GRAVITY AND THE PHOTON
ACE
PLANETS ORBIT THE SUN TO CONSERVE TOTAL ENERGY
THE FORCE OF GRAVITY IS AN ILLUSION
Copyright 1984-2004 Allen C. Goodrich
ISBN 0-9644267,LIBRARY OF CONGRESS CAT.CARD
NO.94-90554
Gravitational effect is the result of an acceleration
of mass. Galileo demonstrated this. Newton assumed
that this was caused by a force of gravity between
all masses. Was this a correct assumption? Einstein
and many other scientists felt that there must be
more to gravitation than an attraction at a distance.
Action at a distance was considered to be impossible
in the absence of a transfer of energy at the speed
of light.
Hubble then showed that the distant Galaxies were
moving away from the earth and that the universe
was expanding in all directions. If this is true ,
What else must be true?
1. The potential energy of the rest of the universe
must be decreasing relative to the mass of the earth.
It has long been assumed that the first law of
thermodynamics, which says that the total energy of
the universe is a constant, was a fact of nature.
If this is true what then.
2. The kinetic energy of the universe must be
increasing at the same rate that the potential
energy is decreasing as the universe expands.
How is this possible? Masses must be accelerating,
because, kinetic energy change is the result of an
acceleration. But all orbital masses are
accelerating toward the center of the earth or
some other mass. Why would this occur otherwise?
3. Orbital motion could then be the result of the
expansion of the universe. The Gravitational
illusion could be the result.
Based on the first law of thermodynamics
The total mass energy of the universe is a constant.
(total kinetic (mass) energy plus total potential
energy is a constant).
m(2 pi L)^2 / t^2 + G (M-m)m / L = A constant.
m is any mass say that of the earth.
>From this equation the equation
Delta m (2 pi L)^2 / t^2 = - Delta G (M-m)m/L
follows mathematically.
>From this equation the equation
Delta m 4 pi^2 L^2 /t^2 = Delta - G (M-m)m / L
or the modified Newton equation for gravity can
be derived,but only when L is the orbital distance.
The earth orbit is a result of an energy equilibrium,
( the absence of a change of total energy )
and not the result of a force of gravity between masses.
Force of gravity is the resulting illusion
assumed by Newton to be a force.
If a planet (say earth) moved away from the sun
its potential energy would decrease as L increased.
Its kinetic energy would decrease because it is
no longer accelerating toward the sun in orbital
motion. Total energy would have to decrease. A very
great change of total energy would have to take place.
POTENTIAL ENERGY = G(M-m)m/L
KINETIC ENERGY = m(2 pi L)^2/t^2
m(2 pi L)^2/t^2 + G(M-m)m/L = A constant = M
G= Gravitational constant; M = total energy
of the universe (or effective universe) ;
m = mass in question.
t = time ; L = radial distance.
No mechanism exists for this to occur rapidly.
So it could not happen. The magnitudes of kinetic
and potential energies of planets and moons
travelling in orbital motion are equal and any
increase or decrease of orbital distance L results
in an equal change in magnitude of both.This is
the only value of L where no change of total energy
will occur if the value of L changes. At any other
distance L, an increase of kinetic energy will be at a
different rate than potential energy decreases.
Orbital motion conserves total energy.
Force of gravity isn't needed to explain orbital
motion or any other motion at a distance.
GRAVITY MECHANICS AND
RESEARCH ON ASTRONOMICAL OCEAN TIDES
Copyright 1984 to 2002 Allen C. Goodrich
An examination of United States Coast and Geodetic
Survey Tidal Data, which was gathered by extensive
measurements over long periods of time,was compared
with astronomical data showing the phases of the
moon at corresponding times for many years. This
correlation of the two sets of data revealed a
very interesting fact, in a manner that had never
before been mentioned in the literature.
It is invariably and exactly
the lowest tide that exists directly under the
full and new moons at deep ocean ports.
TABULATED co-op.nos.noaa.gov and
space.jpl.nasa.gov DATA:
OCEAN TIDES AND PHASES OF THE MOON
AT DEEP OCEAN PORT- MYRTLE BEACH
LOWEST TIDE (YEARS 1992 AND 1993)
1992 FULL MOON---1992 NEW MOON
(at moons highest point in the sky)
DATE---TIME(std)-DATE---TIME(std)
Mar.18--12:00Mid-Mar.3---12:00Noon
Apr.17--12:00Mid-Apr.2---12:00Noon
May.17--12:00Mid-May.2---12:00Noon
Jun.15--12:00Mid-Jun.29--12:00Noon
July.13-12:00Mid-July.29-12:00Noon
Aug.12--12:00Mid-Aug.27--12:00Noon
Sept.11-12:00Mid-Sept.26-12:00Noon
Oct.11--12:00Mid-Oct.26--12:00Noon
Nov.10--12:00Mid-Mov.25--12:00noon
Dec.10--12:00Mid-Dec.25--12:00noon
1993 FULL MOON---1993 NEW MOON
(at moons highest point in the sky)
DATE---TIME(sdt)-DATE---TIME(sdt)
Jan.8--12:00Mid--Jan.24-12:00Noon
Feb.6--12:00Mid--Feb.21-12:00Noon
Mar.8--12:00Mid--Mar.23-12:00Noon
Apr.6--12:00Mid--Apr.21-12:00Noon
May.6--12:00Mid--May.20-12:00Noon
Jun.4--12:00Mid--Jun.19-12:00Noon
July.3-12:00Mid--Juy.18-12:00Noon
Aug.2--12:00Mid--Aug.17-12:00Noon
Sep.1--12:00Mid--Sep.16-12:00Noon
Sep.30-12:00MId--Oct.15-12:00Noon
Oct.30-12:00Mid--Nov.14-12:00Noon
Nov.29-12:00Mid--Dec.13-12:00Noon
Dec.28-12:00Mid--Jan.12-12:00Noon
This was a very interesting discovery because
current physics,based on the gravitational theory,
discussed in the following U.S.Gov. documents:
PREDICT THE OCEAN TIDES
http://co-ops.nos.noaa.gov/restles1.html
SEE PHASES OF THE MOON FROM EARTH
http://space.jpl.nasa.gov/
,would lead one to believe that,except for many
possible reasons, the highest tides tend to be
under the full and new moons. The dictionary and
encyclopedia as well as physics texts predict this
with pictures of the earth and oceans bulging on
the side facing the full moon. Of course it never
happens as the gravitational theory predicts,
and many reasons are given for the discrepancies.
CONCLUSION:
No discrepancies were found in the occurence of
exactly the lowest tide directly under the full
and new moons, at deep ocean ports. A lowest tide
also occurs on the earth's ocean directly opposite
the new and full moons.
SIGNIFICANCE:
One must admit that this is beyond
question one of the most important discoveries
of modern physics research. It indicates that a
change must be made in the theory of gravitation.
One can no longer assume that a force between
the moon and the water of the earth's oceans,
is causing the ocean tides. The force of
gravity must be an illusion caused by some other,
more basic, reason. What would this be?
If the total energy ( kinetic and potential ) of
the universe is assumed to be a constant,from this
fundamental equation, many interesting things follow.
If the rest of the universe is expanding ( potential
energy decreasing) relative to masses, the masses
must be shrinking ( increasing in kinetic energy )
(gravitation) relative to the rest of the universe.
THE FIRST LAW OF MOTION-(GOODRICH)
Copyright 1984 to 2002 ALLEN C. GOODRICH
A body (m) continues in a state of rest (equilibrium)
or motion in a straight or curved line (equilibrium)
as long as no change occurs in its total (kinetic and
potential) energy, relative to the rest of the
effective universe (M-m),
Delta m(2 pi L)^2/t^2 = - Delta K(M-m)m/L
equilibrium = no change in the total energy
relative to the rest of the effective universe (M-m).
^ = to the power of.
Orbital motion complies with this equation.
This equation is derived from the fundamental
equation of the universe which states that
the total energy of the universe is a constant.
The sum of kinetic and potential energies is a
constant.
m(2 pi L)^2/t^2 + K(M-m)m/L = A constant.
INERTIA AND MOMENTUM are the properties of a mass
that evidence its reluctance to change its total
energy, or it is its need to maintain a constant total
energy. If it could more easily obtain or lose energy,
it would have less inertia or momentum.
SEE
THE UNIVERSE- A GRAND UNIFIED THEORY OF MASS ENERGY
SPACE TIME FRAME MECHANICS-APPEARING IN NEWSLETTER
"SPECTRUM" OF THE BUFFALO ASTRONOMICAL ASSOCIATION
INC. NOV.1996 TO FEB.1997
See http://ourworld.cs.com/gravitymechanic2/myhomepage/business.html
FUNDAMENTAL EQUATION OF THE UNIVERSE
http://ourworld.cs.com/gravitymechanic2/myhomepage/profile.html
TIDES AND GRAVITY MECHANICS
http://ourworld.cs.com/gravitymechanic2/myhomepage/resume.html
A new theory of gravitation is given, which
predicted, stimulated the above research,and is
consistent with, the new findings.
The universe has been found to be expanding at an
accelerating rate as predicted in 1984 by this new
theory.
THE VELOCITY OF LIGHT IS AN ILLUSION
Copyright 1984 to 2004 Allen C. Goodrich
The Nichelson - Morley experiment proved this.
An expanding universe of constant total mass-energy is
continually decreasing in potential energy and increasing
in kinetic energy. Any change of kinetic energy relative to
the rest of the universe,would be accompanied by an
equal but opposite sign change of its potential energy
relative to the rest of the universe.
LIGHT is a change of this rate of change of the potential
energy of the rest of the universe relative to a particular
part ,say the electron of the atom,as it changes kinetic
energy.
Only the part of the universe that is at the proper relative
energy density, direction, distance and frequency,relaive
to the rest of the universe will be effected by the light
(change of the rate of change of potential energy)..
Because the relative rate of expansion of the rest of the
universe, relative to the particle, say electron of the atom,
is the velocity of light, any particle at a distance from the
kinetic enery change must expand to the proper energy
density before it can sense, or be effected by,
the light ,change in the rate of potential energy change,
in this expanding universe.This presents the illusion of the
velocity of light.Time is required for the energy transfer to
take place at a distance because of the need for expansion.
The rate of volumetric acceleration,expansion, is a
function of energy density in a universe of constant
total energy.
A negative kinetic energy change of a mass,is a positive
potential energy change of the rest of the effective universe
relative to a mass of the proper frequency,direction
distance L and time change t (density), in the expanding
universe. This is consistent with the first law of
thermodynamics, which conserves total energy.
The L/t is currently falsly assumed to be a velocity of light.
This explains the T.R. Young two slit interference pattern.
Light is not a particle, it is a positive potential energy
change of the entire universe, that can become a positive
kinetic energy change of a mass such as the electron if the
frequency, direction, distance L and time change t
(density) are correct.
SEE
THE UNIVERSE- A GRAND UNIFIED THEORY OF MASS ENERGY
SPACE TIME FRAME MECHANICS-APPEARING IN NEWSLETTER
"SPECTRUM" OF THE BUFFALO ASTRONOMICAL ASSOCIATION
INC. NOV.1996 TO FEB.1997
See http://ourworld.cs.com/gravitymechanic2/myhomepage/business.html
FUNDAMENTAL EQUATION OF THE UNIVERSE
http://ourworld.cs.com/gravitymechanic2/myhomepage/profile.html
TIDES AND GRAVITY MECHANICS
http://ourworld.cs.com/gravitymechanic2/myhomepage/resume.html
A new theory of gravitation is given, which
predicted, stimulated the above research,and is
consistent with, the new findings.
The universe has been found to be expanding at an
accelerating rate as predicted in 1984 by this new
theory.
ELECTROMAGNETIC ,PHOTON AND CHARGE EFFECTS. ARE DEFINED
IN THE FOLLOWING BOOK.-- THE UNIVERSE:--Allen C. Goodrich
THE SOLAR SAIL
Copyright 1984 to 2005 Allen C. Goodrich
The Solar Sail, which is being tested by Russia and the United States,
for possible propulsion in interstellar space travel, is additional
evidence
that no change of potential energy to kinetic energy of the photon
takes place unless the potential energy is absorbed .The photon does
not have mass ( kinetic energy).
A change of direction of the photon's potential energy can occur at the
reflective surface but no potential to kinetic energy change takes
place there. A change of potential to kinetic energy takes place at the
black absorption surface.which has the correct frequency response as
well as
direction and density (time ) in the expanding universe.This is
evidence
that the photon is potential not kinetic energy.The light photon does
not have mass or kinetic energy.until the photon is absorbed by a mass
of the correct frequency response as well as direction and density
(time ), no
potential to kinetic energy change can take place.in the expanding
universe, in the absence of a mass..
Nick
The Unified Field of Einstein: Light Falls.
donsto...@hotmail.com
something's worng with the system? Perhaps a system error? Maybe a
systems scientist should be assigned to the problem, er, issue. I get
really annoying seeing that post again and again. Perhaps we must
write it off to life in a free society inhabited by beings with free
will. Or maybe not. Or maybe the excluded middle????????
Androcles
"ACE" <GRAVITYM...@CS.COM> wrote in message
news:1130282324.4...@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
| SUBJECT: GRAVITY IS NOT A FORCE
Yawn... I think I should have gone back to bed.
Maybe gravity will keep me in it.
Androcles.
Brad Guth
I've already posted this following reply as a request for information
about the mutual Earth/moon gravity-well, as having done so at the
other two listings of sci.edu and sci.astro, so I might as well have
updated and included it right here in sci.physics as being the usenet
version of River City as well.
Basically, I'm looking for an independent assessment of the somewhat
interactive mutual gravity-well that's between us and our moon, as it
seems relatively important if we're actually going for the moon and,
it's obviously of keen interest as for establishing my LSE-CM/ISS, thus
I've received nothing but loads of the usual mainstream status quo
flak, as in need-to-know and/or entirely taboo/nondisclosure treatment
from the very get go.
I can't but wonder as to why there's Usenet topic/author stalking,
bashing and/or banishment as having been applied to your research:
"Gravity and the Photon", as it seems to have been an honest argument
and perhaps as you say an extremely important issue, as clearly having
been given a great deal of consideration by way of your research having
indicated "gravity is not a force".
All that I can think of is that you've managed to have created quite an
insurmountable dilemma for these all-knowing Usenet disinformation-R-us
rusemasters, thus entitled to be receiving their form of applied
damage-control via banishment is about all that they have to go with.
As such banishment seems to be in affect for both of us, I'd been
wondering if perhaps you couldn't give my ongoing research a little
independent input as to understanding the mutual gravity-well or
nullification zone (EM-L2/ME-L1) that's situated interactively between
us and our moon.
This task at first seemed simple enough, whereas even though this zone
is offering a continually interactive location that's influenced each
and every second by second primarily as by Earth and the sun, along
with another slight 19 month cycle of influence associated with Venus.
Unfortunately, it seems that there's no good set of numbers (such as a
planet/moon tide like chart of exactly where this zone is at any given
moment), that's officially established and/or least of all used by any
two teams.
NASA and many closely associated with NASA keep informing us village
idiots in general terms that this null-zone is supposedly situated 84%
the distance from Earth as headed straight towards the moon CG, thus
equally 16% the distance away from the moon as headed directly towards
the CG of Earth.
The problem is that I can't seem to make that happen as based upon any
square of the distance which calculates the equal gravity or
nullification point as being somewhat different, whereas using 1.623
and 9.8 (9.798676) and the distance of 384,400 km is where it seems
closer to being 54.27r (346,134 km = 90.045%) and of the lunar side of
this same formula being 22r (38,236 km = 9.947%). Because my research
is equally banished and/or stalked and summarily bashed is what makes
myself wonder as to what all the mainstream status quo and usenet flak
is about?
I realize there's other forces involved (including the force associated
with the full spectrum of photons that seem to have atoms beat by a
good 1e100:1, the vast majority of which we obviously can not see) but,
I'm not the least bit smart enough to realize what all of those forces
are that could manage to shift the ME-L1 point from my 9.947% estimate
to the 16% as based upon what has been officially published as
supposedly certified by our NASA.
Anything you can provide with further regard to this interactive
ME-L1/EM-L2 zone will be appreciated.
Brad Guth
~
Kurt Vonnegut would have to agree; WAR is WAR, thus "in war there are
no rules" - In fact, war has been the very reason of having to deal
with the likes of others that haven't been playing by whatever rules,
such as GW Bush.
Life upon Venus, a township w/Bridge & ET/UFO Park-n-Ride Tarmac:
http://guthvenus.tripod.com/gv-town.htm
The Russian/China LSE-CM/ISS (Lunar Space Elevator)
http://guthvenus.tripod.com/lunar-space-elevator.htm
Venus ETs, plus the updated sub-topics; Brad Guth / GASA-IEIS
http://guthvenus.tripod.com/gv-topics.htm
Brad Guth
at roughly 2 km/s
I'm into my usual SWAG thinking that "tomcat's" new and improved
CNT/basalt composite do-everything spaceplane is in need of roughly
twice that amount of SME/SRB top-end velocity, and if at all possible
by the time reaching 76+km before SME/SRB burnout.
http://ambivalentengineer.blogspot.com/2005/08/shuttle-replacements.html
SpaceX booster has a higher exhaust velocity, 2980 m/s versus the SRB's
2636 m/s (measured at sea level air pressure).
Now I partially understand and can appreciate as to why SMEs/SRBs are
going to be limited to roughly a payload assist velocity of 2 km/s, as
obviously the rocket thrust velocity has been given certain limits of
safely comsuming the soild fuel without going postal.
Although, how the heck does LH2/LO2 at supposedly providing an exhaust
velocity merely 4.3 km/s manage to obtain the shuttle escape velocity
of better than 7.7 km/s?
Perhaps a partial answer:
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.space.shuttle/browse_frm/thread/ee1694c82d0b0d94/cb550894df6b723f?lnk=st&q=LH2+LO2+exhaust+velocity&rnum=1&hl=en#cb550894df6b723f
With LH2 / LO2 Fuel you get an Exhaust velocity of about 4000 m/s and
therefore a weight ratio of 7.3890 to 1 for 8000 m/s orbital speed.
OK folks and all-knowing usenet wizards;
If LH2/LO2 supposedly offers a 7.389:1 for obtaining 8 km/s, what's the
SME/SRB top-end "weight ratio" all about?
Sea level thrust/weight ratio of an SRB is only 1.75:1, of course
that's a fully loaded stick that's not at good altitude and getting low
on fuel. Obviously the same ratio should improve upon the
payload(shuttle/spaceplane) velocity performance via those SSMEs as
their fuel is consumed in such mass quantities. Thus km by km the
weight ratios should only improve, especially as the gravity influence
becomes less and friction nearly goes away.
Orion
and they both could be by-products of the electromagnetic field.
tj Frazir
brad .
the fall rate on the moon is the same on earth.
Instead of dropping 6 pounds on earth your dropping 1 pound onthe moon.
1 pound and 6 pounds and 1 million pounds all fall at the same rate .
Boath energy slopes are shaped the same
in evry atom. It dont metter how much weight you drop . what matters
is the orbital shapes of the parts of evry atom.
How fast will the center of G of evry atom move is how fast the center
of mass is corected in evry atom .
no internal resistance and evry distance the center of g is from the
center of mass inside each atom is the same F speed.
More distance from the center of the atoms mass to the center of the
atoms gravity is more weight not more speed of center g getting to
center M .
The more the atoms parts orbits become eliptical the more they wiegh .
wile the time g gets to m is constant .
Notice a big magnet will fly up and hit the plate at the same rate a
smalll pice of it will.
The atoms on the earth afect more space
but they are not stronger atoms.
2 atoms a diastance apart will afect each others parts orbits.
Not the time the atoms center of g is from its center of m .
Its too thick for nasa heads.
Brad Guth
Then what's your best estimate upon the EM-L2/ME-L1 mutual
gravity-well/nullification zone. If implying the 384,400 km Moon CG to
Earth CG as average, then where the heck is it?
Why are thr NASA certified infomercials saying that it's 16% from the
moon and my piss poor math has it situated at 9.947% the distance?
Adding a little further insult to injury; That null point or
interactive zone is rotating considerably faster around Earth than
around the moon. Is this why it's so much closer to Earth?
Not that it'll make or break any of the LSE-CM/ISS factors but, do you
suppose NASA has made yet another mistake?
Brad Guth
>I think gravity and mass are a manifestation of the same interaction
>and they both could be by-products of the electromagnetic field.
Sorry about that previous contribution as to "tomcat's" spaceplane. I'm
not exactly sure what I was thinking when I'd posted that info into
this gravity topic.
Otherwise, I'm thinking that on a nearby scale you're right about
gravity having to do mostly with mass and perhaps a fair amount if not
extensively of electromagnetic factors, and then the usual square of
the distance, plus something to do with orbital velocity or centrifugal
forces seems perfectly logical as to shifting the purely static
equation of a given nullification zone and of any mass within that zone
of keeping items within the mutual gravity-well, as per being offset
closer to whichever orb is being orbited the fastest. Although, on a
grand interstellar scale there may also be something of all those
photos (mostly of those you and I can't see) to think about.
Much like our moon has apparently been closer to Earth because of it's
orbital velocity being roughly 1+km/s. In other words, the faster our
moon orbits Earth the closer it gets to Earth, which somehow doesn't
make any sense at all. Too bad we still haven't a single interactive
science instrument upon our moon, as then we'd know a whole lot more
than we do right now.
tj Frazir
Drop 1000 tons and 1 oz and they fall at the same rate .
More atoms is a bigger pit NOT a stronger pit.
6 pounds on earth is 1 pound on the moon.
They will fall 5 feet from the dirt at the same speed. Nasa cant
understand that.
Atoms are atoms where ever they are.
The math cant be combined because that would change the atom.
Do the math becwards and find the mass of the atom !!
You cant use the G of moon and the atoms speed to find the mass of the
atom .
Nasa thinks things fall slower when on the moon. Its just 1 pound
falling not 6 pounds falling. 1 pound falls at the same rate 6 does.