[Moderator note] this thread was created by splitting posts from the Gravity is a nuclear force thread.

It contains posts discussing Jerry Jensen's ideas on gravity and mass. [/Moderator note]Conceptually there is nothing wrong with Steve's root hypothesis, if you assume the frequency of these oscillations is so high that it is virtually undetectable. Face it: There has to be a mechanism for backing mass/energy into a gravitational field. Particle physicists assume this is the function of the Higgs boson - an animal never detected.

Particle physics has a phenominological history of development: We observed behaviour, then built models that explain the behavior. Eventually the models became so good, they could predict behavior in many cases. But this is no different from the development cycle of epicycles, and may contain fundamental conceptual errors in spite of the success of the methods.

One of the offshoots of Steve's approach (and my own, which is almost identical) is that we should expect field behavior near massive objects that is different from particle solutions. These variations should also be observable, and I think they are: In the acceleration of the solar wind, the Doppler dip of the Pioneer 6 probe, and many other poorly understood phenomenon - such as triboelectric effects.

__________________
jwj

It's ok not to know.

How high would 'the frequency of these oscillations' have to be to be 'virtually undetectable'?This is either trivially true, a question that is well-recognised as something which will come from a unified theory, or nonsense (well, apart from the need to replace 'never' with 'not so far').

If it is part of some unification, then wouldn't it be better to focus on the details of that unification, than just a result? After all, without knowing where it comes from, what guidance could this statement have (in terms of ways to find answers)?Which is, again, either trivially true (something that is inevitable, given the scientific method), a cop-out (science progresses by testing theories, the 'mainstream' one against alternatives), or nonsense (and what on earth is "phenominological"?)And if I'm not mistaken, you have put your alternative ideas up for us to consider, here in the ATM section, at least once before. Time to revive at least one such thread? (I'd prefer that we don't hijack this one, discussing Stephen's idea, to discuss yours Jerry).

If the frequency cannot be detected, why should any supposed effect be detectable? And speaking of undetected things like the Higgs boson, let me point out that violations of charge conservation have NEVER been observed. Are you sure you want to ride this crippled pony of a theory? This is one for the glue factory!
Great Flying Spaghetti Monster! I do wish people would stop gratuitously mentioning epicycles! That's 10 points off for you!

If your statement is taken at face value it would seem to mean that if our theories get to be too good at prediction then we should distrust them because they cannot possibly be right. What kind of an approach is this?
The approach followed by you and by Stephen is almost identical in this respect: you ignore physical principles already known as well as measurements and experiments already performed. Charge does not "oscillate"; the speed of light does not vary by 20 percent across the diameter of the Solar System. Both of you need to go back to the university library of your choice and really read up on physics.

__________________
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.

You are making the assumption that these effects would be detectable as charge conservation violations. What makes you assume that?

A year ago I was shouted-out of a lecture when I speculated that point charges can be induced in electrically isolated grains. Within a month it was announced that gamma rays actually originate in lighning, and are not induced by cosmic rays. This observation flies in-the-face of current theory, and where there is smoke there is fire: gamma rays result in pair production. Isolated pairs rejoin in a clap of thunder. How do they get so far appart?
Agreed it is a little like mentioning a paradyme shift. I hate that.

Particle physics relies upon statistical solutions. I can argue that, at the root of particle physical theory, complex wave mechanics are involved that reduce to these 'simplified' models. This does not eschew quantum mechanics.

Good point. But I think a better analogy to what I am saying is to look at models of complex protien interactions: Relativistics physics play no obvious role, and we do not need them to understand these 'higher level' quantum behaviors. Gravity plays virtually no role in QMs. So the description within QM of gravimetric properties may be completely out in left-field.

Basic theory has never properly married quantum and relativistic behavior, and this is after an 80 year engagement. That is a problem. Basic theory cannot churn out a good reason for lightning to produce gamma rays, for the acceleration of the solar wind, the accelerations of the Pioneer probes or the anomalous behavior of Cassini as it approaches Titan. Something very basic might be wrong.

If you want to try an interest though experiment, assume the speed of light does vary 20% between the sun and the Kuiper belt, then figure out how you would measure this, and what effect varying the speed of light would have on every thing we see and experience. Then gradually reduce the effect, making it most pronounced very near the sun, reducing to a very small, nearly constant acceleration by the orbit of Saturn. At what level would the effect be non-detectable? At what level would Saturn detectably glow more brightly in direct solar opposition than predicted? (Something we have observed!)

At what level would we see only wider-than-expected errors in GR predictions? Errors such as more gravitational lenses than we would expect to see; and greater gravitational redshifts in massive objects? The red shifts of these massive objects would cause us to overestimate both their size and absolute magnitude, and ultimately the size of the Hubble Constant. Since the most intrinsically redshifted objects would also appear to be more distant, there would be the appearance of cosmic evolution where evolution may not be occurring. Is this what we are seeing?

A speed of light in a true vacuum that is 20% greater that what we measure on Earth would explain the low solar neutrino content. That is where I came up with that number, and we both agree it is wrong. A much smaller shift is possible, but this requires a better explanation for the solar neutrino count. Do neutrinos have mass, as some have suggested? Is some of the mass of the sun allocated to the gravitational field? (Perhaps more than an atom of the same mass would be allocated at the orbit of the Earth); and as these atoms are fused, does this gravitational energy return to the sun? Is the energy per fusion reaction greater than SR predicts? Is this why red dwarf stars appear to have much longer lives than we think they should?

Where is the gravity budget for fusion experiments conducted on earth? Is the much wider-than-predicted blast zones of nuclear blasts due entirely to the unexpected fusion of case materials; or is there more energy than expected in the collapse of gravitational waves as mass is converted to energy? How do supernova explosions accelerate matter to such incredible velocities? What happens to the gravitational field energy when they explode? Why haven't we detected gravity waves?

Where is that Higgs boson when you really need it? Can your university library-of-choice answer these questions?

Edit: Grammer

__________________
jwj

It's ok not to know.

If if walks like a duck and says "AFLAC!!!" like a duck, it's probably a duck. Stephen's idea calls for the charge of a deuteron to oscillate between +e and 0. That sounds like violation of charge conservation to me.
I take points of for that too. Another 10 points!
Two words: Hydrogen bonds. (Not bombs! ) Hydrogen bonds play a crucial role in the shapes and ultimately the functions of proteins. Of course we're still at the point of experiment and observe, we can't predict and observe yet. (Someone please correct me if I'm wrong about this!)
Unfortunately the proposed solutions of various ATM proponents are wrong, very wrong, in their basic assumptions. Charge oscillation as proposed by Stephen is one of these very, very wrong things.
I tried it, remember when I branded your model "the Funhouse Solar System"? We do not see such grotesque distortions in the positions of the planets. And the fact that we do not observe aberrations other than the standard stellar and planetary observations puts fairly stringent limits on this effect.

But why take my word for it? Browse the Particle Data Group website, I think they may have some information on the variability of the speed of light. Since the speed of light and special relativity is so important to particle physicists, I'm sure that they have the best limits for both Earth-bound and Solar System experiments and references to the experiments in question. And no whining about these only being two-way measurements!
Apples and oranges, Jerry. Two more words for you: glory scattering.

Time does not allow me to answer the rest of this post; maybe later on tonight. Unless something more flawed and urgent comes up.

__________________
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.

Jerry Jensen, please read this warning about your violation of BAUT rules.

Sorry, Neried, I missed the warning, and it was not unreasonable.

You and Steven both missed the point:
The sign is irrelevant in an AC or field coupled component: We know there is an energy field coupling – we call this gravity. We know the gravitational force is a small fraction of a basic charge unit. If this is an electronic field, there would only be a magnitude coupling, not a "DC offset".

We also know, from the Hall effect, that the basic charge can be subdivided. What is not known is whether or not the gravitational force is electromagnetic, and whether or not it is related to the vibrational modes of an atomic nucleus. I am willing to argue that gravity is indeed electromagnetic it nature for a lot of reasons.

1) To the first order, gravity follows exactly the same inverse square rule.
2) Planck’s constant was derived using black body radiation. This is important, because it associates the ‘steps’ in the electromagnetic function with experimentally determined energy levels in baryons, leaving open the question of whether or not smaller ‘steps’ could exist if the search for radiating frequencies and fields is not limited to the thermal energy spectrum of baryons. In other words, gravity can only be associated with an electromagnetic field if this field only weakly interacts with matter.
3) Everywhere we look for, and expect to find gravity waves (neutron star binaries, black holes, supernova explosions) we find extremely energetic gamma rays. (This is what would be expected, if a gravitational collapse releases ultra-ultra-high frequency radiation; which is almost immediately reduced to lower observable frequencies through radiation transfer functions with ordinary photons, including microwaves.)
4) If such a field exists, it provides an immediate mechanism for tribo-electric effects, energizing particles in motion regardless of their proximity to other charges. This provides an easy explanation for how the solar wind becomes charged, how lightning originates in isolated clouds, and why earthquakes disturb the ionosphere.
5) The second order effects are rather more complex than simple gravity, and explain why Titan appears, from orbits and fly-by’s, to have a mean density of only ~2g/cc, but has all the hallmarks of a much more dense moon.

Using only GR principles, the solar system is a hall-of-mirrors, and so is the rest of universe. GR should cause a slight focusing of the light from Saturn when the Earth and sun are in exact opposition, intensifying the glory. What is not clear is whether or not GR and glory effects can account for all the brilliance of Saturn during opposition.

I am of the opinion, from reading accounts by astronomers of the startling brilliance of Saturn when this rare transition occurred last July, that the glory exceeded all expectations and is difficult to impossible to account for. What I do not know is if these were exaggerated accounts, or if they were ignore the GR effects. I welcome any and all analytical data which can help resolve this..

__________________
jwj

It's ok not to know.

There was an interesting couple of documentaries on Channel 5 UK last night. They both included the term 'UFO' in their titles, but focussed on secretive military research and the paranoia of the cold war after the second world war, etc. What I found most interesting was some of the research to do with EM effects. Various people were interviewed, most of whom had worked on various 'strange' projects.

One ex-engineer demonstrated an effect that he could not explain. A vast coil of fine wire, about the size of the head of a tennis racket, was plugged into the mains (US plug), and it floated above his wooden desk. There was no suggestion of any trickery. He said something like, "Of course, this effect can be varied by altering the power and frequency, etc."

This particular engineer was called because he had recognised some reported UFO/UAP phenomena as bearing similarities to this curious EM effect, and projects he had worked on. The trick can be a little dangerous of course, because of the heat and voltage concerned. The wires can soon begin to glow.

Is it really this simple to demonstrate the potential EM nature of gravity?

In three words, yes and no.

The levitating coil, and other wire acts, usually involve one of two principles:

1) A very big coil will create a large magnetic field that will interact with any nearby magnetic fields. If you took that same coil and ran underneath a very high voltage power line, you could fry just about every thing. - It is a very dangerous thing to do, because it could just as easily burn up the wiring in your house, which might be supplying the lifting moment.

2: The 'lifter' has been talked about on BA before. You build a kite-like structure with the opposing poles of a TV high voltage circuit on two triangles of wire - one above the other. This one is also very dangerous, and quite cleaver: It works by the acceleration of ions from one wire towards the other, with a small insulator inbetween - the charges accelerating downward miss the second wire - so what you effectively have is an unefficent ionic drive!

On the other hand, I am of the opinion that ALL static (tribo) electric charges are related to extremely small perturbations in gravimetric fields. This is why finely divided insulators, like nylon carpet and cat fur, generate static so easily: Whenever anything moves, the gravitational fields must be realigned. With all of the independant motion in fury objects, the potential for reducing the frequency of these gravitation activities to a level that they will interact with an electron is very high.

It is exactly like radar and a swarm of insects. 1m radar will not bounce off of one locust, but 1m radar can easily detect a swarm. Likewise an electron is oblivious to a gravitational field...unless the field is severly aggitated, producing much lower frequency harmonics that an electron can sink its teeth into.

Suggesting gravity is electromagnetic in nature doesn't make it any easier to defeat the effects of gravity. We can electromagnetically defeat gravity now - even rocket fuel is electromagnetic at fundamental levels.

Remember, this is the ATM board, and these answers will not fly in your science or physics class...but they might in another decade or so, as more researchers realize we need a better explanation for lightning and other static effects.

__________________
jwj

It's ok not to know.

So how does the dipole nature of EM become the quadrapole nature of gravitation, as the frequency increases? Does it happen suddenly, or gradually?

We are used to looking at fields as smooth lines of force, whereas the gravimetric component is extremely chaotic. The polar orientations that align with gross atomic structure are almost meaningless in the wave regions below the Planck cutoff. A quadrapole is only a good first order approximation of gravity, and it leads to grossly understated and overstated masses of moons and planets, depending upon their gravitational environment.

Venus is lighter, while Titan, far from the sun and in orbit about Saturn, is about two times as heavy as Newtonian predictions from orbital calculations and flybys. We will see the degeneracy of these orbital predictions in the gravity runs of Cassini, with gross positive anomalies appearing at every closest pass.

The best 2d model I can visualize for the orbits of the planets, is a series of trails circling a round, eroding mesa. At the bottom, the road is smooth and the planets orbit cleanly. But moving closer to the mesa, the rocks get gradually larger, and you would have to trade your ride for first a sports utility vehicle, then an ATV, then a horse, and finally rock climbing equipment to negotiate the boulders. This is how I think the path through space increases, as anything gets closer to the sun. Notice also, that while it takes more kinetic energy to follow a closer path, this energy is stored in the random oscillations of the path, so unwinding from the center returns more energy than Newton predicts. This is why the solar wind accelerates, after reaching escape velocity and the radiating corona is so much hotter than the surface of the sun.

__________________
jwj

It's ok not to know.

I know this gets said a lot in this forum, but any introductory physics book can explain this "mysterious" phenomenon very easily. I can certainly see why any engineer who was baffled by this would be an ex-engineer now.

If the explanation is that common, perhaps you could point me in the direction of some reasonable web references? I possess numerous 'physics' books, none of which mention this phenomenon!

I am quoting from the programme, and it seemed balanced and intelligent for the most part.

How high of frequencies can be detected with scintillation detectors? The deBroglie wavelength of an hydrogen atom is a good jumping off point.
Good point, but no, this is not a unification solution - I don't think gravity has 'particle' properties on any scale - gravity is, in this theoretical concept, a chaotic above-the-Wien-limit electromagnetic field that results in a net attraction between masses while at the same time incumbering the motion of objects within this field, especially towards the other.

These ideas have been developed on this board, basically I have thrown out possible solutions and trimmed out the fat - thrown away what has been falsified. I'm not sure which thread to revive - the 'gravity behaving badly' thread was probably the most complete, but it would take some digging to find it. I started posting on the Bad Astronomy board because I had exhausted local resources available to me - and it has been a fruitful venture.

The prediction about Cassini will be very easy to follow. Likewise, MRO should uncover degenerate harmonics in the gravity solutions of Mars. I wish I knew enough about the Messinger science package to venture some predictions - that is something I will have to look at more closely - Likewise, the ESA Venus project - once again there should be degenerecies in the gravimetric solutions, but opposite the Martian probes in terms of crust-to-central mass distributions. We see this already in the polarized Beuguer gravity anomalies.

Steven was taking a pretty bad beating from the CM and not responding. CM took a cut at my physics background too, which is funny. I don't think the right response to fledgling theorists is to take them out at the knees - point them to some useful references or something. Besides, Steve, in my opinion, is on the right track.

__________________
jwj

It's ok not to know.

__________________
"Stupidity gets denser in a crowd" - Old Finnish saying. [My website] [Nimblebrain forums]

Thanks again, Ari!

As documented in the 'Gravity behaving badly' and the "Are Mars probes falling too fast?" threads, once the conceptual huddle was breached, a flood of systemic evidence emerged that is consistent, as near as I can tell, with this alternative to GR. Most important: It has great predictive power of observable recordable by the current generation of planetary probes. All that is needed is recognition that the anomalies are systemic and causal roots exist.

__________________
jwj

It's ok not to know.