A presentation made to the ‘Gravity’ Session in the October Conference of the American Physical Society, Four Corners Region. October 15, 2004

When I looked at the theme of this conference, a centennial celebration of Einstein’s five pivotal papers, I decided to attend, because I can see some parallels between the situation in 1905 and today.

The successes of Einstein’s 1905 papers, and the theory of General Relativity published twelve years later cannot be over emphasizes: The orbit of Mercury, the displacement of stars near the sun during a total eclipse, the time delay in accelerated atomic clocks, and the retarded atomic particle decomposition rates in high energy physics. These predictions have all been verified. We have looked for and found neutron stars, event horizons, gravitational lenses, and we have exploded nuclear bombs. Has any scientific theory ever been more successful?

In spite of these successes, not all the adaptations of General Relativity are that straight forward. Parameters have been added to address the many puzzles that remain: The MOND or dark energy effect at the edges of galaxies, the consistent, unpredicted acceleration of the Pioneer 10 and Pioneer 11, and other distant probes towards the sun. We have the ambiguous reports of anomalous behavior of Foucualt pendulums during total eclipses of the sun. We cannot detect gravity waves.

We blink our eyes, wondering why we cannot nail down either the nature of dark matter, the predicted transitions of the BB, or the genesis of observational errors we might be making.

Is gravity behaving badly?

You might think so, or at least feel humbled, if you look at it from this prospective:

In order to keep a resemblance of the Einstein deSitter cosmological model in place, theorist have had to introduce inflation, they have had to reduce the baryonic content of the universe to only four percent of the total mass fraction, and they have had to introduce ‘dark matter’ and ‘dark energy’ and population III stars, the only evidence of which is the failure of the universe to behave the way we predicted.

What is most startling to me though, is our failure to detect gravity waves. When you read the latest proposals of the LIGO team, it is easy to assume that we have not detected gravity waves simply because we do not have the necessary instrumental sensitivity. It is a misconception that this limit is theoretically driven: The observational constraints placed upon current tests for gravity waves are based upon prior constraints from less sensitive experiments.

In other words, the Theory of General Relativity predicts we should have been able to detect gravity waves with instruments much less sensitive than the current generation. The failure of our instruments to detect gravity waves is not unlike to the failure of the Michelson Morley experiment to detect ‘ether’.

On the subatomic scale, things are not much better: Virtually all of the four percent of the mass of the universe we consider ‘real’ (baryonic) is tied up in the Higgs boson, which has not been detected. In other words, everything we think we know defines less than one percent of the mass fraction of the universe! Can’t we do any better?

So many of Einstein’s predictions have born fruit. Why can’t we find gravity waves? Is there another plausible explanation? Could a Primary Postulate Be Wrong? Einstein looked at the Michelson and Morley results, and concluded that to make any sense of them, he would have to find some unexpected variabless, and he chose space and time.

To play with this idea, let’s look at Einstein’s fundamental Special Relativity postulate: The speed of light is a constant, so time must vary. Replace this with the concept that time is constant and the speed of light does very, in Lorentz transforms proportions to both gravitational and inertial frames of reference. Mathematically, this is a valid solution to the Michelson Morley observations, but with a powerful distinction: We can assign causality:

We know the light we observe is redshifted by a Lorentz transform of the difference in relative speed between the inertial frames of the source and the observer. We also know the transform is based upon Maxwell’s equations. So why not assume that when light approaches an inertial electromagnetic frame, it is slowed, just as the tensors of polarization change the path of light as it enters a dense transparent medium?

If you assume the speed of light slows as it approaches a dense object, and that it also slows when a object is approaching the source of light wave, (rather than changing the time in the different inertial reference time as Einstein did), E=mc^2 still pops out.

The difference is, when you look at a ‘modified special relativity’ that varies the speed of light as it approaches matter, rather than slowing time, it is easy to assign causality: Mass, and the gravitational fields associated with it slow the speed of light in an approaching objects in the same way that the dense mass, in the center of an atom, causes a refraction of light: Objects behave like standing waves, solitons.

In this scenario, when the proverbial ‘two trains’ are approaching each other, the standing waves we call gravimetric and inertial forces, envelope each other long before the two trains collide. The speed of the light traveling between the trains is slowed by the amount of speed necessary to satisfy the Lorentz transfer. As I said, this is mathematically equivalent to Einstein’s SR transformations. (This assumes there is an extremely small variance in the Michelson Morley experiments, caused by the inertial framework of the earth and sun, and there is. It is of the same magnitude as the predicted General Relativistic gravitational effects, as it should be.)

Part of this puzzle is found in the strange effects recorded during total eclipses of the Sun – Foucault pendulums exhibit a small but traceable glitch at the beginning and end of a total eclipse…some of the time.

Big pendulums: NO
Little pendulums: Yes, sometimes
Torsion pendulums: Maybe
Inside the cylinder of the total eclipse: Yes, but only at the edges and sometimes only one edge, and sometimes the phase angle of this glitch is 180 degrees out of phase with other observations.
Outside the cylinder: Never
Gravimeters: No. (However, there are tentitive indications of variance within one or two sigma of the noise level.)

I laid a bunch of these curves out, and soon realized if the force of gravity is slowed as it passes through a dense object, there should be a slight compression in the wave at the beginning and ending of the eclipse, where the path through the mass of the moon is changing dramatically – this would allow the earth to pull the pendulum down with a little more force until the wave passing through the moon “catches up”. When the second, slightly compressed wave ‘catches up’ to the relaxed wave, the pendulum has moved slightly, recording the new position of the compressed wave to a different position on the pendulum than the ‘stretched’ gravity wave. This can cause a slight increase in the energy of the pendulum as it swings through it’s point of maximum speed: The pendulum gets a small push and we can record this.

The reason this effect would be more pronounced in small, quickly moving pendulums rather than large ones is the movement means the compressed gravity wave lands on the pendulum behind, rather than right on top of the expanded wave: A pendulum is a differential gravity meter! And it proves (as we have always suspected) gravity moves at or near the speed of light. (This ‘speed’ of the gravimetric tensor has been confirmed in the ‘frame dragging’ effect of the earth’s orbit – a conformation gravity waves have a finite speed that is approximately the speed of light.)

I was thinking about this while arguing with 'Soupdragon’ about the nature of gravity , and I argued: “If what you say is true, everywhere we expect to find gravity waves we should find electromagnetic waves” and then I thought Oh my God!

1) When supernova 1987a exploded we were very disappointed that the Allegro gravity probe did not record this event. However, the explosion was observed shortly after an intense gamma ray was emitted from the same region! Since then, it has been absolutely confirmed core collapse supernovae emit intense gamma rays! Something not predicted, but observed.

2) Neutron stars were predicted using General Relativity and Quantum physics. They have been observed, confirming the prediction, but when they are found in binary pairs winding into each other they emit intense radio pulses. This pulsing was not predicted and is proving difficult to model. What is predicted is a very powerful gravity wave that we should be able to detect in binary neutron stars we observe winding into each other. (The mass loss necessary to create this wave IS observed, but not the gravity wave.)

3) We have found evidence of a “black hole” mass in the center of our own galaxy. Again, we should be able to detect gravity waves emitted by stars as they are torn apart and fall into this hole, we see intense radiation, much greater than expected, but not the gravity wave.

Could all of the gravity wave be converted to electromagnetic forces? Would this explain the origin of cosmic rays? Cosmic rays have energies we cannot model with known mechanisms of nuclear forces, but if matter is composed of standing waves, and rapid disassociation this matter releases massive electromagnetic radiation, these waves would then demonstrate a causal relationship between cosmic EMF and gravity. Now look what else happens:

1) When an earthquake occurs or a volcano erupts, this represents a major gravimetric disturbance. If gravity is an emf, we should see electric signatures. And we do! Earthquakes and volcanoes are known to disrupt the ionosphere, but we have never known why: Now we do!

2) The tidal forces of the earth should also create gravity waves. If this is an emf, since the tidal zones of the earth run mostly north and south, waves are crashing east and west: This should –according to the laws of electromagnetism, create a magnetic pole in the north-south direction. There is one!

3) Slowly rotating planets without atmospheres should not have, or have very weak magnetic poles, while rapidly rotating planets should have much stronger ones – because of the proximity of the moon, the earth’s magnetic field should be larger than that of Venus. All true!

4) Raindrops falling from the air, and clouds condensing are measurable gravimetric effects, and should create gravity waves. They do. They also cause lightening!

5) Spaceships orbiting the earth are subjective to tidal pulls – more waves, and yes, spaceships build up enormous electric charges.

6) When we quickly rub insulated objects together, if gravity is a weak emf, a weak charge should be generated. Since Franklin, we been told this is because these objects are “dissimilar”, but as my kids taught me, you can generate a static charge by rubbing together two very similar balloons. Dragging your feet across thousands of isolated carpet fibers can create awesome charge displacement – friction should generate heat, not charges.

(The balance of this observational evidence was not presented at Four Corners, but has been developed within the same month.)

7) The piezo electric effect occurs in crystal structures that have an orthogonal projection with no plane of symmetry. If one face of the crystal is compressed, a uniform “gravity” wave must be transmitted through the crystal. If this wave is electromagnetic, the phase angle of each compression that arrives at the orthogonal plane will be offset proportional to the size of the crystal. A standing wave is assembled in the orthogonal plane that is proportional to ratio of the crystal size to the fundamental frequency. Quartz crystals are gravity wave frequency dividers!

8) The last time we heard from the Pioneer 10 and 11 probes, they were accelerating toward the sun with a near-constant acceleration that cannot be explained with known physics. Stars at the edges of galaxies are also accelerating at a comparable rate. The consensus model reason for this acceleration is ‘dark matter’, a commodity that has shirked all attempts at detection or realistic modeling.

The pioneer and ‘Dark matter’ or MOND effects can easily be modeled from these concepts: Inertial and gravimetric effects are not only equivalent as Einstein postulated, they are identical! When we place a Newtonian force on the earth by jumping (applying a force downwards), the earth is deflected from its position in space, and an equal and opposite deflection occurs in what we consider the inertial framework. The resulting force accelerates us upward. Once this energy has been absorbed in this gravitational/inertial tensor framework, we accelerate downwards and the field strength returns to an equilibrium.

Careful reading of the paragraph above reveals there is no such thing as inertia – to exhibit an ‘inertial acceleration’ a gravitational tensor must be in place. Now the MOND effect is easy to understand: As the mass fraction of a galaxy dwindles, so does the inertial potential. Stars near the edges of galaxies cannot continue to rotate according to Newton, because the strength of the ‘inertial’ field diminishes in proportion with the gravitational field.

What then is happening to the energy? It is being radiated – as radio waves! This is why all galaxies are radio loud in their perimeters, especially where jets are expanding away from galaxies cores! This is why the jets remain collimated over extreme distances that defy Machian dynamics! This is why jets stop suddenly in space, and why they form knotted structures. We know about these knots because they are extremely radio-loud!

We are trying to follow the expansion of supernova explosions into space, and this expansion is not making sense: We do not see the explosion front propogating into space, and we do not see the amount of dust in space that we should expect, given the frequency of supernova events. Why? Without the inertial framework, supernova cannot expand rapidly into space, and the energy is released as X-rays and gamma rays instead, just as we observe.

If you tried to accelerate a rocket between two galaxies, where the gravitational tensors are virtually non-existent, the rocket would not be propelled forward, but would instead broadcast radio waves, the strength of which is proportional to the thrust. Not only is ‘warp drive’ not possible between galaxies, neither is Newtonian!

This explains why our steady state universe does not collapse: Although there are acceptations, (such as when galaxies are clearly connected in clusters by gas trails), but in general, the radiating fields are at least as strong as the gravitational attractions, and a net balance in these forces keep galaxies isolated from each other.

Galaxies can absorb as well as generate radio waves, and the frequency bandwidth of absorption/emission is proportional to the Gaussian size distribution of galaxies. This net Gaussian distribution creates a blackbody radiation that is called the cosmic microwave background.

It almost goes without saying that there is an intrinsic redshift in space that we mistake for Doppler effects. Once causality is assigned to changes in the speed of light rather than ‘time dilation’, Chandrasahkar’s rules of radiation transfer come into play. The ‘Hubble constant’ is a constant because the cosmic microwave background temperature of this completely relaxed universe is constant.

An causal explanation can also be made for other observations that confirm tenants of General Relativity: Neutrons decay much less slowly when they are packed into atoms, next to protons, so even the slowing of atomic clocks and the delay in particle decay can be explained as gravimetric/inertial functions. (In this hypothetical world, a particle moving very fast relative to the inertial/gravitational field it travels in decays more slowly, because the effective density of the protons and/or electrons increases near the particle.)

Finally, an electromagnetic gravitation tensor defines Planck’s constant: The maximum frequency at which an atom can absorb energy is a function of the fundamental frequency of the atom. However, this does not mean electromagnetic radiation does not exist at higher frequencies than our atomic structure allows us to detect. We did not find all of the energy/momentum we expected to find in careful analysis of atomic explosion. An ad-hoc extension to Einstein’s theory developed the concept of neutrinos. This may be incorrect, if the mass fraction missing is broadcast as an electromagnetic wave at a frequency we cannot detect: a gravity wave.

Although these waves pass almost undetected through matter, in certain situations, such as quartz crystals, this energy is converted to detectable wavelengths. This also happens deep within the earth, in our neutrino detectors: (These are nothing more than secondary detectors of energetic events.) The reason the ‘neutrino count’ recorded in our measurements from the sun is only one third of the predicted value is because we underestimate the number and type of atoms being consumed in the sun and the do not understand the byproducts.

This means it is possible to extract more energy from atomic reactions than is currently deemed possible: Even the most nuclear stable of all atoms, Iron, can be crushed and release primal energy. This is why stars burn much longer than predicted, why there are areas of low heavy metal abundance in the oldest of galaxies, and why there is a seemingly endless supply of energy powering the universe.

General Relativity is an ad-hoc model that does not address or assign causality. It has great predictive powers, but so do epicycles. It was just as rewarding to conceptualize, model and predict events using Ptolemy’s mathematical models as it is with Einstein’s four-dimensional tensors, and almost as difficult. This does not mean they are accurate representations of reality.

This ability to assign causality to all of these events leads to the conclusion Einstein was as wrong as he was right. He recognized the equivalence of inertial acceleration and gravity, he did not realize the force is identical. He slowed time, when he could have found causality by associating the Doppler shifting of electromagnetic waves with the kinetic energy and mass density of the system.

The solutions to the gravimetric and time dilation effects characteristic of general relativity can also be found using wave equations and slowing the speed of light as it enters a high impedance gravitational and/or inertial tensor, rather than warping space and time. This mathematically equivalent solution allows causality to be assigned to relativistic effects. It predicts we should see distant gravitational waves as electromagnetic, rather than seismic events.

__________________
jwj

It's a big universe out there...is it really unwinding, really burning out?