43 views

Skip to first unread message

Nov 17, 2012, 7:33:32 PM11/17/12

to physic...@googlegroups.com

__ __

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

Aug 13, 2023, 6:47:03 PM8/13/23

to PhysicsWorld

**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

Reply all

Reply to author

Forward

0 new messages

Search

Clear search

Close search

Google apps

Main menu