.

I can imagine how g = F, but have absolutely no clue how r^2 = c^2, unless we entertain 'strangeness'.

Now to get really strange:

if G = Mm * pi^2, then

G^2 = G * Mm * pi^2 , and (with gc^2 = G^2 /pi^2), we get

gc^2 = GMn * pi^2 /pi^2, or

g = GMn /c^2 ... if r^2 = c^2 .... but...

can there be a way to understand this in terms of the two proton F gravity and F electric force coupling?

We know from this coupling equation that F gravity is expressed as Nm^2, which is G,

whereas F electric, ke^2, is expressed in universal units as Nm^2/c^2, as per Gravity Force Coupling Constants reference at Hyperphysics:

so that what we are seeing in g = GMn /c^2 than the F gravity to F electric relationship, which happens to work out to be = ~8e-37, or taken with 1/137 electromagnetic coupling constant works out to ~5.9e-39, per reference above.

Remembering that the Axiomatic Equation is a function first of electric power, where E = Em * c, in Joules per second, which also translates into hf, Planck's constant times frequency, or hc/l for proton, and into mc^2, modified as (1-g)c^2, then it begins to make sense.

It then becomes not so strange that gravity is F = GMn /r^2, and
'electric gravity' is g = GMn /c^2.

Pi^2 is not strange at all.


By Ivan A. on Saturday, April 17, 2004 - 07:29 am:


This is a non-scientific experiment, in that I thought I saw something, but not sure. As mentioned above, April 6, 2004, I had begun a process of elimination in gravity and electromagnetic gravity force, which had yielded no results. However, over the past few days, I did have a result worth reporting. On the last day, the results were once more in doubt, so consider this information as a curiosity only, not final proof.

Experiment description: I took a standard GE 3" globe clear lightbulb and painted it with two coats of ACE aluminum paint, leaving the stem unpainted to allow ambient light to enter the bulb. I then attached to it a very thin 6 lbs. test fishing nylon string, centered it over the bulb's stem and attached to it a metal weight. I then filled a plastic water bucket high enough to have the bulb floating upright. I then placed this bucket of water with the bulb floating in it on the west side of my glass enclosed patio, to keep it out of any air motion, and observed it for a period of a week.

Experiment results: Nothing much happened, nor did I expect much, but thought to leave it such for a few days, and observe it periodically. Because the painting process left a small bubble near the top from when it was hanging upside down to dry, I had a natural directional reference point on the bulb, about a centimeter off center. So I knew if the bulb changed position. Initially there seemed to be no change in its position, until late afternoon when the sun showed from the west side where I had placed the bucket. I then noticed, for several days in succession, that when the light hit the bulb, the reference point moved to the left and stayed there. This is a very minimal effect, but it was consistent. As the sun set, the reference point moved back towards the right again and stayed there. The difference between point positions left and right was perhaps no more than five degrees, but it was consistent enough to notice. This is a very crude experiment, so really did not expect anything, only to eliminate another possibility. But the result yielded something worth noticing.

Possible implications of results: The experiment was to test the Axiomatic Equation's theory, that if all electromagnetic wavelength cancel, there will result a strong gravitational force. Being so crude, with the only resemblance to an ideal experiment in space with a total vacuum, the lightbulb may in fact not have sufficient vacuum, and the aluminum paint being porous let light through, it really pushed on any results at all. Ideally, this paint should be inside the bulb, but I have no way of doing this. Also, the vacuum should approximate space vacuum of about one hydrogen atom per cubic centimeter. Nevertheless, crude that it was, perhaps off round and with reflective paint on the outside, some noticeable result occurred. What it seems to be doing is as sunlight hit it, and it appears more pronounced near sunset, the bulb slowly twisted counterclockwise, held by its nylon tether. It very little vacillated in that position. When the sun is set, the bulb returns somewhat to its original position a few degrees clockwise, eventually, and stays there. There does not appear to be other factors visible, such as water moving in the bucket, nor should there be any temperature effect on the nylon line holding the bulb upright while it floats. There may be air currents responsible for this motion, though the motion is consistent. So the tendency towards motion seems entirely internal from within the bulb, which may mean, tentatively, that crude and imperfect as it is, we may be witnessing the first tiny sparks of gravity being created within the vacuum of the bulb. The result of this extremely weak gravity effect is a very slight counterclockwise spin.

Comments: I expected that if there were to be any evidence of this gravity effect, it would show up as counterclockwise, since that is how the northern hemisphere spins, same as water goes down the drain. This same experiment in the southern hemisphere should yield an opposite effect, where it twists clockwise. Theoretically, the force that should make this work is actually not sunlight per se but an electric force within the bulb. Sunlight is used here only as a convenience, since the sun puts out energy in a wide range of wavelengths, including an electric force, as witnessed in the northern latitudes Aurora lights. The goal was to use whatever solar energy bands of light were produced and have them trapped inside the globe so they would bounce around inside, but at the same time some of them would cancel out inside as they did this. A pure version of this experiment would have electrons and electromagnetic energy released from within a vacuum spherical bulb, which would be totally reflective from within and perfectly spherical, so that all these energy wavelengths would cancel out at a central point. However, I am ill equipped to carry out this experiment. The total budget for my crude gravity experiment was under $2.50 US, since my local water department gave me the bucket for free. There is no price, however, on curiosity and persistence.

Meaning of experiment? It is still too early to say if this experiment is meaningful or not, as there may be a wide margin of error in such small results. There may be other factors that had twisted the bulb counterclockwise, which the author does not know of. For example, an electric buildup within the bulb may discharge through the filament and out the stem into the water. But if more sophisticated experiments yield better results, then we may have just seen the first sparks of a new kind of fire that will power future engines, something I would call the "Axiomatic Drive", in honor of the Axiomatic equation that led to its prediction. But it will be a long road from a few sparks to a blazing flame of usable gravity power, if it were so.

Net net: The motion registered earlier was negated two days later when it spun as much clockwise as counterclockwise during the same period, which may mean it is due to random air currents than any gravity effect within the bulb. Therefore, the results must be either inconclusive or failed.


By Lunatik on Monday, April 19, 2004 - 10:17 am:

Too crazy even for a Lunatik, may yet prove true in the end.


Some things would fall in rather nicely in place if gravity were much greater, in terms of G, in interstellar and greater still in intergalactic space than here on Earth, in the vicinity of a hot star.... snip

dakini wrote:
but why woudl G be higher in an interstellar medium than ousidte of one? i can't recall how G was calculated in the first place... i'd have to look that up, but in order to suspect that it's higher where there is nothing then there would have to be some reason for that.
also, neutron stars do form naturally... they're the end stage of a star that is greater than 8 solar masses and less than 25. it's as natural a formation as our sun or a black hole...

Thanks for responding to a 'Bad Newbie' post, though I truly think of myself as a bad 'sub-Nubie'. My earlier is a conceptual deviation from how gravity is understood at present, thus results for lightshift or gravitational behavior at a distance get affected. Let's see if I can make some sense of it.

The Newton's G I was referring to is the constant in F = GMm/r^2, not the gravitational force itself. This G, if I understand it, is actually a number that works out from gravitational measurements, so is a constant only, which is then used for gravitational attraction between M and m, per the inverse square law. But this is not what I referred to. My point was that the G portion of the equation may itself be a variable, rather than a constant. I realize that measurements within the solar system seem to support a constant G, but as I said earlier, this is largely due to the fact that we estimate the mass of distant bodies using the orbital equation, GMm/r^2 = mv^2/r, which simplifies into r*v^2 = GM.

The point was that there may be some reason where G is not the same for every condition. Space itself may be subject to a greater G than on Earth and its immediate vicinity. This does not mean space has gravity, only that any mass that finds itself out there in the cold of intergalactic space, such as space dust, would exhibit properties as if G were greater than here. Another way to think of it is that mass in deep space has a greater inertia than here, so it would take more work to move it. This would also imply that any mass traveling out there would take on more inertia mass, and thus if its momentum were constant, its velocity would slow, and vice versa. Of course, light passing through that region of greater G would also be subject to a kind of slowing down due to the greater gravity out there, but since light is always c, it would redshift instead. The natural tendency here would be think of it in terms of hot star environment, more e.m. energy, is less G; whereas cold, less e.m. energy means more G, so they would be somehow inversely proportional. Do you see how different this is conceptually from F = GMm/r^2?

Neutron stars are now believed to be collapsed stars, of 8 plus solar masses, while black holes are believed to be very massive collapsed stars, 25 solar masses or more. This diversionary concept, think of it as only entertainment for now to amuse your mind, says that if a star cannot produce enough energy, it lives with a very heavy G, like a neutron star; and to create a black hole, all you need to do is eliminate all e.m. energy, and you got it! That's why black holes have to live in the center of the galaxy, where all lambda cancel... never mind the vibrator for now. It is possible that collapsed stars when they are spent will become 'cool' stars, such as neutron stars. I have my doubts about black holes, however, unless they started out as very big G neutron stars and kept attracting more stars around it to create a very large halo of convergent light, in effect, a galaxy.

Caveats, read these as the ravings of a Lunatik, do not use any of this in school, or to get research funding. Sorry for my politically incorrect gaf earlier, but I work in finance, so am more acutely aware of where funding goes.
By Ivan A. on Sunday, May 16, 2004 - 03:33 am:


While flying back from the East Coast, looking out over the wing, I had a strange thought: What if our understanding of why the wing has lift is only partially right?

Because gravity is a virtually total mystery to us, we rarely think in terms of gravity having an affect on mass, except as a condition of mass exhibiting gravitational acceleration in the familiar inverse square law manner. What we presently understand about aerodynamic lift is that the air rushing over the leading edge of the wing, because of how it is curved, will create a partial vacuum over the wing's upper surface; this vacuum is filled by the pressure of air from underneath the wing, as per nature abhors a vacuum. This is correct, but it may be overlooking another reason, that the vacuum generated by the air molecules bounced off the wing's leading edge and forced over it, thus creating a vacuum, is actually why the mass beneath this vacuum is drawn upwards towards it. To see it this way would necessitate a new way of seeing gravity, that it is the result of the space vacuum when there is less energy there than in the molecules surrounding it. If it is seen this way, then the wing must rise into the vacuum, not because of the surrounding air pressure forcing it to fill the vacuum, but because the natural gravity created within this vacuum draws the mass towards it.

This is a most unorthodox way of looking at this, but staring blankly into space will sometimes generate such ideas. What this alternative way of seeing aerodynamic lift means is that mass is naturally drawn towards any condition where the vacuum has increased gravity in it. One would expect then that to increase this lift, the wing should be more massive, but this overlooks the fact that this event is taking place on a planet which already has gravity, and that this gravity pulls in the opposite direction of the lift. So the end result is that the wing should be as light as possible, while durable enough to withstand the stress of flight. However, were this same event to take place in deep space, say a wing flying through a massive cloud of molecules, then greater mass would indeed create greater lift, if the same vacuum conditions are generated by the wing's leading edge. In effect, this could very well be an example of how we already use gravity without being aware of doing so. It would be interesting to look for other conditions where something similar takes place, perhaps in lighter than air crafts, but I have no insight into this at present.

Just a random thought, on a transcendent idea of gravity, and thought to share it here.


By Ivan A. on Sunday, May 23, 2004 - 04:19 pm:


For months I've been thinking as to why does light travel in a straight line. Why doesn't it travel in some curved fashion, for example? This led me to think of some interesting things.

Bearing in mind that all light is emitted by bodies emanating electromagnetic waves, and that all of space is made up of a gravity rich space-vacuum by the nature of this vacuum, then it stands to reason that the electromagnetic waves emitted travel from their source to the gravity nature of space. This means that these waves, as they begin their journey, are automatically connected to some distant point in space at infinity, at all points of infinity of the gravity nature of space, instantly, though this journey will take time to get there at light's velocity in space, i.e., ~3e8 m/s. Therefore, all light will radiate equally in all directions as these waves, which are concentrically radial in nature, until it is either deflected by objects or from the effect of encountering some other force that will bend it. It is this other force bending light that is special interest here.

If space is gravity rich, meaning that in the absence of strong electromagnetic energy the natural gravity of deep space is once again dominant, then there should be some evidence of that gravity affecting the travel path of light. We know that light bends around massive stars and other massive cosmic bodies, such as large planets, due to their gravity influence. Gravity bends light, as successfully demonstrated by Einstein. However, we never looked for evidence of light bending around so-called dark objects, such as gravity rich clouds of dust in the deep of space between stars and galaxies. If we can find such evidence, that light is bent by these massive clouds, then it can give us one more piece of evidence we need to understand how much gravity deep space actually has. The reason for this is that for gravity to become evident, it needs matter to manifest, or else it remains merely a potential force in the space background; once matter is present, then the amount of gravity there will show up, such as the gravity around our local star, which is very weak due to the Sun being a hot star, or the gravity around a neutron star, where there gravity is very strong because it radiates energy weakly. We have measured cosmic microwave background radiation to be about 3 degrees Celsius above absolute zero, so we know that space is never totally energy free, so the gravity of deep space will not be as absolute as that found in the center of a galactic black hole, for example, but it will be very strong nevertheless. If so, then all matter distributed throughout cosmic space, especially where it is clumped in non-ignited clouds, meaning they do not radiate electromagnetic energy, should exhibit some light bending capability. And if this is found, then depending upon the amount of bending these clouds exhibit would then give us a way to measure how much gravity is present there.

So light by its nature will travel a straight line to all points of infinity, since those points of infinity are the space-vacuum gravity; that space infinity is then punctuated by bodies of matter, which will deflect light gravitationally; gravity will both redshift and bend light as it travels on its otherwise straight path. To find a way to measure how this light is bent is then the key to understanding how much gravity is present in cosmic space. I would think this would be a very worthwhile enterprise, since in solving this puzzle, we may actually realize that the so-called dark matter is no more than the greater gravity affecting all mass present there; and conversely the natural redshift of light as it passes these greater gravity regions would indicate that there is no Doppler shift for the universe as a whole, but only where motion is registered for individual bodies. The conclusion would then automatically fall into the category that the universe is gravitationally in balance, there is no expansion, and of course, no Big Bang origin either. Should this prove so, that light can be used as a way to measure distant gravity by how it is bent, astrophysical phenomena may become more understandable than they are today. If so, then we can also estimate the gravity potential of space at 3 degrees Celsius, which is the gravitational potential of intergalactic deep space.*

Gravitational bending of light, see: #Baryshev_Gubanov_Raikov

* Please see March 15, 2003, Atomus Summus-2, for a possible value of gravity in space calculated from the microwave background: CMB = 8.5x10-3 m, which leads to a very high value of G, nearly that of black hole, though this is not confirmed observationally.


By Ivan A. on Tuesday, June 1, 2004 - 10:31 pm:


The Unified Theory of Gravity and Energy, the Axiomatic Equation, says:

Em * c = hc/l(mproton) = (m - g)c^2 = (Bm)c^2 = mc^2 - (G^2*m/pi^2) = E

where E = ~90 petajoules.

By taking E = Energy, and
mproton = proton mass =~1.67e-27 kg
h = Planck's constant = 6.626e-34 m^^-1
Em = electric force
Bm = magnetic moment
l = e.m. lambda = ~1.32e-15 meters (for our Solar region)
m = kg/kg = 1 mass
c = lightspeed = ~3e8 m/s
g = proton to proton gravitational constant
G^2 = Newton's G squared

and if the conversion from the gravitational proton constant g into Newton's G is:

G^2 * m^2 = (g*m)(c^2)(pi^2), so that

G^2*m = gc^2 pi^2, then if m = kg/kg = 1, then

g = G^2*m/c^2 pi^2 , where

G = ~6.67e-11 Nm^2
g = ~5e-39, dimensionless, with kg implied,

which by substituting g, converts the Axiomatic above into G as follows:

(m - g)c^2 = (m - G^2*m /c^2 pi^2)c^2 = E, which is

mc^2 - G^2*m/pi^2 = E
E + G^2*m/pi^2 = mc^2
G^2*m/pi^2 = mc^2 - E
G^2*m = (mc^2)pi^2 - E*pi^2, and using the above Axiomatic we get:

G^2*m = (mc^2)pi^2 -[hc/l(mproton)]pi^2 = (mc^2)pi^2 - [Em*c]pi^2 = (mc^2)pi^2 -(Bm)c^2 * pi^2 = (mc^2)pi^2 - E*pi^2

taking the square root for G, where m = kg/kg = 1:

G * m = (G^2 * m)^1/2 = (mc^2)^1/2*pi - [hc/l(mproton)]^1/2*pi = (mc^2)^1/2*pi - (Em*c)^1/2*pi = (mc^2)^1/2*pi - E^1/2*pi = ...

which is the G in the F = Gm/r^2 equivalent of E.

* * *

This above greatly simplifies configuring G in any region of Em or l, since these then become inversely proportional to the electromagnetic energy intensity in any given region of space, so that G is a variable-constant, very weak near a hot star, and very great if far from stellar energy in the deep cold of intergalactic space. It also implies that in a black hole, where all lambda is canceled, G^2 = c^2, so that all light c is canceled by G.

If this is so, there is no need to think of black holes to be collapsed heavy stars, since they may be no more than where all ambient light from around the galaxy cancel on the axis, with resulting maximum gravity where all light is absorbed and broken down into its positive and negative charge. The negative is absorbed or canceled by the black hole, while the positive is pushed out the axis as very high speed positive ions. The great gravity G of the black hole is thus counterbalanced by the mass and angular momentum of the surrounding galaxy, while the positive ions re-seed space with proto-hydrogen atoms, what may become future matter of stars as it re-condenses in the very great gravity of deep space. The so-called 'dark matter' may in effect be no more than this very great gravity of deep space, and so-called 'dark energy' may be the positive charged repulsive effect of galaxies. However, this last may be in doubt, since space may not be expanding if the cosmic light redshift is due to the intense gravity of deep space regions, in which case the universe becomes infinite and in equilibrium.

Ivan D. Alexander

By Ivan A. on Thursday, June 3, 2004 - 12:54 am:


Can there be a 'cut-off' frequency of light for gravity? This question occurred to me when I was considering using Em =1 as a way to figure momentum p:

If we take m = 1, so that (m-g) = (1-g), and Em = 1, then per the Axiomatic:

Em * c = (1-g)c^2 = E, we get:

1 * c = (1-g)c^2 = E, which dividing it all by c:

1 = mc = E/c. = p

Now, if we take mass (m-g), where m = 1, in some approximation of 1/c, it becomes:

(1-g) = ~1/c, per the Axiomatic:

E = hc/l(mp) = (1-g)c^2, substituting (1-g) = 1/c, we get:

E = (1/c)c^2 = hc/l(mp) = 3e8 Joules , so that now we can solve for l:

3e8 m^^-2 = [(6.626e-34 m^^-1)(3e8 m.s-1)] / (l)(1.67e-27 kg/kg)

where l = 3.97e-7 meters, when mass is (m-g) = 1/c.

This value for lambda = 3.97e-7 meters, is also 397 nm, or 0.397 microns, or taken as hf =~3 eV as Quantum energy. In Hertz, it equals nearly 7.5^14 Hz, or visible light near orange. If our star could no longer put out light in this range or above (which for our star computes out per the Axiomatic as l = 1.3e-15 meters, or 10^23 Hz, above Gamma rays), our gravity would be very great, and our Sun would likely become a so-called neutron star.

This may be the 'cut-off' lambda where light energy no longer modifies the space-vacuum energy, so that greater gravity results, the kind expected in deep intergalactic space. However, we cannot know this at present. Though this may be one possible explanation for the existence of so-called 'dark matter', which is how all atoms and molecules in that deep space are affected by the very great gravity there, we will not know until we can get there.

How would this fit into the
Photoelectric Effect, for example? If the cut-off gravity energy is at l = 397 nm, which is on the border of the visible light spectrum, orange, in visible light, why does light of lower frequency than visible light, of longer than 700 nm, cease to eject electrons in a metal? Or is this only peculiar to our low inertia region, and it would take a much higher freqency to eject electrons in the high inertial regions of deep space? Perhaps there it will require 400 nm to have the same photoelectric cut-off effect? ... Don't know... something to ponder... If so, then deep space may be a very strange place indeed.

* * *
Further search revealed that the cut-off lambda for light in the photoelectric effect is approximately l = 0.6e-6 meters, which works out to be frequency of 0.5e15 cycles/second, Hertz, which is the range of orange light (see entry: 2-22-02). If so, then the universe is 'orange', since that is where it begins to affect both electrons and gravity. In fact, the two may be related, since below that frequency, gravity is dominant even at the electron level. That level is where Em = 1 in the Axiomatic Equation. (edited 6-21-04)


[edited again - 11/1/04]

By Ivan A. on Monday, June 14, 2004 - 07:35 pm:


The Cassini spacecraft made a close pass Friday of
Saturn's moon Phoebe, that mysterious little moon in retrograde around the gas giant. It reveals a mysterious multi-layered planet of probably ice and rock. The question will be comparing its composition to its orbital characteristics, which should determine mass. As the BBC Science article says:


"By determining the mass and volume of the 220 km-wide Saturnian satellite, its density can also be determined, telling the researchers whether the body is predominantly rocky or icy.

I would place my bet on it appearing more 'rocky', though it is made of mostly water ice, only appearing to be more dense due to its orbital characteristics. This will be a puzzle, since it should not be if the pictures are right, that is mostly ice. They will probably speculate the inner core of this small body is heavy, to account for greater mass density needed to fit orbital behavior. However, this would be due to our using a constant G in Newton's orbital equation, rather than a greater G. What will not be understood is that, per the prediction of a new Axiomatic physics, the gravity region around Saturn, because of its distance from the Sun, is greater than here, hence the same volume of matter will exhibit greater gravity.

Note also this little moon has spin, about a third of an Earth day, as well as landslides inside its craters, or boulders clinging to it, which could be indicative of the greater gravity than such a small body should exhibit. There is more on Phoebe on Nasa's page: Phoebe's Surface, also at Phoebe

I suspect the same can be said of the asteroid belt in general, that it already is on the cusp of greater gravity than for the inner planets. Matter this close into the Sun, where the power output of the star is very great and gravity very weak, could not form into the asteroids. We do have a few errant ones, but they've been captured from their original orbits. If gravity has some intensity relationship in inverse proportion to star energy output, or power, then the further out from the star, the greater the gravity intensity per volume of matter. The asteroid belt may represent the first step towards a greater gravity intensity, before we get into the gas giant area, which lasts until the Kuiper belt. It means there was sufficient gravity there to clump the loose matter into asteroid bodies, which are largely absent further in, though not enough material to form a planet. Hence, they remained loose asteroids instead. There may be some harmonic proportion to how light downshifts over these great distances, so that the asteroid belt represents the first downshift, with the next past Kuiper into the Pluto region of space, where gravity should be much greater, and greater still towards the Oort Cloud past Sedna.

Of course, we will know soon, whether this prove true. And if so, then the Axiomatic equation should serve, and watch physics be rewritten from the ground up. But I really do not know, so this is merely speculative for now.

By Ivan A. on Thursday, June 24, 2004 - 06:37 pm:


Is the Saturnian moon Phoebe revealing a clue on the gravity of that solar region?

In the article
"Spaceprobe reveals mystery moon's secrets" there is a statement that makes one pause:

"And a precise determination of Phoebe's density shows that it must be a mix of rock and ice. The density of 1.6 grams per cubic centimetre is too low to be rock, but too high for pure ice."
(italics mine)
This is revealing, because if the gravity in Saturn's region of the gas giants is a greater Newtonian G than here on Earth in the rocky planets region, then the moon's density should be greater than ice, even if it were all ice. As mentioned in the post above, June 14, 2004, the further we are from the energy output of our local star, the greater is the gravity density for matter. Phoebe's diameter is slightly smaller than the estimated 220 km, and is now registered as 214 km. In my above I said:


I would place my bet on it appearing more 'rocky' (than ice), though it is made of mostly water ice, only appearing to be more dense due to its orbital characteristics.

This is what I was referring to, that because of Phoebe's gravitational characteristics, as determined by using the Newton orbital equation, the moon's mass should be greater than can be accounted for if only ice. Therefore, rock must be 'added' to its composition in order for the equation to balance, or else the mass would be too light. However, we only estimated mass of distant bodies using a constant G, so this may be the first clue where that estimate is wrong, if G is greater there than here.

Question: Why do we not see this gravity variable for our spaceprobes sent to Jupiter, Saturn, and beyond? Likewise, why do we not detect orbital anomalies for distant comets, when they enter the regions of the gas giants where their gravity should increase, per the Axiomatic Equation?

Answer: We do not notice the variation because the spaceprobes are too small, so their orbital characteristics are entirely dominated by the massive planets or moons they orbit. Other than perhaps a slightly higher spin when they enter those regions, we would not know they exhibit more gravity per mass density. Also, the comets are not easily tracked once they are very far from us, because they are relatively small. If we could track them more accurately, we should notice that when they take on more inertial mass, more gravity per mass density, their velocity should slow and their spin increase, though these had not yet been detected. Because a comet's orbit is highly elliptical, we assume that what is happening here around Earth's gravity region will be the same farther out, but this may be an error. We would know it is an error if the time it takes to complete its orbit out by the Kuiper belt is longer than predicted, though as they reapproach the inner solar system, this evidence would be once again erased. The only other clue would be ejecta from the comets as their gravitic inertial mass decompresses, and they send out jet of inner materials. However, this is not currently explained except to say the sun warms their insides.

Happy astro-hunting!

By Ivan A. on Thursday, July 1, 2004 - 09:00 pm:

Cassini is giving us another hint that it's "gravitational mass" has increased.

In the BBC Science News article:
Cassini returns images of rings, there is a paragraph which is very important. It says:


"Our current orbital period is estimated to be about 116.3 days... We were targeting for 117.4 - so we're right there."

But are we "right there"? One day's difference does not ruin a seven year long mission, to last another four years, but it does point to where the calculations, knowing Cassini's mass and its orbital position gets thrown off, if only by a day. Can this be indicative of Cassini's mass having increased, gravitationally speaking, so that it is "accelerated" by that increase towards Saturn, and hence orbits faster? This is another question of whether the Newton's G is the same on Saturn as here, or is it marginally greater? Can this be another mini-Pioneer effect, where those distant spacecrafts are "accelerated" towards the Sun?

Will keep looking for clues, Ivan
By Ivan A. on Thursday, October 7, 2004 - 08:55 pm:

For more on the Callais Effect discussion on the Bad Astronomy board:

Allais effect casts doubt on GR?

Nice discussions there, nice folks too.

By Ivan A. on Saturday, October 23, 2004 - 05:52 pm:

THE G 'CONSTANT' PER AU DISTANCES, and the Pioneers Anomaly.

I calculated that Newton's G 'constant', so called, grows linearly with distance, as per the posts on "Does Gravity Zero-point Energy Explain Spin?", Oct. 4, 2004. In fact, it seems to grow linearly at the rate of about 7.3e-11 Nm^2kg^-2 for each AU (astronomical unit = ~150e9 meters), so that by the time it is at Saturn, for example, a distance of 9.5 AUs, it is already up to 68.5e-11 Nm^2kg^-2, slightly more than 10 times Earth's 6.67e-11.

Now watch what happens when you figure this out in meters rather than AUs. If one AU is approximately 150e6 km, or 150e9 meters, then dividing the growth rate of 7.3e-11/AU equals:

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

Here is where it gets interesting, though I cannot swear this is right. Take that growth value of G per meter and divide it by the G 'constant', which is:

4.8667e-22/ 6.67e-11 = 0.7297e-11 m.s^-2, which is also = ~7.3e-10 m/s^2, or in centimeters it becomes: G/G = ~7.3e-8 cm.s^-2. (It should be G/G = ~7.3e-10 cm/s^2. See ERRATUM below, Oct. 31, 2004)

Why is this last interesting? Because it comes in within range of what was discovered by the people measuring the Pioneers's rate of acceleration (Anderson, Nieto, et al, at LANL) towards the Sun = ~8e-8 cm.s^-2.

I don't know why these numbers work out the way they do, but that's the way it looks. Remember that we had always expected Newton's G constant to be a universal constant, so dividing the growth rate per the 'universal' constant yields the rate of our distant space crafts's acceleration towards the Sun. They're slowing down by the rate of ~8e-8 cm/s^2, it seems, because of increasing G. So we do not need to find an explanation as per the crafts's radiated heat, or lower solar wind, or some other reason intrinsic to the craft, etc. It's slowing down because it's taking on more G, more inertial mass, as it progresses deeper into the outer solar system. I would venture to guess that its large elliptic trajectory will eventually settle into a distant orbit around the Sun, if this is so, perhaps out in the Oort Cloud region.

But if so, what's G at the Oort Cloud, or beyond? If it's linear, shouldn't we be able to calculate it, at least an approximation?

Question: Why is Earth's G 6.67e-11 if G grows at the rate of ~7.3e-11 per AU? It obviously is either wrong, or something else is at work here, since Earth by definition is one AU from the Sun. I suspect Spin. If the planet did not spin, it would have G = 7.3e-11 Nm^2gk^-2, but because it does spin, what we measure is slighly less.

Ivan D. Alexander

[edited - 10/27/2004. As my math teacher used to say: "How'd you get the right answer by the wrong method?" I think it's right now. -IA]

I think I'll quit it here until we know more... If this is right, then the Pioneers anomaly is proving the Axiomatic Equation is right. But I've got a headache. Basta!
By Ivan A. on Sunday, October 31, 2004 - 07:54 pm:

ERRATUM: Correction for Pioneers' acceleration towards the Sun, per above post of Oct. 23, 2004, as derived from Axiomatic Equation.

I ran a test of my calculated for Pioneers slowing, and the correct result is a = 7.3e-10 cm/s^2 (vs. my original a = 7.3e-8 cm/s^2, versus LANL's 8e-8 cm/s^2), by calculating backwards from acceleration to Newton's G 'constant'. (I got caught on the inverse powers on the last, where "0.7297e-11 m.s^-2, which is also = ~7.3e-10 m/s^2", which should be: 0.7287e-11 m.s^-2 converts to 7.297e-12 m.s^-2, same as ~7.3e-10 cm.s^-2). Not fatal, but it does change it by 100 fold less than what is being measured.

How can this be? I suspect there are other factors, since mine is closer to a real value than LANL's. For example, running their numbers backwards, I come up with gravity growing at the rate of ~8.9e-9 per AU (*), which we know is automatically wrong, since Earth is at one AU, and its gravity 'constant' G = 6.67e-11 Nm^^-2. So by definition, since we are located at one AU, LANL's acceleration is too high. However, there may be many factors why this is so, why the probes are slowing faster than they should. To list a few possibles:

1. Space dirt, dust collisions in 'empty' space.
2. Heat released from the front of the craft may create 'push', ala Crook's black faceted radiometer, for example, where the molecules of 'empty' space collide with the craft in the same way the blades spin in a toy radiometer. In the deep cold of the outer solar system, heat may be a bigger effect than in the warmer regions closer in to the Sun.
3. Redshift related: Possible that Planck's constant h may increase with light redshift at greater distances (may be too small to matter at Pluto's distance), so that as light wavelength increases due to redshift, so does h as computed there. This would influence the rate of growth of G by increasing it (per Axiomatic). However, since G growth plots on a straight line (which I value) when computed from (parabolic) orbital Energy, I shy away from this explanation, unless we have other reasons to think so.
4. Gas released from the probes onboard equipment, as theorized by Louis K. Scheffer (25 Feb. 2003), and others, to explain Pioneers anomalous behavior. These had been discounted by the LANL group.
5. Calculations either based on the Axiomatic, or by the LANL group, are intrinsically wrong.

So my above error, once corrected, shows a one hundred fold lower for the Axiomatic versus a greater acceleration computed by LANL, which in itself may not be correct: if you run the numbers backwards to calculated Earth's G, LANL's G = 8e-9 Nm^^-2 (*), is a hundred times greater than it should be. I suspect the other factors, especially space dust and heat related slowing, may be more at fault for the divergent readings, if Earth's G is growing at the rate of ~7.3e-11 Nm^^-2 per AU, hence why the probes are slowing faster than accounted for gravity's growing G alone.


*(a = 8e-8 cm/s^2 = 8e-10 m/s^2. If multiplied by constant G x 6.67e-11 Nm^2/kg^2 = 53.36e-21 = 5.336e-20 per meter, which multiplied by meters in AU, 5.336e-20 x 150e9 meters = 800e-11 per AU = 8.0e-9 Nm^2/kg^2 per AU. Too high!)

By Ivan A. on Sunday, October 31, 2004 - 09:25 pm:

TOIVO JAAKKOLA's 'Push' Gravity reexamined.

Spending three days in the desert on retreat is a great time to read and reflect. I reread Jaakkola's paper titled: "Action-at-a-Distance and Local Action in Gravitation" and was most fascinated with how he was able to develop a theory of gravitation outside Newton's and Einstein's ideas, coming very close to working out the electromagnetic interaction of 'inflowing' gravity as moderated by electromagnetic energy. However, he then took off on 'gravitons', which I believe are unnecessary for gravity to work, and then really got waylaid with 'push' gravity. I found this regrettable, because up to page 63, where he mentions Weber's law in gravitational F, he is still on track. The multiplied (1-....) function to the right of F=GMm/r^2 seems to run parallel to my, m = 1-g format, though his long equation is merely a modifier of mass, so that g (proton to proton gravitational coupling constant) is never mentioned. However, he abandons this line of reasoning in order to discuss push gravity, so the potential for a true electromagnetic to gravity relationship got lost. He does however come to the conclusion by page 71 that Newton's G is a variable, so all is not lost. I wish he had pursued his original further, because I think he would have found the inradiating force of gravity as it is modified by electromagnetic energy, without the need for gravitons, which would have shown the inverse relationship, per the Axiomatic Equation, of the two. Gravity is nothing more than infolding space, not so far removed from Einstein's general relativity, except that there is no need to think of it in 'space-time' manner, and rather think of it as an equilibrium based infolding of the space vacuum at any point, which is relieved by capturing c^2 to give us a complete atom... except the atom is not totally complete, so there is a small gravitational force remainder. That atomic gravitational remainder up against the remainder of another atom has them infalling towards each other, or in the aggregate of all the molecules of any macro body, has them become attractive to each other. There is no need for 'push' gravity at all. I think this push idea of gravity can be taken euphemistically, but it is not what actually happens. Furthermore, how does it work inside any large body? What is push gravity at the Earth's center, for example? But Toivo was very clear on GR and on the Big Bang, neither one works. Amen!

This was published in Memoriam for Toivo Jaakkola (11 March 1941 - 24 May 1995). He died too young, and I wish he were here to pursue this very fine line of reasoning further, alas.

Ivan A.
By X-post on Friday, November 19, 2004 - 01:36 pm:

GRAVITY VARIABLE NEWTON'S G, as crossposted at:

BAD Astronomy forums, regarding the Pioneers Anomaly.

X-post/Lunatik/Nov. 19, 2004.

Also see possible 'variable Newton's G constant' by doing Goggle search for "Brans-Dicke" and "MOND" related papers and articles.

By Anonymous on Friday, December 24, 2004 - 10:27 pm:

in my opinion energy=excited mass on a sup atomic level, so if sub atomic particles have mass and you stand on a massive object,lets use the earth as an example,a person would be shielded by the planet while being bombarded from above by very small particles travling at or almost at the speed of light.I believe most of these particles pass through us harmlesly but enough do not and in effect pin us to the body of mass we are standing on.Now the farther we travel away from lets say the earth the less gravity is to be measured and when a person or object is far enough away the particles hit him it in all directions at once and therefore cancel out all percieved or measurable gravity.please excuse the spelling im a high school dropout. lol

By ASMO on Friday, December 24, 2004 - 10:40 pm:

now all that being said in my previous post it might be possible to generate a large enough magnetic field to bend these particles around an object in one direction in which case the object would be pushed in the desired direction.Is this how the ufos do it???


By Ivan A. on Sunday, December 26, 2004 - 12:42 pm:

See the gravitational anomalies of the Hutchison Effect

Is this a UFO effect? The fact that this mysterious field seems to occur in a Tesla related "The Hutchison Effect occurs as the result of radio wave interferences in a zone of spatial volume encompassed by high voltage sources, usually a Van de Graff generator, and two or more Tesla coils," makes me think they're on the right track. Don't know all the details, so can't comment further, but I like the 'zone of spatial volume encompassed by high voltage'. I think this is a clue to eliminating EM on a point, ala Axiomatic Equation, which might generate a Casimir like gravitic effect.


By Lunatik on Friday, December 31, 2004 - 02:01 pm:

BAD Astronomy's Bulletin Board on Gravity:

Do we know why there is gravity?

Some good ideas for 2005!


By Ivan A. on Tuesday, January 4, 2005 - 04:40 pm:

AN INFINITE UNIVERSE? A Potential Gravity Dilemma.

An infinite universe, as opposed to a finite post-Big Bang universe, poses a problem for gravitational collapse. If gravity is equally distributed infinitely in all directions, the forces balance out, or in effect they self cancel. This would be true for gravity as a universal constant, per Newton-Einstein, but even more true for a variable gravity postulated, where it is greater in the cold vast reaches of space than in the vicinity of hot stars.

This gravitational dilemma, where it balances out, becomes especially true for a universe dominated by very great gravity in the vast cold distances of space. If gravity is greater by powers of magnitude in the vast reaches of space, a Doppler expanding universe should be pulled back together again gravitationally, since the net result of a finite universe means that it should collapse. But this may not be happening, in part because of the infinite offset above, but also because the very great gravity out there is redshifting the cosmic light passing through it. What we see as light redshift may be no more than a gravitationally induced illusion. Of necessity, this same deeply redshifted light is blueshifted as it enters lower gravity regions, such as is postulated in the vicinity of hot radiant stars (per the Axiomatic Equation), so that our readings from Earth are skewed back towards the blue wavelength; though the net result remains that distant light remains redshifted as we observe. But then it is no longer Doppler related, and only a function of the variable "proportional" gravity G in varying radiant energy environments. So the dilemma remains, that a finite universe would collapse from this great gravity variance, but that if infinite, no Big Bang, then it is balanced out in all directions equally. This is the same problem Einstein had with his
gravitational constant, later retracted, if the universe is indeed infinite. Except with a variable G (inversely proportional to radiant EM energy), we are left with a hypothetical universe that is nearly all gravity with small pocket islands of EM hot regions, such as galaxies, so this infinity gravity would pull with great force (from outside) in all directions infinitely, and thus again counteract itself. Even if the Big Bang were true and there was a finite universe within a dark and cold universal infinity (of nothing, cold EM and very great gravity), then the outlying gravitational force would be pulling on this internal finite post-Big Bang universe equally in all directions, so once again no collapse.

The other consideration is due to Gravity waves, such as postulated by modern physics. See Wiki's: Gravity waves. Where do the gravity waves go? Are they reabsorbed somewhere, or do they radiate infinitely? Or do they even exist? Either way, no collapse, only an infinity sea of cold dark gravity in all directions in total balance, both internally and externally. We live in a great gravity universe that is infinitely balanced, no expansion, no Big Bang, only one more mystery to which post-modern physics (postulating a variable G), must defer with deference.


By Ivan A. on Sunday, January 9, 2005 - 02:06 pm:

GRAVITY... just having fun.

Here's something silly from BAD Astronomy, by a Lunatik:

Just a note, outloud thinking allowed, if bizarre: if you were to equate KE (kinetic energy), and P.E. (potential gravity), here's what happens:

1/2 mv^2 = -GMm/R

multiplying, and dropping the m's, we get:

(1/2) Rv^2 = -GM

This is awfully close to Newton's orbital equation, except for the "1/2" part, which is not surprising conceptually, since the potential energy of gravity translates into kinetic energy for mass. However, the k=1/2 is also not surprising if we are willing to entertain the absurd:

* Earth is at 1 AU distance from the Sun.
* G --presumed a constant-- may in fact double per AU, though still unknown,yet...
* the above can then be re-written as: Rv^2 = -2GM (per AU).
* not observed to our knowledge, but the math works?

More a question than an answer! ... just havin' fun. :-))

By Ivan A. on Monday, January 10, 2005 - 04:02 pm:

Here's a map of "clumped Dark-matter" around galaxies, very interesting.

This makes for a rather intriguing possibility that G is very great far from star radiant energy sources, including whole galaxies.


By Ivan A. on Wednesday, January 12, 2005 - 01:01 pm:


Maps reveal dark matter clumps in galaxies -- revisited.

If you look at this page, there is a clear highlight of greater gravity at a distance from galaxies, which tends to balance out the lighter gravity closer to the heat source of stars filled galaxies with the heavier gravity away from them. This variable G 'proportional' in the end flattens out so that all gravity throughout space is evened out. How does this affect Einstein's universe, such as postulated by 'space-time' gravity as postulated by General Relativity? Should it not cause the heavier gravity to pull all these galaxies together? That would appear to be the obvious, but this may not be happening if gravity evens out. The result is that, taken as an infinite field of flattish gravity, all gravitational forces cancel out over great distances so that no 'crunch' results. This also means that there is no need for 'dark energy' to hold galaxies apart, though they are all surrounded by the greater gravity of 'dark matter', since all gravitational forces cancel out. We may live in a balanced universe, so the greater gravity of a higher G in the 'dark matter' regions does not matter, if these forces all even out over the infinite dimensions of space. Conclusion: No Big-Bang, with no follow up big-crunch either; the universe is perfectly balanced all the time, as it had been for eons and eons.

By Ivan A. on Sunday, January 16, 2005 - 12:18 pm:


Spaceflight Now shows this photo of Dark matter . as per above.

When I worked out the Energy levels for each planet's orbit (see Oct. 4, 2005), it became a parabolic curve; when I subsequently worked out the variable G proportionals they plotted on a straight line. See how it looked: E&Gcharts.jpg
Note that an extension of this greater G out into space out of the galaxy would yield a very high number; now look at the Dark matter photo above. There seems to be linkage, at least in the form of a projection of the delta G per AU out to outergalactic regions. Hence, Dark matter gravity, which is no more than a very great G.

I suspect these G variables don't show in how we compute orbits and orbital trajectories because G*M = Rv^2 hides the net effect of variable M. Because M is so much greater than m, i.e.: G*M ~ MR+mr/M+m, so that the small m & r are lost in the much predominant M & R effects. This means that with small in-flight trajectory corrections we can land distant probes onto distant planets and moons. Most exemplary was the recent mission to Titan, where Huygens seems to have landed pretty much on target to specifications. What is unknown, at least to me, is what flight engineers did with the Cassini to position it just right for the Huygens descent, where I suspect much attention was paid to the Cassini maneuvres. This would be something worth looking for, how the Cassini was positioned for the proper Huygens descent, if those numbers are available they may show the m & r effect being adjusted for G*M effect. Otherwise, using a erroneously constant G, and presumed M. seems to get us there okay, even if like Columbus looking for India, the success of discovery and landing was more a fortuitous chance, but no less worthy.


By Ivan A. on Thursday, January 20, 2005 - 04:24 pm:


This is an interesting paper on a hypothesis of gravitation as a 'field flux' around matter, mass m, which may also be motion modified. It raises the possibility that this flux is absorbed in the direction of motion.

Some questions come to mind:
1) what is the nature of this gravitational field flux?
2) is inverse of E, i.e., 1/c^2, where c^2 is maximum field flux?
3) is field flux 'mass' m radiated at v/c, where at v=c it is zero, or is em energy radiated?
4) if em energy is radiated at increased momentum, p=mv, then per Einstein's relativity at v=~c mass becomes 'infinite'; if gravitational field flux is radiated, then inertial mass becomes 'zero'?
5) does attraction potential of field flux travel at v=c, or at powers above that?
6) how does a standing wave of electromagnetic energy modify gravitational field flux?
7) can this modified field flux be artificially induced, as new energy source?
8) per #4, if inertia becomes zero, is acceleration from modified gravitational field flux limitless, where v>>infinity?
9) if c^2 is maximum field flux, does 'infalling' mass continue to accelerate beyond this c^2 limit?
10) if #9 is limitless, then velocity for atomic mass put in motion by field flux may also be limitless?

Welcome to the stars!


By Ivan A. on Sunday, February 6, 2005 - 12:38 pm:

U=-GMm/r as shorthand for F(g)= -GMm(1r)/r^2 ...?

See post on BAD Astronomy's Bulletin Board:
"Allais Effect casts doubt on GR?" (by Lunatik)

... where there are links to references in MOND, Equivalence Principle, and the geometric aspect of the inverse square law... good stuff!


By Ivan A. on Tuesday, February 22, 2005 - 03:44 pm:


I had never meant to find a variable G. My work was more to do with identifying some relationship between proton mass and the proton-to-proton gravitational constant (where g =~5.9E-39). This was descendent from having attempted to match Energy as expressed by the deBroglie equation and Einstein's famous equation for Energy. What resulted, as E=hc/ l(proton mass) = f(E'/E)(1-g)c^2= 90 petajoules, was that proton mass, for lambda = 1.322E-15 meters, turned out correctly as m = 1.67E-27 kg. That was it. Then I played around with the concept that Energy is a solar function, so for Earth's E = 9E+16 Joules, or Watts as J/s, is also a function of GM = Rv^2, where the Earth's orbital energy at distance R from the Sun has some relationship to E. None of this was fruitful, however, until I stumbled on the solar irradiance numbers, where suddenly the numbers fell together into place, and Earth's orbital Energy was again 90 petajoules/second, if solar irrandiance was multiplied by distance (AU) and times a function of v^2. In fact, all these hypothetical scenarios came from some old idea we kicked around some three years ago as to whether or not there was a possible 'theory of everything', which in truth was more a philosophical question. This led to identifying mass as a function of energy lus its proton gravitational constant, or as: h/cl + g = m. For a long time, that was that.

However, it was not meant to be, and soon I found myself puzzling over the unobvious. The reason this idea originally progressed from that early, crudely seminal, work was that when I worked out the numbers using solar irradiance for different planets, unexpectedly I got different E readings. I fully expected that all those E numbers would work out to be E = 9E+16, so was surprised when instead they showed a parabolic curve. Mercury's Energy was higher than Earth's, then progressively lower until Pluto's was substantially below that of Earth. What was going on? When I re-ran the numbers for proton mass I also discovered that proton mass changes for variable E, where it is lower for Mercury than Earth, and higher for Mars and outlying gas giants, highest for Pluto. This of necessity made me question what happens to the proton gravitational constant, and it too followed the same pattern. Puzzled, I then ran these numbers by converting proton mass into Newton's G 'constant', which was accomplished rather intuitively (something I dreamed up while flying from LA to Rome) by multiplying proton gravitational (~5.9E-39) by c^2, and again by pi^2, to get G^2. In taking the square root, I got a pretty close approximation for Newton's G, at about G =~7E-11 Nm^2 kg^-2. Now I was really intrigued, and when I worked out the G for all the other planetary E, I came up with numbers I had never suspected. Trying to plot these numbers on a curve, and expecting as much, I was stunned to discover that G actually plots on a straight line. For the vertical axii I use E on one side and G on the other side; for horizontal axis I used AU units marked to scale. Sure enough, G grew at a linear rate of (delta)G =~7E-11 N per AU. I was awestruck with a natural question: What does that mean?

How could it be that Newton's G is a variable rather than a constant? This idea was explored at length in these forum pages as well as elsewhere, such as in this post on BABB, where the discussion preceding and subsequent show how truly difficult it is to communicate this concept. Of course, the resistance to it was expected, but not how progression of understanding would be measured in millimeters rather than leagues. So that's where we are now, at a point where G appears to fit a linear growth progression from the Sun, becoming quite large in the outer solar system's Oort Cloud and beyond, while remaining totally hidden within Newtonian and Einsteinian calculations done for the heavens. Other than postulated Dark matter, or why tiny Pluto (about half mass of our Moon) has an atmosphere, or why gas giant planets are where they are (in higher G regions), or why the Pioneers 10 & 11spacerafts are pulled back towards the Sun at a constant (linear) rate approximating the growth of G; I really cannot find why it is possible for G to be a variable, except as it computed per my Energy equations. I didn't even know of Cassini/Huygens project, nor of the Pioneers Anomaly before doing these calculations. These I learned of later. But that it was linear truly blew me away. So that's where it's at now.

Where to go from here? The obvious thing is to identify this illusive variable G,as the European Space Agency hopes to do starting in 2006. But what measures do we use? If Earth based kilograms, and G is different from Earth's, the results are erroneous. So a new approach is needed, where (G'/G)kg as a ratio of actual G' to Earth's G is needed to modify what we see. If G is different, then all the masses for distant bodies are wrong, per G*Mm, so those need to be adjusted, which automatically calls for an adjustment to which kilograms are used. This is what turns out to be a difficult concept to convey to others. And what does it mean to a whole universe of cosmology if G is a predictable variable? Those are the questions that will need to be answered, in time, since it is beyond the hope of this forum to make a full rewrite of physics in these pages. The paper showing how all these ideas fall together into a thesis was posted, though it copied with the wrong symbol for lambda, here. Anyone is welcome to look at it, if they wish. Hence, I would venture to say that Gravity needs rethinking. And if it proves so, then rolling it all backwars means we have to re-exmine Quantum theory as well, of proton mass is also variable. The consequences of a variable G can be immense.


By Ivan A. on Wednesday, March 9, 2005 - 12:57 am:

By Jupiter, it's really small!

Here's a article which talks about Jupiter's mass:
"Planet Puzzle: Theorists Wrestle with How they're Built"

Regarding the planet's core mass, exclusive of the atmosphere, it says:

"One problem is that data from the spacecraft Galileo seem to imply that the solid core of Jupiter is less than three Earth masses. Accretion models require a core of at least 10 Earth masses."

Less than three Earth masses? Is this the great gas giant that is the largest single planetary object outside the Sun, and has nearly all the masses of the other planets in it? What gives? The only solution I can see is that for such a small core, the planetary Newton's G 'proportional' for that region is very great. By my estimations, it is about five times greater than on Earth, which is powerful enough to attract all that gaseous atmosphere. Otherwise, with a universally constant Newton's G, it makes absolutely no sense. At less than three Earth masses, this planet's great mass, nearly 1000x that of Earth, makes for a real disconnect with the physics involved.

Something to look into deeper, I would think.


By Ivan A. on Wednesday, March 9, 2005 - 02:53 pm:

Equivalence Principle NOT violated in variable G:

Here's a
Test of Gravity paper, which shows the Equivalence Principle works within very tight parameters of accuracy, as tested with lunar placed laser ranging reflectors. This shows a very high accuracy for Newtonian-Einstein theorized gravity readings for gravitic mass Mg and inertial mass Mi, where the two are equivalent. It should be noted that these are made within close proximity of Earth, so Newton's G should exhibit great stability here. Can this same be expected from laser reflectors placed on Mars, for example? One should expect the same results, that the EP between Mg/Mi should prove to be the same if G stability is assured for any planet orbit region.

What this test of EP does NOT measure, however, is whether or not Newton's G is different for different planet orbit positions in our solar system. Measuring EP as a function of Mg/Mi should always give us the same readings, since regardless of what G is for an orbit region, at a distance from the Sun, the two should always remain in sync. Where a different G affects this test in how we had figured the mass of distant bodies in relation to Newton's orbital equation, GM = Rv^2. What this translates into is that for a higher G, in outer solar system, our estimate of M was off in inverse proportion. However, locally, the Mg/Mi relationship remains unchanged, though our reading of M was perhaps wrong. This can be accounted for by the fact that in a higher G region, the resulting smaller M nevertheless exhibits a compensating G, if it is inversely proportional, so the EP for the two will always be the same. This further means that any G'/G relationship that exists between Earth at ~1AU and distant planets at x~1AU will not appear in the Mg/Mi tests for EP.

In effect, bottom line, any difference in Newton's G on Earth versus G' on distant bodies will not violate the Equivalence Principle, which for local conditions M'g/M'i will remain the same as here.


By Michael on Wednesday, March 9, 2005 - 07:54 pm:

Its been a while since I was around but just started to read up alittle and that email.
Ivan think a moment about this one.
that goes for two mass, in this example I will use earth and a man holding a 5' stick with a 100Lb weight at the end of the stick.
I am sure you have seen the example before where if a man went to lift that stick straight out with one hand it would be very hard. But if that wieght was a motor and then did spin the man can lift that 100lb weight at the end of the stick over his head with one hand.

Well that doesnt mean much but when looking at it this sense the 100lbs wieght-mass2 or however you wish to look at it has an atraction 'F' between earth and the wieght.

Let us just say F is 1000000 and that attraction is very strong. but when you turn the motor on that F now is say 10000 and the man lifts that same weight at the end of the stick right over his head.

So most math mathimatic people would say that m2 does not have as much mass anymore. So... what are we talking about, missing mass? NO I Dodnt thinl so, just we need to really ask if that formula should be looked at again.

I am not sure if many people can see what I am say is that you have two mass, and nothing has change!
Masses no Change! for M1 & m2
G is always the same!
r^2 the stick never got shorter or longer!
But F did change and was stronger and weaker
but the only thing changed was m2 spin!

Well have fun think about that one! Ha Ha

So if a neutron star spinning really fast near a super gaint, well then does the F between the two
have some mysterious less F between them?
Or think about if something is spinning so fast that it it has a high 'F' if it was not to spin.

Just remember that F r M m & G all work on static values but loss some people as to why some orbits do not work.

I guess I am done saying it?

By Ivan A. on Thursday, March 10, 2005 - 09:07 pm:

Hi Michael, good to have you visit again. There's been a lot of developments since you posted last. It seems we're closing in on the relationships defining how a hypothetical variable Newton's G 'proportional' works in the solar system and beyond. Needless to say, we could expect a great resistance to this idea so that even when it is tested using (G'/G)F = ma, there will remain skepticism, since it pretty much undoes much of Einstein's General Relativity and Newton's 'universal' constancy of gravity. It may yet turn out that gravity is no more than a function inversely proportional to Energy at the atomic level, which means it will be different in deep space from what we know here. All tests for gravity had been essentially Earth based, mainly to do with the Equivalence Principle as per above, which I believe is true universally. So to ultimately go out there in the outer solar system to test for this will be a new development. And if it proves true, then lots of things have to be reconsidered, viz. cosmic light redshift, gas giants formation, planetary spin, validity of Big Bang theory, deep space travel, postulated Dark matter, and it might even impact Quantum theory. Most important of all, if gravity is inversely proportional to radiant energy, then there may be a way to modify this and use it, so potentially this is very important.

Your illustration for F = GMm/r^2 is very interesting. I had never thought of it that way, and can see how centrifugal force might play into it, but raising the weight over your head is new to me! Will think on this some more. I also thought of how when two bodies revolve around each other, both move in relation to the other's orbit. Funny, but I never felt any acceleration as the Moon passed overhead, though I know Earth moves in relation to it, as the Moon moves in relation to Earth's mass. This may be an important clue that gravity associated motions do not experience the same acceleration effect that push energy creates, and if so, then we may be very surprised when we finally learn to use modified gravity to create motion that there are no G forces associated with it. Imagine accelerating at relativistic velocities with no sensation of acceleration! Now, that's worth looking for.

If you hadn't already seen it, here is the forma paper on Atomic Mass.

Take care, keep in touch, and drop in for more info as time goes on, since I am sure we will crack this one yet. Very exciting!


By Michael on Sunday, March 13, 2005 - 03:19 pm:

"but raising the weight over your head is new to me!" That was done with a gyrosphere/ Motor on the end of a stick. I believe it weight about 100 to 150 ibs. The host asked a strong man from the audience to come down and lift the motor off the ground with one hand at the far end of a four foot stick. The muscle bound guy could not even lift it off the stage he was standing and his arm lenght was ~3feet his hand holding the stick and another 3 to 4 feet to the motor.
But the host turnned on the motor of which made the wieght of the motor Reletivily less, the stick figured host with muscules no bigger than a teenager lifted the stick straight out and could swing the motor over his head and such.

I think that clears up the picture of that.

About"if gravity is inversely proportional to radiant energy,"
That is good, and if someone would find the inverse and versly proportional equivalates to gravity in a mathimatical sense. I am one who has never favored gravity and mass by itself.
All the planets are spinning so more then others. that is why I liked when you had a concern with energy spin and the gravity, while I was looking at spin, mass and gravity along with magnetic Gauss. I know nothing on the energy output which you are veiwing but I figured that someday your formula would fit in with Gauss, spin and background magnetics.

Yes it would be amazing to prove that Mass alone does not govern gravities effects, I am a believer that F=MmG/r^2 is only good and percise of two objects that are not spinning or moving, and are at a set distance apart. But Spin has not been added, orbit velocity has not been added, and that large %error in the math I think acounts for those unmeasured effects.


By Anonymous on Friday, April 22, 2005 - 03:17 pm:

More on gravity in our 'weird' universe, per BABB:

By Ivan A. on Friday, April 22, 2005 - 09:18 pm:

Yessirree Anon, Huygens thread is quite a BABB special, at 73 pages and still going strong! Maybe a record?

This one is especially good, IMO. Pioneer Anomalies links

I especially like the paper titled: "Finding the Origin of the Pioneer Anomaly" by Nieto and Turyshev.


By Ivan A. on Thursday, May 12, 2005 - 01:39 pm:

Quest for Solving Pioneers Anomaly

This excellent article spells out the daunting task of solving why the Pioneers crafts showed anomalous acceleration towards the Sun, slowing them, either with 'new physics' or other systemic factors. The article says:


After this discovery in 1980, two of us, John D. Anderson and Eunice L. Lau, decided to keep track of the anomaly. Yet, because we were reasonably sure the anomaly was some sort of navigation-modeling error, we did not give it high priority. We simply added a constant acceleration to our Doppler-fitting model so we could determine an accurate trajectory. We expected the anomaly would go away eventually. It did not.

The anomaly will not go away if it is due to factors surrounding the possible non-universal Newton's G constant, where it may be growing with distance from the Sun at about the same rate as the Pioneers Anomaly shows in its acceleration towards the Sun. In effect, G may be a variable-constant, one which is continuous and linear with distance from our hot star, and perhaps very great in the deep cold regions of intergalactic space.

Ivan A. on Thursday, June 2, 2005 - 04:20 pm:

Gravity equivalence explained:

I think the clearest explanation for how I see gravity is in this post, on the Bad Astronomy forum:

The question still on my mind is: why does gravity seem to work in a more linear manner when very far out in deep space? If gravity here is expressed as F_g = GMm/ r^2, then out in IG space, it may effect more as F_g(IG) = GMm/ r, which is similar to the gravitational potential U_g = GMm/ r. But I have not worked it out, so only a 'suppose' for now.


By Ivan A. on Thursday, June 2, 2005 - 04:59 pm:

Gravity equivalence, continued:

Actually I already had the answer to why gravity acts in a linear fashion in IG space, why it is more linear than per the inverse square law, as explained in this subsequent post on BAD:

However, though deltaG (G'/G) grows at a linear rate per distance, (and this does not affect how it interacts with mass per the iverse square law, if the masses, M and m', continue to attract same as before when adjusted for G'), I am still not totally clear as to why at much higher levels of G' in deep IG space it acts more like a linear G_g = GMm/ r.

Let's consider this: if G' grows at the rate of G*r, then though our mass estimates for distant space bodies are wrong inversely to G', they are nevertheless equivalent to our flat G valuations in the proportions of G*M, so net result is that smaller bodies in deep space have larger equivalence related mass, which is equal to what we figured with a constant G. So per distance r, the G*M remains the same while G is growing and M (estimated in local G') is conversely shrinking. The net net result is that F_g = G'Mm'/ r, (where G' is the greater gravity in deep space, and where M is Solar mass, m' distant body mass), is how this manifests from the equivalence of mass to gravity in a linearly growing G, (G'/G)r, so distant bodies act as if they were not subject to inverse square law (though they are) if their effective mass is greater by deltaG*r.

Okay, taking this out beyond the galaxy, into the realm of 'dark matter', we need only extend this principle, where M is galaxy mass and m' is mass for satellite galaxy, G' is the much greater gravity for deep space. In effect, the relationship between the 'light' matter of the galaxy interacts with the 'heavy-dark' matter of deep space satellites, per the equation: F_g = G'Mm'/ r.

Very confusing, but I think I am beginning to see it. I think I now understand what is 'dark matter', so called. It is only the greater G of deep space, which on balance may average out to be a mass equivalent (less mass in deep space) of about 10x what we have for a G equivalent on Earth, though the G' out there is much greater, perhaps as high as 10E-6 m^3 kg^-1 s^-2. Will think on this some more... hmmm... dark matter, not so dark after all.


By Ivan A. on Friday, June 3, 2005 - 11:22 am:

Dark matter, MACHOS OR WHIMPS?

No, it's neither. It's this!

I'd go with the BUNNY.


By Edward Chesky on Saturday, June 4, 2005 - 03:21 pm:

Nice Ivan

We are now on the right track. As Shakesphere said, "There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio Than are dreamt of in your philosophy"

--Hamlet, Act I, v, 166-7

My Best Ed

By Ivan A. on Sunday, June 12, 2005 - 12:32 pm:

GravityAssist happens naturally. This means that comets and asteroids are subject to natural gravity assist to change their elliptical orbits, and possibly accelerate them as well.

If there was to be found a variable Newton's G gravity, where it grows linearly at a distance from the Sun at approximately 1 G per AU, then why haven't comets or asteroids exhibited trajectoral orbital anomalies? I think the answer is right in front of us, and we did not think of it. Here's my idea:

The reason comets and asteroids have not shown orbital anomalies is that while their inertial mass grows at the rate of 1 G per AU, hypothetically, that very small mass change in relation to the Sun's tremendously greater mass, which is constant, yields an imperceptibly small difference for the outgoing and income bodies. What rules is not the inertial mass change per distance from the Sun, but the Sun's overwhelming massiveness in proportion to the comets and asteroids. Planets are fixed in their orbits, so not in same category, except perhaps Pluto which acts more like a distant icebody asteroid. Therefore, unless a body is on an escape trajectory out of the solar system, the effect of variable G is negligible.

That pretty much answers, in my mind, why comets and asteroids may exhibit only tiny orbital differences from the inertial mass, per G equivalence, traveling in highly elliptical orbits to and from the Sun.

By Ivan A. on Wednesday, June 29, 2005 - 05:11 pm:


Mercury is still the mystery planet, and our Messenger probe launched August 3, 2004, has just completed an Earth flyby on its rendezvous with the planet 2008-2009. One goal is to better understand why Mercury has such great uncompressed density, ~5.3 grams per cubic centimeter. There are currently three theories: 1. Sun's tremndous heat burned off more volatile materials; 2. thin accretion nebular cloud favored dense particles; 3. giant impacts blew out less dense materials. Of these three, I lean towards the second, that the nebular acretion disk favored dense materials, but it would have to qualify as a fourth reason: 4. because this density bias may be due to Mercury's close position to the Sun. Per the Axiomatic Equation hypothesis, Mercury's gravitational constant ranges at about 40% of Earth's G constant, consequently its inertial mass is likewise very low. The result is that lighter materials within its primordial acretion disk, in this low G region, had a lower chance of being captured by the planet's gravity than denser materials. Hence, the planet has a greater density than the other rocky planets close to the Sun.


By Ivan A. on Friday, July 1, 2005 - 01:55 pm:


Invisible Dark Galaxy mentioned in this article does not mention "gravity lensing". Can it be that the massive gravity of this "dark galaxy" does not work for gravity lensing? If so, this would be very telling, because then it might mean that radiant energy is necessary for this (gravity) lensing effect. So massive hot stars and galaxies work, as observed, but "dark" massive bodies may not work. The Axiomatic Equation indicates that gravity lensing is a function of blue/red shifted light which is only indirectly affected by gravity. Next question would be if neutron stars, so called, are essentially "dark" by failing to generate enough hot radiant energy to modify gravity, so they are gravity rich in a radiant energy poor scenario, then they too should fail as "gravity lensing" massive bodies, though we know they are extremely massive.

Maybe we really don't understand "gravity lensing" after all, and it has less to do with gravity than with blue/red lightshifts around hot massive bodies?


By Ivan A. on Sunday, July 10, 2005 - 12:21 am:


Variable mass in a hypothetical variable G may have been answered with this post on Bad Astronomy, or maybe not. There is still the question of how to "weigh" mass in a variable gravity scenario, hypothetically. The reason for this unknown is that in the Axiomatic Equation, mass shows up on the left side in the proton mass, but what does it actually mean? Need to do more work.

Still, the lads on BABB did a fine job of challenging me on this variable mass idea, which I appreciate greatly. Smart kids.

Now to figure what is the G necessary to make ligh shift at z = 1...

Ivan/ n.g.71

By Ivan A. on Monday, July 25, 2005 - 04:13 pm:

Bizzare boulders on Saturn's icy moon Encelatus
Maybe the devil grows these boulders like he grows rocks in New England fields, an perhaps by the same method?

Watery atmosphere on Encelatus
Perhaps a variable greater G cannot explain the boulders, but an atmosphere on this tiny moon about the size of Arizona makes more sense, if each molecule there experiences a greater mass.


By Ivan A. on Tuesday, July 26, 2005 - 10:09 pm:


Consider the radius of our Moon, which has no atmosphere, and then consider the radius of other major and minor moons in our solar system:

Big moons:
Moon radius: 1,737 km
Saturn's Titan: 2,575 km
Jupiter's Europa: 1,560 km
Jupiter's Io: 1,821 km

Small moons with atmospheres detected:
Saturm's Enceladus: 249.4 km
Pluto's Charon: ~505 km (
may have atmosphere, still unconfirmed)

Small planets:
Mercury: 2,440 km
Pluto: 1,151 km

In the above, Mercury has very little atmosphere, while our Moon has virtual none. But Titan has a very thick atmosphere, Pluto (smaller than our Moon) has some atmosphere, Enceladus, half the size of Charon has an atmosphere. Thus, Charon must have an atmosphere!

I realize body density may be involved, but Mercury's density is nearly twice that of our Moon, neither with an atmopshere, while Titan's density is about half that of our Moon, with a thick atmosphere. Pluto with a density just over half that of our Moon, has an atomosphere. What's wrong with this picture, if mean density is derived at a distance per GM, mean radius, and and albedo? Could G be wrong?

I think gravity "proportionals" Newton's G for these bodies are all different, to account for atmospheres, or lack of them. Mercury and Earth's Moon are in low G domains, at 0.4 AU and 1 AU,so cannot hold onto atmospheres, while the other moons in outer solar system, and Pluto, are in very high G domains, so atmospheres are possible. Enceladus was the biggest surprise, that such a small moon has an atmosphere. Gassing out is a rather poor explanation, and a variable G is much better. If both Io and Europa (about size of our Moon) had atmosphers, then case closed, but they don't seem to. In fact, Io is "gassing" out with active volcanoes, yet no atmsophere, so the "gassing out" theory is ad hoc and wrong. Saturn moons, at 9.5 AU, and beyond in outer solar system are in higher G, than for inner solar system, so for them atmospheres are natural in their higher gravitational mass domains. Jupiter at 5.2 AU should have atmospheric moons, but G may not be high enough to keep one on Io's actively "gassing" surface; I suspect Jupiter's high energy output moderates local G, but only a guess.

All this is based on the hypothesis per Axiomatic Equation that Newton's G "proportional" grows at the linear rate of approximately 1 G per AU.

(There's more posted on this above here at BABB.)


By RefLink on Friday, November 18, 2005 - 04:22 pm:

<a href="">Scientific American: The Illusion of Gravity [ PHYSICS ]</a><br>The force of gravity and one of the dimensions of space might be generated out of the peculiar interactions of particles and fields existing in a lower-dimensional realm

By Ivan A. on Thursday, December 1, 2005 - 12:01 am:

Titan's atmosphere gives another clue to variable G.

This was posted Nov. 30, 2005, by 'nutant gene 71' on BAUT forums, regarding Titan's atmosphere being 10 times Earth's density, another clue G may be 10 times here:

Which is a continuation of "Hypothetical variable mass in a hypo var G":

Titan's atmosphere, per this NewScientist article, is ten times denser than Earth's, though the moon is less than half Earth's size. The composition is largely nitrogen, like ours, with a small component of methane, so chemical density should be similar, if gravity were same, actually less (except for temperature differences).

How can this be, unless Newton's G is greater there than here? My calculations (as discussed at length on these pages) shows G should be at about 10 times Earth's G, since Saturn is about 9.5 AU vs. Earth's 1 AU. If G grows in linear proportion to distance from the Sun, then it all fits. Awaiting more good news... Thanks Titan!

More clues to follow?

Ivan/n.g. 71

Add a Message

This is a public posting area. If you do not have an account, enter your full name into the "Username" box and leave the "Password" box empty. Your e-mail address is optional.
Post as "Anonymous"