Invalidating General Relativity and Gravitational Attraction
Stan Byers
Laymen, Scholars and Students of Gravitational Science and Engineering,
Subject: Invalidating General Relativity and Gravitational Attraction concepts leaves Radiation Pressure as the only viable model for the cause of Gravitation. A public domain article.
Enclosure: Cover letter below.
Force Doubling Paradox of Gravitational Attraction
Radiation Pressure versus General Relativity
Abstract :: This paper compares three concepts for modeling the cause of gravitation:
* Radiation Pressure * General Relativity Attraction * Mass Attraction
The argument is presented that the radiation pressure model of gravity is the only model that produces the correct values for the forces acting upon orbiting bodies. All competing "attraction" models produce values that are double the actual force which is required to maintain orbit. This force doubling paradox as detailed in this paper indicates that the Mass Attraction and General Relativity Attraction concepts are not viable models for the cause of gravity and inertia.
If this Double Force Argument is true, all of the exceedingly expensive projects and studies of our governments and universities, that are related to or depend on SR, GR Relativity and Black Holes, have wasted and continue to waste billions of the peoples treasure. A short list of projects that are based on General Relativity are: 1) Gravity Probe B, 2) LIGO Gravity Waves, 3) National Ignition Facility, 4) Advanced LIGO Gravity Waves, 5) LISA Gravity Waves, 6) Black Hole Projects, and 7) University SR and GR courses and funded projects. The belief in Black Holes with unlimited "attractive" force, Gravity waves, Space Time and Frame Dragging are all derived and arise from a belief in SR and GR Relativity.
This Double Force Paradox article has survived the web and science newsgroups for a year without a single contrary response.
If we are not able to falsify this Double Force Argument,...then SR and GR Relativity are falsified. Progress in Physical Science will occur when past mistakes are acknowledged and new developments such as the radiation pressure model are addressed with an open mind.
This is a public domain article. ***
Reviewing the Radiation Pressure Model :: In a radiation and shadowing model of remote force all forms of matter: (atoms, particles, electric charge, and magnetic fields), are subjected to "apparently" attractive and repelling remote force. However, the isotropic prime radiation is the seat and source of the relative forces, in the same manner that it is the seat and source of inertial force. Attraction and repulsion at a distance can not exist in a radiation and shadowing model of remote and local forces. ***
Reviewing the "Attraction" Models of Gravitation :: Our past and current dictionaries, dominant encyclopedias, Wikipedia and university physics books [1] define and refer to gravity as; an “attractive” force “inherent” to the mass or warped space of a body. Applying any "attractive" force model to the Earth Moon dynamic forces, we obtain this following system:
• The Earth’s attractive gravitation balances the orbital centrifugal force of the Moon.
• The Moon’s attractive gravitation balances the orbital centrifugal force of the Earth.
At first this may seem like an orderly and balanced attractive force system; however,... the following paradox exists. If the seat, source and cause of the "apparent" attraction forces are "internal" to each of the bodies...the attraction concept produces twice the force that is necessary to balance the centrifugal orbital forces of a planet moon system. The concept of "attraction" between bodies requires that the force “from” each separate body acts on the remote body,-- and equally on the originating body! Another example of a balanced system is a rope under tension; each end has an equal amount of opposing force per the law of action and reaction (See Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Action_and_reaction).
This double force paradox is directly applicable to the "mass attraction",... the General Relativity “attraction” and all other attraction type concepts of gravity. ***
The Mass Attraction Models of Gravitation :: The attraction concepts [2] accept Newton's inverse square equation of gravity's force between two bodies as:
F = G x (M1 x M2) / r squared .
The surface gravity ( g ) for each of the bodies can be derived from the gravitational constant ( G ) and the mass and radius of the bodies. Using Newton's equation the g forces, allegedly "seated" in each of the "two" bodies acting on the other at a distance, can be calculated.
Within the attraction concepts:
• From Earth, the concept requires that Earth's gravity is attracting the Moon; and this same and equal Earth anchored “attraction” force is pulling the Earth toward the Moon.
• From the Moon, the Moon's gravity is attracting the Earth; and this Moon seated force is equally pulling the Moon toward the Earth.
Using: 1 ) Newton’s equation as given above, 2 ) basic arithmetic, 3 ) common logic and 4 ) the mechanics of force, it is shown that the assumed Earth and Moon seated forces are equal; and as a result;…"all attraction models" produce twice the force that is required to balance the centrifugal forces of orbit! ***
The General Relativity Model of Gravitation :: The exact same paradox arises with the General Relativity (GR) concept of gravity. It postulates that Mass warps a hypothetical "fabric of spacetime" and the warped fabric of spacetime causes “attraction” of other masses. Since in the GR theory the seat of the attractive force is anchored within the center of the planet’s and moon’s positions, we would again have twice the force required to balance the orbital forces of the Earth Moon system. ***
Newton’s References to the Cause of Gravity :: This paradox only arises within "attraction" type models and it also raises the following question: If this paradox is true and important, why was it not addressed by Newton, the author of our gravitational math? The following quote from a letter by Sir Isaac Newton should answer the above question. This quote expresses his firm opinion opposing the concept that gravity (attraction) acted through empty space as an “inherent” property of matter.
Quote "...that one body may act upon another at a distance through a vacuum without the mediation of anything else, by and through which their action and force may be conveyed from one to another, is to me "so great an absurdity" that I believe no man, who has in philosophic matters a competent faculty of thinking, could ever fall into it." Unquote
Since Newton considered the attraction concept "so great an absurdity"; it seems reasonable to assume that he would not have spent time contemplating the detailed mechanics of an absurd attractive system. Therefore he may not have encountered or addressed the double force paradox. People do not normally study hypothesis that they believe are not correct, or hypothesis that they do not have an interest in.
It also appears certain that Newton would never have believed that for one hundred plus years our Twenty and Twenty First Century Natural Philosophy Societies, learned professors, authors and students would fall into believing, teaching and propagating the concept “that one body may act upon another at a distance through a vacuum without the mediation of anything else”.
Sir Isaac Newton's laws of motion, circa 1600's, gave the description of how the force of gravity varied with distance, following the inverse distance squared equation, but he did not propose a cause for gravity or inertia in any of his publications. Although, the following quote, from a private letter to Robert Boyle, shows Newton did conceive of a cause for gravity that is essentially the duplicate of this radiation and shadowing model of remote forces. If Newton's term "ethereal spirit" is replaced with the term "prime radiation" in the following quote, the similarity of the concepts becomes obvious.
Quote: "so may the gravitating (apparent) attraction of the Earth be caused by the continual condensation of some other suchlike ethereal spirit (prime radiation),. . . in such a way . . . as to cause it (this spirit) (prime radiation) from above to descend with great celerity (speed) for (from) a supply; in which descent it may bear down with it the bodies it pervades, with force proportional to the superficies (surfaces) of all their parts (atoms) it acts upon." Unquote
The terms in above brackets have been added to the original to aid in the comparison. It is satisfying and important to note that Newton's cause of gravity concept, as stated above, does not propose an Aether consisting of the vibration or flow of particulate material, nor does it propose attraction through a distance as a cause. In this author’s opinion the above quote shows that Isaac Newton did frame a non-particulate radiation and shadowing system as a cause for gravity, circa late 1600’s. ***
The Radiation Pressure Model of Gravitation :: In an isotropic radiation pressure system of gravity [3], the seat of the force is not in the mass of the objects. Each atom of the object shadows the radiation flow, causing an "external" unbalanced radiation pressure force “pushing” the objects toward each other. There is “no attracting” tension involved, which would require the doubling of the calculated force. The gravitational radiation pressure is an attribute of the Universe’s prime isotropic radiation,...in the same manner that Inertia, E fields, EM radiation and all remote forces are mediated by prime radiation. In a radiation pressure model, planets and objects do not “have” gravity; they contribute to the development of the local field of gravity by screening a portion of the prime radiation flow of the Universe. Gravitational Attraction does not exist. ***
Summary :: If the Earth is “attracting” the Moon and the Moon is “attracting” the Earth,...this would produce twice the actual force that is required to maintain the bodies in their current orbits. Attractive Gravity would also cause your scale to display twice the value of your actual body weight.
This double force result demonstrates that the seat of force does not reside in the planets or bodies, nor their positions.
The seat and cause of the forces are “external” to the planets,… as predicted by a radiation pressure model of remote force. With the disqualification of the two attractive force models, the isotropic radiation and shielding model is the only known one remaining which correctly predicts the actions and forces of gravitation and inertia. A detailed study of the radiation and shielding model is available on the web, [3] and titled, Radiant Pressure Model of Remote Forces.
The logic of this article does not imply that there is anything wrong with Newton's gravitational equation;...the double force error only arises when it is “assumed” that the force is attractive and that the cause and seat of the forces are within the mass or position of the planets or bodies. Newton's equation works perfectly for a radiation and shadowing system, since the seat and/or source of the force is external and applied locally to the planets and moons,...and attraction or tension through a distance are not required and cannot exist within a radiation pressure and shielding system of remote and local forces. The force on the Moon toward the Earth occurs on the far side of the Moon.
There is nothing in this article that changes the known number values of gravitational forces nor the Gravitational Constant. Numerical comparisons are not required to realize that the calculated value is double the natural value. Applying the laws of basic logic excludes the possibility that matter could be the seat of attractive force. The following numerical comparisons have been added as suggested by some reviewers. Note: The supporting math is available on the web version. ***
Radiation Pressure Reference Papers :: The following list of papers and articles present additional support for the falsification of the mass attraction and General Relativity attraction concepts.
• Light Speed versus Special Relativity, 2005
URL: http://home.netcom.com/~sbyers11/litespd_vs_sr.htm .
Olaf Roemer's work of 1676 AD demonstrates that the light speed is not constant in relation to all observers. If true, this inconvenient fact and its uncontested data disqualify Special and General Relativity as viable theories of electromagnetic radiation and physical forces.
• A second example of the light speed question has been available on the web site of B. G. Wallace using 1969 radar data to establish that light speed is not constant for all observers. The information is available at: URL: http://www.ekkehard-friebe.de/wallace.htm
• Gravity Anomalies, Rev. 2010
URL: http://home.netcom.com/~sbyers11/grav11d.htm .
Anomalies of Earth's gravity, shown on the recent European Space Agency gravity map, are presented that are only predicted by a radiation and shielding model of gravity.
• The unmodified version of the gravity map above, may still be available at:
http://blogs.nature.com/news/thegreatbeyond/2010/06/goce_depicts_gravity_in_high_r.html
• Pushing Gravity 2002 M. R. Edwards, Editor.
A valuable collection of papers reviewing theories of gravitation. ***
Reference::
1. * Understanding Relativity, Leo Sartori, University of California Press Copyright 1996 by The Regents of the University of California. **
* The Modern English Dictionary 1913 AD, The Syndicate Company
Definition: Gravitation: The force which "attracts", pg. 384 **
* Britannica, Encyclopedia, SEARCH [Gravitation]: "Universal force of attraction that acts between all bodies that have mass. ....where all bodies experience a downward gravitational force exerted by Earth's mass." 9/5/2010 http://www.britannica.com/ **
2. * University Physics, Sears, Zemansky, and Young
" Every particle in the Universe attracts every other particle...."
pg 125, Copyright 1987, 7th Edition, **
3. * Radiant Pressure Model of Remote Forces, Byers, 1975
URL: http://home.netcom.com/~sbyers11/ ** ***
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Scholars and Laymen,
This above e-mail version of the text of the web article “Force Doubling Paradox of Gravitational Attraction" is provided to aid and obtain the widest possible distribution of this message.
The complete article with text and math is available at the web address,
http://home.netcom.com/~sbyers11/DoblFrcPar.htm .
The math (arithmetic) portion of this article is not required to understand the logic of the argument presented.
Public Domain Statement :: This article, "Force Doubling Paradox of Gravitational Attraction” and enclosed cover letter, authored by Stanley V Byers, is granted to be in the public domain, October 14, 2011 . ***
Readers that agree with the arguments of this paper are encouraged to distribute and forward this public domain message as widely as possible, i.e. journals, web sites, web forums, blogs, twitter, face book, fax, newsgroups, email and snail-mail. Students of Physics, Mathematics and Engineering are encouraged to share this argument with their professors, colleagues, and text book publishers. Rebuttals, improvements, questions and suggested corrections to this paper are requested and may be posted on the web site with acknowledgment, but only with the contributor's permission. The contents and portions of the contents of this article may be used freely. Translations, reproductions, condensations, abstracts, simplifications, corrections, newsgroup postings, paraphrasing and alternate arrangements of this article are encouraged, with or without credits or citation. A correct and truthful idea or argument will stand and propagate on its own, regardless of any authorship claims or author's agenda.
It is this author's belief that this Double Force Argument is so elementary and logical that peer review support by gravitational physics scientists should not be required prior to publishing. Laymen and basic students will find the logic of this issue understandable, the supporting math is not required to validate the argument.
Publishers and editors that may find content deemed valuable to the public, may publish it as they wish. This public domain content is not subject to any exclusive publishing agreements.
Additional public domain papers critiquing the "established" theories of gravitation are:
1) Light Speed versus Special Relativity
http://home.netcom.com/~sbyers11/litespd_vs_sr.htm
2) Falsification of the Constant Light Speed Assumption
http://home.netcom.com/~sbyers11/false_light_speed.htm
An acknowledgement of understanding and receipt of this message will be appreciated. Questions, comments and rebuttals will be promptly addressed with interest.
Cheers, Stan Byers
42823 Lido Park Court
Fremont, California, USA 94538
Phone 510 651 0368
sbye...@comcast.net
July 14, 2023, AD Public domain news
Propulsion via Cosmic e field Radiation
In the mid-20th Century, a group of American astronauts were taking an extended trip to planet Serpo in a very large UFO from Serpo. With plenty of time and curiosity they asked a Serpo technician how they accomplish propulsion. The technician said that they transmit EM radiation (light) out in front of the craft and that this causes a vacuum in space, which pulls the craft forward.
The radiation pressure and shielding model of gravity views cosmic radiant energy as the basic cause of gravity. The cosmic radiation energy is isotropic and coherent like a laser. Circa 2011 Prof. Louis Rancourt discovered that EM radiation (Light) shields the force of gravity. A Google search for (Prof. Louis Rancourt) produces links to his valuable works shielding gravity.
The EM radiation projected from the front of the Serpo craft partially shields the incoming cosmic radiation intensity and coherency Any portion of the incoming radiation that is changed to in- coherency will add to the shielding effect. The radiation striking the back of the spacecraft is still coherent with full intensity and pushes the spacecraft forward. The simplicity of this process indicates that technicians worldwide should be able to apply it to turn a generator or move a spacecraft.
This message is granted to be in the public domain. Use, translate, interpret, edit, and distribute at will. Mutual sharing makes a happy village.
Cheers, Stan Byers...www.energy-gravity.com