An unexplained effect during solar eclipses casts doubt on General Relativity

Any thoughts on this article? Seems like we do not really completely understand gravity after all...

There was a thread on this started a while ago by mutineer, and lunatik brought it up a couple weeks ago.

Chris Duif did a good job I think, but he missed the boat on the explanation for the effect. Here is a link to Duif's original article. At the conclusion Duif rules out gravitational screening as the possible cause, without having discussed it anywhere in the article! In the paper by Wang et al (discussed in mutineer's thread) they do mention screening as a likely cause. It could be screening of either the Le Sage type or the (Quirino) Majorana type.

Thanks!

On the Allais Effect, thinking outside the box (of current physics) there is a way this increased gravity could be theorized during a total lunar eclipse. It would involve some sort of inverse proportionality of solar energy (radiating electromagnetic energy) and gravity. Theoretically, if the Earth were shielded by some very large mass so that it is now in shadow, then the solar energy reaching the planet would be curtailed. Though the planet acts as one unit, which is why this effect is not evident on its dark side, for example, a complete shielding would then modify, or increase, the gravitational effect as the solar energy is decreased, given their inverse proportionality. When we get a total lunar eclipse this occurs naturally, so that the gravitational force would be raised, at least enough to show its effect on a pendulum. The shielding would also affect atmospheric density, as theorized by Van Flandern and Yang in the article referenced. However, this would introduce a whole new way of understanding gravity, vis a vis solar energy, which would perhaps invalidate much of what we believe now. I don't know if the physics community is quite ready for this kind of thinking, for now, so leave it here as only a theoretical possibility.

If anyone is interested in the math which might describe this, though it is still an untested theory, please see the equations at: http://www.humancafe.com/cgi-bin/dis...gi?70/108.html

I do not hold its author accountable at this time, since it is still work in progress, namely myself. ops:

__________________
Caveat Lector. Experimentum summus judex...

I gotta agree, I'm with you on that one

You seem to have attracted some interesting attention. Richard Hoagland...I dont' think he would sign things as "Hoaggie" though...

I blush at the attention, for it truly remains undeserved!

Like I said, this equation is only a work in progress, so go easy guys.

Cheers, Ivan

__________________
Caveat Lector. Experimentum summus judex...

From equation one, the math on this site is horrible:


Apparently "Em" is to be some sort of "momentum associated with light, but that's not explained. then there's the mysterious (1-g) term which has units of mass, but it's impossible to say why.

A really poor work of putting random equations up for no good reason. Math that is well done has a point, it easy to follow, and well-explained. This is not worth looking at.

Hi Astronomy,

Thanks for looking in, the 'Em' was for 'electric force', but since revised.

That early "Axiomatic equation" was still seminal in development of what later became an equation describing how gravity and energy interact, which became a scientific paper showing how this interaction leads to the Pioneers Anomaly, with 4/5ths of the anomaly shown to have a 'variable gravity' G relationship, and the remainder due to systemic reasons. Some of those ideas were posted on the Pioneers 10 & 11 thread.

This final version, a paper titled: "Atomic Mass as a Gravity and Energy Function: with implications for the Pioneers 10 and 11 Acceleration Anomalies", is 16 pages with references. However, Physics Archives will not publish it without "enthusiastic endorsement" since I lack university affiliation, so it had only been seen privately.

If you, or anyone, know of someone (published at university) who would consider the endorsement needed to make it public, please write me to address in my profile.

Cheers, thanks, Ivan
[aka Lunatik ]

__________________
Caveat Lector. Experimentum summus judex...

Not until you learn how to present math in a lucid manner. I am not convinced that you have anything.

I'm not out to convince you. I only offer to those who have an open mind to examine a new idea. To convince you is beyond my desire to explore. An idea is only an idea. It is not meant as a weapon to con-vince anyone.

Sometimes people really surprise me... what are they afraid of? New ideas? The math is in the paper, if anybody cares... but I really don't care if anyone does. It's ONLY an IDEA!

__________________
Caveat Lector. Experimentum summus judex...

Lunatik,
based on the Pioneer thread, it is clear that you are confused about the meaning of the formulae you use ("functions from Maxwell's, Planck's, DeBroglie's, Einstein's, and Newton's equations").
I have to agree with Astronomy.

If you still want to publish, try Galilean Electrodynamics: they published Lyndon Ashmore's paper.

__________________
papageno


"Why waste time learning, when ignorance is instantaneous?" - Hobbes (Calvin and Hobbes)

"It's all about context!" - Vince Noir (The Mighty Boosh)

"I've never heard of such a brutal and shocking injustice that I cared so little about!" - Zapp Brannigan (Futurama)

Thanks papageno, but I'll hold for now. Not in any hurry. If the idea is any good, it won't disappear of its own, eventually somebody out there will either get it, or improve it. If no good, then who cares anyway?

Cheers.

__________________
Caveat Lector. Experimentum summus judex...

It's not published yet! According to Lyndon Ashmore in this post it won't be published until 2006. There is a small (admittedly very small!) chance that the editors of Galilean Electrodynamics might come to their senses before then.
8)

__________________
Microsoft is over if you want it.

The bar has been lowered for the promotion of ATM ideas; the bar for the acceptance of ATM ideas must remain high.

I'll believe that when I see it. Hopefully clearer minds will prevail.

I personally think Lunatik's theory, or who ever proposed it sounds interesting.

Does anyone know where the tests are done for gravity?
If they are taken in the Eclipsed part of the planet, shouldn't the test be done in several places at the same time.

I'm guessing but giving some credit to the people who do the tests to take the moons gravity into account or they are morons. But we know gravity can effect light and the deformations in space time can focus light.

But if gravity is in fact the transmission of gravitons would it be possible for a dense graviton field (the moon) be able to focus or deflect other gravitons?

Lunatik's "axiomatic equation" is no better than Ashmore's paradox: playing around with formulae does not give them a physical meaning.

I did a quick search at the Physical Review Online Archive and I found this:


Gravitational forces add like vectors, hence gravitons should not interact with each other.

__________________
papageno


"Why waste time learning, when ignorance is instantaneous?" - Hobbes (Calvin and Hobbes)

"It's all about context!" - Vince Noir (The Mighty Boosh)

"I've never heard of such a brutal and shocking injustice that I cared so little about!" - Zapp Brannigan (Futurama)

The thing about GR or any relativsitc theory of gravity which shares a few of GR's most basic ideas is that it has to be non-linear, so if indeed there is a focre-carrier for gravity there almost certainly will be interactions between gravitons (edited to add: this is of course not an attmept to offer an explanation for the Allais effect).

Surely they must be morons.