Forrest Nobles Pushing Gravity - Page 11

Nereid · #**301** (**permalink**) 02-February-2009, 03:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rebel

Quote:

Originally Posted by forrest noble

These equations are modified Newtonian equations like MOND gravity equations which also were proposed as alternatives to GR for long range analysis since GR for this distance range requires arbitrary quantities of dark matter and cannot make predictions such as the orbital momentum of disk stars in our galaxy, the orbital momentum of galaxies in a cluster, or the gravity mechanics and motions of the observable universe as a whole for the same reason.

What Forrest is referring to is the "flat rotational curve", the mainstream idea can't even explain many of the important phenomena we see today. In fact they name other phenomena to help cover their faults. I would like to know why the mainstream could be so full of holes yet be used in comparing other ATM ideas.

Hi rebel,

This is a joke, right? I mean: your post is a parody, lampooning fn's apparent ignorance of the relevant astrophysics, right?

If so, I think it's in very poor taste, and quite likely right on the edge of a rule violation.

OTOH, perhaps you're not joking? Perhaps you are actually serious?

If you are, may I suggest that you either: a) start a new thread in the Q&A section, and ask for answers to the questions you seem interested in; or b) start a new thread, in this ATM section, presenting your ATM ideas, and then answering the questions BAUTians ask about them. Maybe your ATM thread could be called something like "The mainstream can't explain many of the important phenomena we see today - I: flat rotation curves". Give it a go, eh?

Nereid · #**302** (**permalink**) 02-February-2009, 04:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by forrest noble

Nereid,

These are the links that I could find related to observations of dark matter. As you can imagine such observations cannot be quantitative. They know how much matter would be needed to cause the galaxies to orbit each other at the observed rate. Besides these quantities, the dark matter needs to be distributed in the proper proportions within the galaxies to account for the orbital motions of disk stars within a spiral galaxy. My assertion is that they are probably looking at baryonic matter, i.e. galactic clouds of matter which could not always be distribute uniformly to account for the generally known orbital momentums of disk stars.

http://home.slac.stanford.edu/pressr...6/20060821.htm
http://www.interactions.org/cms/?pid=1024451
http://today.slac.stanford.edu/feature/darkmatter.asp
http://astro.berkeley.edu/~mwhite/darkmatter/essay.html

[...]

respectfully, forrest

(first part)

Thanks for these.

Do you mind if I ask whether you consider these to be "reports that groups of astronomers have visually observed dark matter by its opaquing characteristic of galactic stars behind it"?

In any case, to what extent are you prepared to answer questions on, and defend challenges to, everything in your post I've quoted, after the first sentence, up to the first link?

I ask this because, as I understand the relevant observations and astrophysics, the whole lot is either downright wrong or nearly unintelligible misrepresentation or misunderstanding.

For example: "As you can imagine such observations cannot be quantitative". The observations are nothing but quantitative!

I think the relevant paper, published in a peer-reviewed journal (ApJ), is "A direct empirical proof of the existence of dark matter" (link is to the arXiv preprint). Note this:

Quote:

Based on observations made with the NASA/ESA Hubble Space Telescope (HST), obtained at the Space Telescope Science Institute, which is operated by the Association of Universities for Research in Astronomy, Inc., under NASA contract NAS 5-26555, under program 10200, with the 6.5 m Magellan telescopes located at Las Campanas Observatory, Chile, with the ESO telescopes at the Paranal Observatory under program IDs 72.A-0511, 60.A-9203, and 64.O-0332, and with the NASA Chandra X-Ray Observatory, operated by the Smithsonian Astrophysics Observatory under contract to NASA.

I may be wrong, but I think you can go get the quantitative observations for yourself; as a resident of the US (I think the original intention re free access was to do with taxpayers, but for practical purposes resident is ok), you are entitled to the raw data, for free* (I'm not sure about the Magellan or ESO data though).

respectfully, Nereid

* this is way past the proprietary period

forrest noble · #**303** (**permalink**) 02-February-2009, 05:02 AM

Nereid,

As I said before, one could assert there is "x" quantity of dark matter because you know beforehand how much dark matter is needed for the observed quantitative galaxy rotations. I promise you there is no way to look at a picture in a telescope or from other EM radiation observational methods, any kind of quantitative determination of dark matter. Such observations, for a long time at least, will always be controversial. If, however, they propose that the dark matter observed is baryonic matter in a galactic cluster with a redshift under 1, you might be able to give a ballpark estimate from observations based upon its motion but I would seriously doubt such claims. Their observations, I assert, are theoretically based. My assertions are also theoretically based upon my theory of gravity and my aether theory.

respectfully, forrest

Tensor · #**304** (**permalink**) 02-February-2009, 05:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by forrest noble

Nereid, I agree with your statement above but I've explained in numerous posts that as light is bent by a lensing entity, that this bending is caused by a very "close-range" approach of light to the lensing entity. This is the range where GR can make accurate predictions.

Hold on there, Einstein Rings and Einsten Crosses are far from a "close-range" approach. You're talking bending from an object the size of a galaxy or galactic cluster. Minimum of a 100k light years across, with the light being bent another 25-50k light years, minimum, outside of that galaxy, depending on mass of the galaxy. The light is not being bent by the lensed object's light moving through and near the lensing galaxy's stars.

Quote:

Originally Posted by forrest noble

Where GR cannot make predictions is modeling the motions of galaxies, galaxy clusters, and the universe as a whole. So here we're talking about motions only.

If you're talking motions, then I agree, But MOND and TeVeS also require dark matter for clusters and larger groups.

Quote:

Originally Posted by forrest noble

This is where GR requires dark matter and therefore cannot predict these motions. This I have asserted is where my long-range equation and other equations such as MOND and TeVeS can make predictions without using dark matter. If you do not like my equations check on these other models that I've mentioned and you will learn about the related problem with GR.

Hold on. MOND and TeVeS cannot explain the Bullet Cluster observations without Dark matter either. AAMOF, the corrolation for dark matter in this particular object is over eight sigma. I'd be interested in seeing your model's predictions on this, to include the observed lensing.

Quote:

Originally Posted by forrest noble

It is my contention that dark matter must always be distributed in arbitrary proportions so that no prior accurate predictions can presently be made concerning what is actually observed concerning motions of galaxies using GR gravity models.

Is it also your contention that mass maps, based on observations of lensing, are inacurate?

Quote:

Originally Posted by forrest noble

Statements such as distant galaxy contain a lot more dark matter, I believe are because they have the wrong formulations to work with.

Ok, how about this paper? Could you point out exactly what you disagree with (computations, assumptions, formulas, etc) in their reaching the conclusion that the lensing galaxy is (within the effective radius) composed of ~73% dark matter?

Tensor · #**305** (**permalink**) 02-February-2009, 05:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by forrest noble

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tensor

For your information, Einstein did not propose that gravity warps space. It is simply the requirement of the mathematics required to describe gravity, relativistically.

The fact that Einstein didn’t propose that gravity warps space, is very good to know. I’ll try to find a quotable archive for this and put it in my book.

I'm afraid I may have caused some confusion.

Quote:

Originally Posted by forrest noble

My theories have a real problem with space being anything other than simply “an extension of matter, and the volume which matter occupies.”

Then you will not be able to reconcile your ideas with GR. I'd also be interested in how you reconcile the properties of spacetime with your idea.

Quote:

Originally Posted by forrest noble

If Einstein didn’t suggest this warped-space idea, then many of those trying to explain his equations do make such statements concerning GR. If not the equations of GR, then the only other reason that I know of that would require physical deformation characteristics to space would be the requirements of the Big Bang Theory which requires space to expand to explain the theory. This, in my opinion, is another failing of the BB model. Of course the problem always relates back to what reasonable alternatives are Cosmologists aware of.

Einstein didn't start out saying that mass curved spacetime. He was just looking for a way to include all motion under relativity. His insight that gravity and acceleration could be thought of as the same thing enabled him to include gravity. The physical requirements to do this, led him to non-Euclidean geometries and (what is now called) Differential Geometry. This is what led to his describing gravity as warping spacetime, because in Differential Geometry, spacetime is modeled by what is called the manifold, which is the model of spacetime. Which is why you will see all those people trying to explain the equations by saying spacetime is warped. It's not that he started out with that idea, he was just led to it by the physical requirements and the math.

forrest noble · #**306** (**permalink**) 02-February-2009, 06:01 AM

Nereid,

a quote from rebel,

Quote:

What Forrest is referring to is the "flat rotational curve", the mainstream idea can't even explain many of the important phenomena we see today. In fact they name other phenomena to help cover their faults. I would like to know why the mainstream could be so full of holes

I'm sure rebel meant every word of this quote. He is referring to the flat rotation curves of orbital disks of spiral galaxies. Google the same and you will see the actual observational information compared to predicted orbital speeds. What he is talking about is the dark matter was invented after this observationally great disparity was found. Then there was the supposed "Hubble constant" until they made discoveries that seem to contradict this constant so they invented dark energy. When the MWB was discovered to be bi-polar they invented the "axis of evil'. They originally asserted that quasars are unique entities in their arguments against the steady state theory. Since that time they have discovered what Hoyle said in the first place, that quasars were centers of AGN's. When the flatness and horizon problems were realized as BB model flaws they invented Inflation. The BB theory predicts that we are expanding from a more dense past and no observations to date have ever observed this increased density. They assert that they will soon see the dark ages of the BB but they never will (that's another one of my predictions). Now they're realizing that galaxies came first which was originally predicted by me in 1959, last copyrighted in 1997 (another of my predictions) that have been on that web site before they started realizing this "what they now call a theory."

I'm sure you can realize by now that this list goes on and on. This is what rebel meant when he said "the mainstream idea(s) can't even explain many of the important phenomena we see today."

Am I correct by presuming that you strongly believe in mainstream theory?

respectfully, forrest

forrest noble · #**307** (**permalink**) 02-February-2009, 07:03 AM

Tensor,

Thanks again for your info. Happy Sunday night.

Quote:

I'm afraid I may have caused some confusion.

Then you will not be able to reconcile your ideas with GR.

I'd also be interested in how you reconcile the properties of spacetime with your idea.

Quote:

Einstein didn't start out saying that mass curved spacetime. He was just looking for a way to include all motion under relativity. His insight that gravity and acceleration could be thought of as the same thing enabled him to include gravity. The physical requirements to do this, led him to non-Euclidean geometries and (what is now called) Differential Geometry. This is what led to his describing gravity as warping spacetime, because in Differential Geometry, spacetime is modeled by what is called the manifold, which is the model of spacetime. Which is why you will see all those people trying to explain the equations by saying spacetime is warped. It's not that he started out with that idea, he was just led to it by the physical requirements and the math.

There are more than just one equation to my model. There are a number or others but this thread focuses on my primary gravity equation because the others are still in development. The total would be a set of equations that are completely non-conventional including "e" factor simple exponential equations concerning the diminution of matter model that explains the observed redshift of galaxies.

The primary theory also proposes that space is solely the volume which matter occupies. For every point in time a particular point in space would accordingly have no meaning without the concept of spacetime. Spacetime would be a relative point in space to the surrounding matter in a specific time frame. Accordingly the spacetime concept is also a requirement of my theory.

My present thinking is that GR could have a commonality of theory/ concept with my theory whereby warped space could be a difference in the aether density surrounding all matter as predicted by my theory of gravity, and that non-linear tensors of GR could by the motions of aether tensors. If you think not I would still need to "adopt it" for the reasons that it works for what I call "close-range" predictions. My contention is that its predictions concerning orbital momentums of stars, stellar clusters, and the grand scheme of the motions of the universe in general, it has not made predictions that conform with observations. Only what I call short-range distances such as the range of maybe twice the diameter of the solar system and lensing where light must come very close to a lensing star or galaxy.

Admittedly I will have no audience for these theories unless the experiment which I have proposed in my leading posting, as far as the speed of light, would show a difference in the speed as I predicted. If I get a null result it will be hard to explain according to this gravity theory. So that experiment would likely either make this theory of gravity or break it.

respectfully, forrest

captain swoop · #**308** (**permalink**) 02-February-2009, 09:03 AM

Forrest Noble. Before you post any more in this thread please read the post Post 288 by Nereid above.

Answer the direct and specific questions at the bottom of this post reproduced below

Quote:

Now which of the nine quantitative predictions I examined have an F against them? Well, there are three: 1, 8, ... and 74.

So, may I make a sincere request?

Before you answer any other questions, how about you take the time to state, clearly and unambiguously, which of your nine quantitative predictions (that I examined) are directly related to your 'theory of pushing gravity'?

And, in all your future posts, how about you refrain from irrelevant comments, refrain from taking pot-shots at what you see as the shortcomings of mainstream astrophysics, and focus exclusively on that which is directly pertinent to your 'theory of pushing gravity'? Don't forget that any ATM idea you write, in this thread, is by default something which any BAUT member can challenge ... in fact, the rules of this section strongly encourage exactly such challenging.

Further, where someone takes the trouble to both read what you wrote, examine it, and write lengthy posts on it, if you subsequently feel it is 'off topic', would you please take the trouble to explain, explain, and explain again just what your your 'theory of pushing gravity' is?

Please do this BEFORE you reply to any more posts in this thread.

Nereid · #**309** (**permalink**) 02-February-2009, 03:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by forrest noble

Nereid,

a quote from rebel,

Quote:

What Forrest is referring to is the "flat rotational curve", the mainstream idea can't even explain many of the important phenomena we see today. In fact they name other phenomena to help cover their faults. I would like to know why the mainstream could be so full of holes

I'm sure rebel meant every word of this quote. He is referring to the flat rotation curves of orbital disks of spiral galaxies. Google the same and you will see the actual observational information compared to predicted orbital speeds. What he is talking about is the dark matter was invented after this observationally great disparity was found. Then there was the supposed "Hubble constant" until they made discoveries that seem to contradict this constant so they invented dark energy. When the MWB was discovered to be bi-polar they invented the "axis of evil'. They originally asserted that quasars are unique entities in their arguments against the steady state theory. Since that time they have discovered what Hoyle said in the first place, that quasars were centers of AGN's. When the flatness and horizon problems were realized as BB model flaws they invented Inflation. The BB theory predicts that we are expanding from a more dense past and no observations to date have ever observed this increased density. They assert that they will soon see the dark ages of the BB but they never will (that's another one of my predictions). Now they're realizing that galaxies came first which was originally predicted by me in 1959, last copyrighted in 1997 (another of my predictions) that have been on that web site before they started realizing this "what they now call a theory."

I'm sure you can realize by now that this list goes on and on. This is what rebel meant when he said "the mainstream idea(s) can't even explain many of the important phenomena we see today."

Am I correct by presuming that you strongly believe in mainstream theory?

respectfully, forrest

Let's examine this post of yours in some detail, shall we?

In post#288, I wrote this:

Quote:

And, in all your future posts, how about you refrain from irrelevant comments, refrain from taking pot-shots at what you see as the shortcomings of mainstream astrophysics, and focus exclusively on that which is directly pertinent to your 'theory of pushing gravity'? Don't forget that any ATM idea you write, in this thread, is by default something which any BAUT member can challenge ... in fact, the rules of this section strongly encourage exactly such challenging.

So, please state, as clearly and completely as you can, just what ATM ideas - in this post of yours that I'm quoting - you are prepared to answer questions on, and address challenges to? Please be quite clear as to which ones are "are not related to the topic of this thread".

From your post, quoted above, I infer that you have a view of the nature of astrophysics (and astronomy and cosmology), as science, that is different from 'the mainstream'. If so, I invite you to start a new thread, in this section, and present your case; I will enthusiastically participate in such a thread. I note, in passing, that if your view of the nature of science is accurately reflected in your post*, then my comments about jokes, parodies, and lampooning were uncalled for, and I apologise for them. However, it may be that there is a much deeper gap ... the foundation of mutual understanding that is necessary for meaningful discussion does not seem to rest on a common view of the nature of science. If so, then I predict this thread has many pages of 'talking past each other' yet to go before serious discussion of your 'pushing theory of gravity' can even begin.

Some specifics.

"Google the same and you will see the actual observational information compared to predicted orbital speeds"

If you would care to give references, to papers published in relevant, peer-reviewed journals, on this, perhaps your ATM ideas can be questioned and challenged. However, until then, what you wrote seems to reflect either ignorance or misunderstanding (or both) of the relevant observations and astrophysics. Do you wish to pursue it?

"What he is talking about is the dark matter was invented after this observationally great disparity was found"

It has been pointed out, several times, that some of your claims are wrong, in terms of the history and the astrophysics. This is yet another one of them (Hint: google "Zwicky" and "Coma"). If you are interested in addressing challenges to this ATM idea, please say so; if not, please retract the comment.

"When the MWB was discovered to be bi-polar they invented the "axis of evil'."

Perhaps this is just a rather too enthusiastic summary of the historical and observational facts? If you are interested in addressing challenges to this ATM idea, please say so; if not, please retract the comment. (What's wrong? Hint: define 'bi-polar')

"They originally asserted that quasars are unique entities in their arguments against the steady state theory. Since that time they have discovered what Hoyle said in the first place, that quasars were centers of AGN's."

Ditto. (What's wrong? Hint: research the history of the term "AGN".)

"The BB theory predicts that we are expanding from a more dense past and no observations to date have ever observed this increased density."

If you are interested in addressing challenges to this ATM idea - that "no observations to date have ever observed this increased density" - please say so; if not, please retract the comment.

"They assert that they will soon see the dark ages of the BB but they never will"

If you are interested in addressing challenges to this ATM idea - that there is no observational evidence of the dark ages (a.k.a. Gunn-Peterson trough) - please say so; if not, please retract the comment.

"Am I correct by presuming that you strongly believe in mainstream theory?"

What I believe in, or don't believe in, is irrelevant in this thread, surely.

This section of BAUT is for the presentation of ATM ideas, and for the questioning, challenging, and attacking of them.

So, please be crystal clear about what ATM ideas you wish to answer questions on and address challenges to. No matter how strongly you may feel about any other ATM ideas, please refrain from presenting them.

In closing, may I ask again: what, in this post of yours, is on the topic of this thread (i.e. your 'pushing theory of gravity')?

respectfully, Nereid

* rebel, if she wishes, can start her own thread, presenting her own ATM ideas; no need to derail this one with a discussion of them

Nereid · #**310** (**permalink**) 02-February-2009, 04:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by forrest noble

Nereid,

As I said before, one could assert there is "x" quantity of dark matter because you know beforehand how much dark matter is needed for the observed quantitative galaxy rotations. I promise you there is no way to look at a picture in a telescope or from other EM radiation observational methods, any kind of quantitative determination of dark matter. Such observations, for a long time at least, will always be controversial. If, however, they propose that the dark matter observed is baryonic matter in a galactic cluster with a redshift under 1, you might be able to give a ballpark estimate from observations based upon its motion but I would seriously doubt such claims. Their observations, I assert, are theoretically based. My assertions are also theoretically based upon my theory of gravity and my aether theory.

respectfully, forrest

Thanks for this.

In my last post I stated that "it may be that there is a much deeper gap ... the foundation of mutual understanding that is necessary for meaningful discussion does not seem to rest on a common view of the nature of science. If so, then I predict this thread has many pages of 'talking past each other' yet to go before serious discussion of your 'pushing theory of gravity' can even begin."

This post of yours, and its predecessor, illustrate this gap well; let's see how.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - the bouncing ball - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
fn: These are the links that I could find related to observations of dark matter. As you can imagine such observations cannot be quantitative.

Nereid: The observations are nothing but quantitative!

fn: I promise you there is no way to look at a picture in a telescope or from other EM radiation observational methods, any kind of quantitative determination of dark matter.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Clearly, there's a pretty deep gap between what each of us understands by "observation".

However, there's a much bigger problem, I think: how are estimates of the mass of baryonic matter (in a rich galaxy cluster) made? I addressed this in the thread I started, in June 2006, that I provided a link to in an earlier post; have your read that, forrest? If not, I urge you to please do so before continuing this discussion here; if so, and if you still have questions about how mass is estimated (in rich clusters), please ask them in that thread (it's not locked).

You claim: "Such observations, for a long time at least, will always be controversial." The relevant community is that of professional astronomers (remember, BAUT is avowedly a science-based discussion forum). If you wish to answer questions on, and defend challenges to, this ATM idea, please say so. For the record, the observations are not the least bit controversial.

Back to observations.

"Their observations, I assert, are theoretically based."

True ... what about "a picture in a telescope"? Why every such 'picture', obtained by modern instruments attached to telescopes, is "theoretically based"!

... and what about "or from other EM radiation observational methods"? Why, they are also "theoretically based"!

Back in post#186, I asked you this:

Quote:

Could you please walk me through the steps from astronomical observations, analyses of observations, to estimates of orbital speeds, to estimates of mass, highlighting where your gravity formula enters this logic chain, and where either the Newtonian law of universal gravity or GR (or both) enter?

I repeated this question in post#214, numbering it 7)

You replied in post#226 (and answered some other questions too); here is your full reply:

Quote:

My formulation model for mass calculation of a galaxy would also include a diminution of matter calculation which would be based on the age of the galaxy. Based upon this diminution principle I believe the Milky Way is significantly older than the present estimates. The speed of the orbiting disk stars as well as cloud matter, would slowly increase at a generally steady rate. Near the galaxy's visible perimeter the speed would begin to slow down. If one understood the theory of formulations relating to this momentum one would realize without calculation that and overestimation of mass would result.

Because astrophysicists use orbital momentum as one of the primary factors to determine the mass of the galaxy, and if according to my formulations these orbital momentums should be a less significant part of the calculation, then accordingly the mass of the galaxy would be overestimated

There would be two formulations of mine which are different from present-day calculation modeling. GR and Newtonian gravity models and equations would not apply in my model. I would never make such time consuming calculations unless the results could somehow be verified. I've mentioned this in my book but I'm presently thinking about adding this to the prediction section. Accordingly the prediction would be: Current estimates on the mass contained in most spiral galaxies, both near and far, would be considerably less than currently predicted models.

As this did not seem to answer 7), I asked it again, in post#237:

Quote:

re 7): nothing in your post, that I am quoting (which is, I take it, a complete answer to my question), contains any reference to astronomical observations. Nor does it (apparently) mention analyses of such observations.

If you need clarification of what my question is, please ask.

Otherwise, please answer the question. Please be sure to start with an adequate description of what the relevant astronomical observations actually are.

AFAICS, this question remains unanswered, though several of your posts seem to hint at what your answer might be: #240, #245, #246, and #270 (an answer to the Capt's question in #269) ... and that answer may be summarised as "I, forrest, do not know what the steps from astronomical observations, analyses of observations, to estimates of orbital speeds, to estimates of mass actually are", and that's irrespective of what modifier one may choose to put in front of "mass" ("baryonic", "visible", "CDM", "total", ...).

forrest, this is a critical point; if you have a quite different understanding of what "observations" are, than the folk reading your posts; if you do not know how "observations" are analysed (etc) to produce estimates of mass; how can we engage in a meaningful discussion?

Further, if - as seems likely - you are, in fact, making quite strong ATM claims about "observations", don't we need to ask questions about your claims, and challenge them?

I hope you can clarify this quickly; otherwise I predict we'll be spending a lot of time writing lots of posts that do little other than talk past each other and create yet more confusion and misunderstanding.

respectfully, Nereid

captain swoop · #**311** (**permalink**) 02-February-2009, 04:25 PM

Forrest Noble. Consider this lat post by Nereid in conjunction with post 288 to be one post. Before you answer questions by any other poster or indeed make any more posts to this thread, answer the questions relating to what is on the topic of the thread and what your ATM idea actualy is. As pointed out by Nereid in the above post you are presenting several ATM ideas within this thread.

forrest noble · #**312** (**permalink**) 02-February-2009, 06:56 PM

Captain Swoop,

As I said before captain, I only would want to spend the time answering two long questions per person if they require long answers, with at least one other person in between. If no one else were commenting or asking questions that would be a different matter. Nereid is dominating the thread. I think that's an intimidation to others that may wish to join in the conversation. I can't spend so much time just trying to answer her questions. I believe that would be an unreasonable request. I understand such assertions as I presented on my original thread ought to be questioned. I appreciate her zeal but I do not believe that one person should have the right to dominate or monopolize this inquiry and have priority over anyone else.

I have asked her to prioritize her questions so that I can do my best to answer them two at a time in a reasonable time period with someone else in between. I have already been spending too much time on this thread trying to quickly be responsive to her comments and questions. It seems like she's spending a lot more time than I am since when I return back to the computer she may have another twenty more questions that she wants me to answer before I've had time to answer her last set of questions.

Half of this thread seems to a barrage of her seemingly endless questions. Some of her questions in my opinion were unrelated to this thread. In one way I agree with her. If I bring up a topic it should be fair game. That was my fault since I believe we should stay on thread. Captain I'm willing to try to give the answers, according to my theory, that she or you require. For this kind of query, however, it seems to me that nobody else would have room to talk.

If you would please choose what questions and in what order you want me to answer them. I understand that this is your requirement since you are one of the administrators who determines what goes on this thread. If you wish to pull this thread off it's OK by me since it's your prerogative. If you wish me to answer just her questions I will.

I agree that I will not write anything more on this thread until I get your answer to what priority and order of questions you wish me to answer first.
I will try to make the time each day to answer these questions in that priority.

Starting Friday the 6th I need to spend time on work requirements and can return to this thread maybe the following Wednesday if you wish.

respectfully, forrest

Tensor · #**313** (**permalink**) 02-February-2009, 07:51 PM

Just a note on a couple of these.

Quote:

Originally Posted by forrest noble

Then there was the supposed "Hubble constant" until they made discoveries that seem to contradict this constant so they invented dark energy.

And yet, the recent announcement by NASA concerning dark energy shows a rather remarkable convergence , doesn't it. Especially considering there are four different measurement techniques used.

What a lot of people don't understand (or maybe not realize) is that Dark Energy was ATM when first proposed. What changed the status of it, was simply that current theory, if Dark Energy were added, matched observations.

Quote:

Originally Posted by forrest noble

When the flatness and horizon problems were realized as BB model flaws they invented Inflation.

Actually, it was particle physicists that came up with inflation. Alan Guth and Henry Tye were working on a Grand Unified Theory and realized we should be able to detect magnetic monopoles. Since we can't, they suggested inflation as a way to explain why the monopoles weren't detectable. Guth, among others, soon realized that inflation would also explain the flatness and horizon problems. But, note, it wasn't invented to explain either of those. Also, you seem to miss one of the important predictions of inflation. The pertubations that eventually formed galaxies would be scale invariant in a perfect DeSitter space. Inflation predicts it should be a bit lower, between .92 - .98 (with perfect being 1) WMAP has measured it to be .96 +- 0.014, within the range of prediction.

Hornblower · #**314** (**permalink**) 02-February-2009, 09:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by forrest noble

Captain I'm willing to try to give the answers, according to my theory, that she or you require. For this kind of query, however, it seems to me that nobody else would have room to talk.

I am more than happy to stand by and watch Nereid do the heavy questioning, and I would not be surprised if many others feel likewise. She is more conversant in the technical stuff than I am, and appears to be better able to ask focused, pertinent questions. It saves us a lot of work, and it helps me pass the time while I do the boring warmup exercises on my horn before digging into real music.

slang · #**315** (**permalink**) 02-February-2009, 10:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by forrest noble

Nereid is dominating the thread. I think that's an intimidation to others that may wish to join in the conversation.

Or perhaps others prefer to keep the thread focused, and the questioning with glee and fervor in capable, respected hands.

Quote:

Half of this thread seems to a barrage of her seemingly endless questions.

I'm sure there would be less if you'd start to answer all of them, and not just the few you pick and choose. Surely simple yes/no questions about ie. scope are not that time-consuming to answer, especially since there seems enough time available to write posts like #306? I do not require an answer to this question.

captain swoop · #**316** (**permalink**) 02-February-2009, 11:14 PM

I am asking you directly to answer the questions in post 288. If your next post does not do this i will suspend your account for failing to answer direct questions.. I should be doing it now as in my last warning I asked you to do it with your next post which you failed to do.

rebel · #**317** (**permalink**) 03-February-2009, 12:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nereid

Hi rebel,

This is a joke, right? I mean: your post is a parody, lampooning fn's apparent ignorance of the relevant astrophysics, right?

If so, I think it's in very poor taste, and quite likely right on the edge of a rule violation.

OTOH, perhaps you're not joking? Perhaps you are actually serious?

If you are, may I suggest that you either: a) start a new thread in the Q&A section, and ask for answers to the questions you seem interested in; or b) start a new thread, in this ATM section, presenting your ATM ideas, and then answering the questions BAUTians ask about them. Maybe your ATM thread could be called something like "The mainstream can't explain many of the important phenomena we see today - I: flat rotation curves". Give it a go, eh?

No thanks Neried, but there are many posts in this thread by Forrest that suggest the same thing as the "flat rotational curve". Which as you know is unexplained by the mainstream theory of gravity. We'll actually I'm sure you know that the "flat rotational curve" defies the mainstream theory of gravity and bodies in motion equations. Once again this was stressed by Forrest not me, I only gave it a specific name.

Nereid · #**318** (**permalink**) 03-February-2009, 12:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rebel

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nereid

Hi rebel,

This is a joke, right? I mean: your post is a parody, lampooning fn's apparent ignorance of the relevant astrophysics, right?

If so, I think it's in very poor taste, and quite likely right on the edge of a rule violation.

OTOH, perhaps you're not joking? Perhaps you are actually serious? If you are, may I suggest that you either: a) start a new thread in the Q&A section, and ask for answers to the questions you seem interested in; or b) start a new thread, in this ATM section, presenting your ATM ideas, and then answering the questions BAUTians ask about them. Maybe your ATM thread could be called something like "The mainstream can't explain many of the important phenomena we see today - I: flat rotation curves". Give it a go, eh?

No thanks Neried, but there are many posts in this thread by Forrest that suggest the same thing as the "flat rotational curve".

Yes, indeed.

And I have asked a number of simple, straight-forward clarification questions on those posts, most of which remain un-answered.

Quote:

Which as you know is unexplained by the mainstream theory of gravity.

Actually, I don't know that it's "unexplained by the mainstream theory of gravity", and suspect that behind this bald assertion of yours lurks either some serious misunderstandings, or something worse.

ETA: or perhaps you've been spending too much time on crackpot websites, or not enough on websites such as the online version of ApJ?

In any case, as you've now made this claim, in some form, at least twice, and as it is an ATM idea, I shall now ask you to provide relevant, peer-reviewed published papers to back up your claim. I'll also ask you, directly, if this ATM claim is one that you are prepared to answer questions on, and address challenges to.

Quote:

We'll actually I'm sure you know that the "flat rotational curve" defies the mainstream theory of gravity and bodies in motion equations. Once again this was stressed by Forrest not me, I only gave it a specific name.

Um, er, ... no.

fn's posts, in this thread, are there for all to read.

And any objective, unbiassed, reading of those posts would conclude that you have exaggerated what fn wrote (and that's a charitable interpretation).

On top of that, no, I assure you, in emphatic terms, that I do NOT "know that the "flat rotational curve" defies the mainstream theory of gravity and bodies in motion equations". This is as bald an ATM claim as one is likely to make, on this topic; are you prepared to answer questions on it, and address challenges to it?

JTsang · #**319** (**permalink**) 03-February-2009, 01:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by captain swoop

I am asking you directly to answer the questions in post 288. If your next post does not do this i will suspend your account for failing to answer direct questions.. I should be doing it now as in my last warning I asked you to do it with your next post which you failed to do.

Note: Bold is by JT.

What stopped you ?

Respectfully
JTsang

Tensor · #**320** (**permalink**) 03-February-2009, 03:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by forrest noble

Nereid is dominating the thread. I think that's an intimidation to others that may wish to join in the conversation. I can't spend so much time just trying to answer her questions. forrest

I have no problem with her questions, nor am I intimidated. I've been following the thread and she's hit a couple of questions that I would have missed. I am interested in learning what exactly you consider a valid observation as some of my questions may depend on that.

Fortis · #**321** (**permalink**) 03-February-2009, 07:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rebel

No thanks Neried, but there are many posts in this thread by Forrest that suggest the same thing as the "flat rotational curve". Which as you know is unexplained by the mainstream theory of gravity. We'll actually I'm sure you know that the "flat rotational curve" defies the mainstream theory of gravity and bodies in motion equations. Once again this was stressed by Forrest not me, I only gave it a specific name.

It could also be said that prior to the discovery of Neptune, the behaviour of Uranus defied the mainstream theory of gravity.

Nereid · #**322** (**permalink**) 03-February-2009, 03:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by captain swoop

I am asking you directly to answer the questions in post 288. If your next post does not do this i will suspend your account for failing to answer direct questions.. I should be doing it now as in my last warning I asked you to do it with your next post which you failed to do.

Perhaps I can help, by extracting the questions in post 288.

The first question is this: "Are you now saying that at least some of these 85 predictions are not, in fact, tests of your theory?"

My second question: "Before you answer any other questions, how about you take the time to state, clearly and unambiguously, which of your nine quantitative predictions (that I examined) are directly related to your 'theory of pushing gravity'?"

forrest seems to have answered these questions, in post #300:

Quote:

Originally Posted by forrest noble (extract)

My predictions that are related to my gravity theory are predictions numbers 6,7 9,10,13,14, 17, 54, 55, and 72.

Prediction #17 is the only quantitative prediction concerning gravity but it is not a small prediction. It is contrary to the Special Theory of Relativity concerning the speed of light and the existence of aether. It is my prediction stated in the beginning post. If this prediction were true, as I said before, it generally would eliminate the Special Theory of Relativity in favor of Lorentz transforms. I believe it would suggest the use of General relativity would not be accurate for long range evaluations, as well as the mathematics of the Big Bang model which require the use of long-range GR as its mathematical model.

In short, none - not even one - of the nine predictions I examined is a test of forrest's 'pushing gravity theory'.

The document from which these predictions come can be somewhat confusing; for example, there are (at least) two sets of numbered predictions, one going up to 85 and the other to only 69. Further, several predictions contain references, some of which are ambiguous or apparently in error (I noted two such earlier).

So, for avoidance of doubt, I shall reproduce all these 10 predictions, as I read them in the PDF document I downloaded. I hope that forrest will confirm that all are correct (in the sense of being "related to my gravity theory"), and in that all references are also correct. If any are not, then I hope forrest will provide corrections.

There is only one other substantive question in my post#288, and that's more of a request: "Further, where someone takes the trouble to both read what you wrote, examine it, and write lengthy posts on it, if you subsequently feel it is 'off topic', would you please take the trouble to explain, explain, and explain again just what your your 'theory of pushing gravity' is?"

I, for one, feel the need to have this 'theory' explained again. I particularly feel such a need because I've read all 10 predictions that forrest says are "related to [his] gravity theory", and am very confused as to what this 'theory' actually is.

Perhaps you could wait until after I've posted all 10 predictions, forrest, before answering this last question of mine?

respectfully, Nereid

Nereid · #**323** (**permalink**) 03-February-2009, 03:37 PM

Prediction 6 (bold in original)

Quote:

(S)(U) The Aether field by any other name is still an aether field: The old idea of an aether field now has new names: the ZPF, and dark matter. Dark matter’s energy of motion is accordingly called the ZPF. This field has been associated, by experiment, to be the source of potential energy that can interact with matter, form virtual particles, and is intimately related to the determination of a particle's mass therefore gravity. There is a vast quantity of evidence to support the existence of this new aether. It is an energy source which can manifest its influence in the smallest measurable way (less than 1 : mV). Its physical constituents have both potential and kinetic energy and are believed to be primarily neutral in charge, without intrinsic spin. This is not just Ipan theory, but the experimental conclusions of most of today's quantum physicists. (pa. 21)

Assuming "pa. 21" means page 21, here it is (sans the diagram; bold and underline in the original):

Quote:

(Developing a field, continued)
After an extended period of time there would be countless billions of these Pan-chain spread out in all directions from their origin, moving and bouncing off each other in all directions. We will call these Pan-chain and their interactions a Pan Field or an Aether field. As we look closely, however, we don't see a uniform distribution. We see clumps of Pan-chain loosely “engaged” (intertwined with each other). Around these "engagements" we could also notice that the Pan-chain which are closest to these Pan-chain Engagements soon become a part of the loosely entangled “mesh”. We need to look more closely to see why this intermeshing occurs.

{diagram}

The beginnings of GRAVITY
When we look at the field as a whole, we can see that it is denser towards the middle, Most of the Pan-chain there are bouncing around more quickly with stronger and more frequent interactions. It is in this higher-density, fast-moving area we see Pan-Chain Engagements form; their spring-shaped forms sometimes intermesh with other Pan-chain during high-speed collisions or compression. We also might notice that these high-speed interactions don't occur within the denser central area. In this central area there are few single pan-chains unattached, mostly just Pan-chain Engagements. As we watch a particular pan-chain next to a very large Engagement.

Many (all?) predictions are classified, using single letter code(s) in brackets ... this one has "(S)(U)", for example.

The codes are defined, at the top of "page 104" as follows:

Quote:

These predictions can be classified in three categories. The first types are fundamental to the Pan Theory. If these predictions were proven to be false it could disprove one of the two independent facets of the primary theory. These are designated as “F” for fundamental. The second types are an essential part of a supporting theory and are designated by “S” for supporting. The third types are designated as “I” which are presently believed to be an implication of either “F” or “S” theories.
These are also separate theoretical proposals designated as “D” discrete. Some of these predictions might be considered to be separate theory or hypotheses which like all theory are dependent on observational support.
Additional designations have been given each prediction. “C” is for those that would contradict present theory, “U” is for those unexpected by current theory, or “A” agrees in principal with, and/or is also Predicted by at least one mainsteam theory. “N” (phonetic) indicates a know alternative theory.

Nereid · #**324** (**permalink**) 03-February-2009, 03:49 PM

Prediction 7 (bold in original)

Quote:

(S)(U) Dark matter consists of many entities. The greatest quantity related to gravitational influences would be the gravitational currents of elementary field particles within them (an aether), the energies of which today are called Zero Point Fluctuations/ Field (ZPF). This field material tranfers the force of gravity between matter as a pushing force as it influxes into all matter whereby the matter radiates it away as EM radiation. These currents of fundamental particles only trace the motion of matter and so its effect from body to body could be considered a dependent force. The balance of the dark matter, which we genereally have not as yet observed, consists of baryonic matter which includes protons, electrons, atomic and molecular matter of all sizes. The largest constituent would likely be molecular hydrogen since it is very difficult to observe.

Prediction 9 (bold in original)

Quote:

(S)(C) Gravity acts as a non-linear force at stellar gravitational boundaries within a galaxy. At stellar boundaries between stars gravity becomes a perpendicular force that can initiate the rotation of bodies around each other. Gravity acts as a perpendicular vector of increasing increments as its linear vector decreases up to the boundaries of gravitational equilibrium between stars where it acts solely as a small perpendicular vector which in general would act to maintain stellar distances and their positioning within galaxies as apposed to General Relativity and Keplerian type stellar motions which would form no observable patterns in a spiral galaxy’s form. (page 57E, 57E1)

"page 57E, 57E1" is too extensive to copy; besides, it contains a key diagram which could not be copied anyway.

There is a note just before the first prediction that is relevant to these two:

Quote:

As you read these Predictions, also note that numbers 1, 8 ,9, 14, 16, 20, 22, 24, 30, 33, 43, 49, 53, 68,& 69 are explained in further detail in subsequent text just following these Predictions below as well as the explanations in prior text. Those not listed are explained in the prior text with the appropriate pages referenced after the Prediction.

There is, for prediction 6, no "appropriate pages referenced after the Prediction".

The "explained in further detail in subsequent text just following these Predictions" for prediction 9 seems to be this:

Quote:

Many of the Predictions shown below are thought, by the author, to be conceivably observable now but hopefully at least one or more of them may be observed or proven by the year 2030:

[...]

9 --Gravity does not act as a linear force at the, its force at stellar boundaries becomes perpendicular to the line of sight

Nereid · #**325** (**permalink**) 03-February-2009, 03:55 PM

Prediction 10 (bold in original)

Quote:

(F)(C) Gravity at great distances will appear to be stronger than it really was in its own time, another effect of Measurement Relativity to time. Because of the speed and acceleration of orbiting galaxies at a distance, gravity will be perceived as being more forceful than it really was in its own time (page 100, & prediction #3)

"page 100" is:

Quote:

(Pan Theory of Relativity continued)

This type of observed expansion is a condition of this theory of relativity: if the matter within a galaxy is getting smaller, then the space between matter will appear to be getting bigger. Although this manifestation of relativity itself may not be considered "real" expansion, the results would be that the effect of gravity will be lessened and the orbital momentum of the stars within the galaxy would perpetuate real expansion. A third factor to galactic expansion is that the gravitational constant G would also decrease, as we've already discussed. This calculated expansion for an aging galaxy will always be greater than the asserted expansion of the universe (using conventional theory) for these same reasons.

The Pan Theory of Relativity in perspective

Everything at a distance (distant galaxies, etc.) will be perceived as being larger, moving faster, accelerating more, being farther apart, and having a wider spectrum than it really displayed in its own time—hence the asserted (but unreal) accelerated expansion of the universe. (Prediction)
The Pan Theory of Relativity can be generalized by this statement: Any condition, state, or change of matter, should be measured using another condition, state, or change of matter as a standard. Or even more basic, we could say that essentially --- everything is relative. This generalized perspective is very similar to Ernst Mach's original concept. (Mach was a 19th century physicist and founder of the concept of relativity as previously discussed).

Pan Configurations and Relativity

One of the primary tenets of the Pan Theory is that pan steadily decrease in size as they increase in number as time progresses, All known forms of matter and energy are built upon combinations of smaller entities (outside of theoretical entities such as quarks and pan). This is called a digital formation, where digit means individual parts. The digits of energy are defined by plank's constant "h;" according to conventional theory increments of energy smaller than this constant would not exist and that energy levels of particles can only have discrete quantities so that no fractional energy levels of planks constant could exist.

"prediction #3" is:

Quote:

Prediction #3 above was that everything at a distance will be perceived as being larger/ greater/ stronger, moving faster, and accelerating more than it really was in its own time frame. This is the primary prediction of the Pan Theory of Relativity. From this prediction one could deduce that someday somebody might mistakenly predict the accelerated expansion of the universe. Instead, said observations are another confirmation of the Pan Theory of Relativity like apparent super-luminosity, and is unrelated to any possible real expansion of the observable universe. This prediction was made in the 1980’s by the Pan Theory and unpredicted by the Big Bang Theory. One of many general confirmations of this theory came as the “accelerated expansion of the universe” was proclaimed, observed Feb. 19, 2003; this accelerated expansion would be instead related to the Pan Theory of Relativity concerning measured/ calculated velocity at a distance the extent of which is directly predicted by the theories formulations.

Prediction 13 (bold in original)

Quote:

(S)(C) The gravity of a galaxy does not remain a constant force “G.” Instead its force decreases slowly over time as a galaxy ages which affects a galaxy’s form and the gravitational strength of its constituents. As galaxies evolve, intergalactic space fills up with thin dust clouds as the galaxy expands. The cental core area also expands and the central black hole becomes relatively dormant. The field pressure of dark matter/ aether within the galaxy increases which decreases the strength of gravity currents which determine stellar gravitational influences.

Prediction 14 (bold in original)

Quote:

(S)(C) All planets and stars produce substantial radiation, as a result of their internal heat which is the result of the compaction forces of gravity. Jupiter's infrared radiation as well as the scarcity of solar neutrinos is related to this. Accordingly, a significant portion, if not most, of the Earth’s internal heat would also be produced by these gravitational compression forces and would not be a remnant of its primordial heat which is the current theory.

captain swoop · #**326** (**permalink**) 03-February-2009, 03:55 PM

Rebel. If you have an ATM theory or idea you want to talk about please start your own thread, don't piggyback on this one

Nereid · #**327** (**permalink**) 03-February-2009, 04:01 PM

I'll introduce prediction 17 in a later post, because it's already been covered in this thread, several times (the other nine predictions are new).

Prediction 54 (bold in original)

Quote:

(I)(U) The Ipan field theory implies new understandings for plasma physics because the related IPan Theory predicts that a major portion of stellar plasma is made up of field material (dark matter) whose kinetic motion and temperature would be enhanced/ increase by the perpetually inflowing gravity field.

There are two Prediction 55s; the first (bold in original):

Quote:

55. (I)(U) The forces of pushing gravity via dark matter increases the temperature of the core, and its surrounding area, of the earth and other planets and larger moons by the compression forces of gravity.

The second prediction 55 (bold in original):

Quote:

55. (I)(C) The earth's magnetic field is caused by the earth’s atmosphere interacting with its oceans as they interact via the wind. Atmospheric ions cause slow electric currents in oceans and lakes. These currents emit photons and their associated incoherent waves which create the earth’s magnetic field which is reinforced by the solar wind. A very large number of the free atomic particles within our atmosphere come into our atmosphere at the poles and are part of the solar wind directed by the prevailing magnetic field. Observations have shown that the earth’s magnetic field varies from place to place similar to gravitational variations. This might be considered evidence for its causes as indicated above.

Prediction 72 (bold in original):

Quote:

(F)(U) The Pan Gravity theory predicts that there are non-linear gravity currents of dark matter both inside and outside galaxies that move with baryonic matter. Some of these currents could be moving millions of miles per hour relative to the center of the galaxy. The most powerful of these currents, which accompany galactic jets, can extend from galaxy to galaxy in some cases. A number of these jets and adjacent gravity currents would be truly superliminous relative to the center of the galaxy that is emitting the jets. The waves of dark matter on the periphery of these jets might by the fastest of these currents and potential spacecraft “highways”.

Nereid · #**328** (**permalink**) 03-February-2009, 04:51 PM

In researching the existing discussion, in this thread, concerning prediction 17, I noticed several posts discussing "the gravity formula".

For the sake of clarity, I thought it would be a good idea to collect them all together, and that's what this post does.

post#11

Quote:

Originally Posted by forest noble

You can see the formula and related explanations at pantheory.org page 57B through 57E1.1 in the gravity section. Newton's basic formula is F= G x Mn/r^2 as you know. Mine the linear vector is F=G x Mn/r^n where "n" = 2^ 1 + cr./ar. Accordingly ar. is the active range (which is the borderline between two stars (bodies) where both of the stars would have equal influence on any object in between. "cr" would be the distance between the boundary of Newtonian (Einsteinian) gravity (where gravity begins to become non-linear) and the "ar.". It works like this: Within the range of Newtonian gravity cr. is equal to ar. so cr./ar. = 1 and we would have the classical Newtonian formula. Close to the Sun or beyond the Newtonian range there would be a difference between the two. Although the Newtonian formula accordingly would still apply as to the force of gravity, the direction of the force would become non-linear and at stellar or galactic boundaries the force would become a perpendicular asymptote to the line of sight between the stars acting in a direction co-plainer to the planetary orbits which is the effect of the direction and force of the vortex at that point. View the appropriate book pages and if it doesn't seem to make sense keep firing questions and I'll do my best to hit them.

No pier reviewed journals have accepted the gravity papers outside of vanity publications which I would have to pay for and who knows if they would really have qualified reviewers. On-line publication would seem to be a better way to go now-a-days for an updated version of these papers. I do have another technical paper on the web site though. You can access it from the header link. I've had positive interest from publishers on this one and expect that it may be published within months.

post#123

Quote:

Originally Posted by hhEb09'1(extract)

Quote:

Originally Posted by forrest noble

"the quantitative force of gravity was explained in my third to the last post."

Quote:

It was post #35. Also a more detailed explanation and formulations at pantheory.org pages 57D2-57E1.2

I have reviewed post #35, and I don't see there where you derive the quantitative force of gravity. Perhaps you can summarize what appears at the website?

post#131

Quote:

Originally Posted by forrest noble

This vortex pushing gravity model was developed by me back in the late 1950's. At that time it was just and aether vortex model whereby no equations were derived. I didn't have the evidence to show that the orbital momentum of stars in our galaxy did not follow Newtonian formulations nor did I expect it. Upon finding this out in the late 70's, by 1983 I developed the equation/ formulations that were derived from these observations that show that the orbital momentum of stars in our galaxy and others do not follow Newtonian predictions.

Another basis for this model was the realization that all spiral galaxies rotate as a whole, whereby they would very slowly be smeared at their periphery as they rotates and mature. This accordingly would be why most have accordingly retained their beautiful forms over time. This idea to me was consistent with observations so I theorized that for this to be true there would be very little individual attraction between stars within at least the disk of most spiral galaxies that have a discernible form.

The only other prevailing gravitational factor, I theorized, would be the continuous and forceful inflowing aether field in to the whole galaxy which would hold it together. In my previous posts I have explained why all matter would have a low aether field pressure surrounding it whereby the aether would flow in to equalize the field pressure and would be subsequently radiated away in the form of EM radiation which accordingly would be pressure waves in a never ending cycle.

Upon these mental images I imagined the aether mechanics that would be needing for a pushing gravity explanation. I Started with the Newtonian formulation which works well at planetary distances from lets say Mercury outward. If there would be little or no stellar mutual attraction I deduced that the Newtonian formulation needed to be altered. Since "attraction" (in this case pushing forces) is based upon the inverse square law, the simplest way to have the force become progressively weaker would be the quotient square of the distance factor. I played with the observational data and the formulation and decided that according to the pushing gravity basis for the formulated that the force should continue to follow the Newtonian force formulation but the vectors involved would be different. I decided that near stellar boundaries with other stars the vector aether currents, involved with pushing gravity, should be non-linear which would be completely consistent with the vortex model.

To do so the R^2 quotient of the Newtonian equation would become R^n power, where "n" would vary from "1" to infinity. The resultant curve would become a parabolic asymptote to the orthogonal line between the stars at their gravitational equilibrium points. The Newtonian force would be expressed as a orthogonal aether current between the stars. The beginning of this change in gravity would begin at a point accordingly called the beginning of the "active range" where this formulation would start to divert from Newtonian gravity. page 57E pantheory.org.

The resultant aether currents between stars would end up as sustaining currents that would perpetuate the intact rotation of spiral galaxies other than the individual stars within them. The cores of galaxies, for the most part would follow Newtonian gravity because of their three dimension charter. Elliptical galaxies would be an intermediary whereby there would be no asymptotic pushing forces, only curved forces for the most part. This same formulation would also apply to galaxy clusters as well as the universe as a whole. That's about the short of it. Far more detailed explanations are at the website, page 57 of the book, to the end of the gravity section.

post#229

Quote:

Originally Posted by forrest noble

This gravity formula has already been posted twice on this thread and I also referred back to it for those that keep asking for it. Here it is again, post #11.

For the exponential functions formulations they can be found at pantheory.org pages 101A to 102A. It would take up a lot of space if I posted this material. Again this material is unrelated to this thread unless a specific question called for it.

For the Hubble adjusted formulation see Technical Paper at top link of website home page. These exponential simple equations together require much reading or explanation to understand what they are and how they're used. It would be much easier for anyone interested to view this material on the site. I'll gladly post the 15 to 20 pages necessary to help explain the formulations.

post#231

Quote:

Originally Posted by grav

Quote:

Originally Posted by forrest noble

Newton's basic formula is F= G x Mn/r^2 as you know. Mine the linear vector is F=G x Mn/r^n where "n" = 2^ 1 + cr./ar. Accordingly ar. is the active range (which is the borderline between two stars (bodies) where both of the stars would have equal influence on any object in between. "cr" would be the distance between the boundary of Newtonian (Einsteinian) gravity (where gravity begins to become non-linear) and the "ar.". It works like this: Within the range of Newtonian gravity cr. is equal to ar. so cr./ar. = 1 and we would have the classical Newtonian formula.

This is from post #11. With Newton's formula, did you mean to use Mn in the formula instead of Mm? In your formula, is 'n' in the denominator the same as 'n' in the numerator?

post#232

Quote:

Originally Posted by grav

Quote:

Mine the linear vector is F=G x Mn/r^n where "n" = 2^ 1 + cr./ar.

From post #11, does n = 2 ^ (1 + cr / ar) or n = 2 + cr / ar ? Also, I could understand if the effect falls off slightly different than the square of the distance, but how could the distance 'r' itself become directly affected in this manner?

post#235

Quote:

Originally Posted by forrest noble

Quote:

This is from post #11. With Newton's formula, did you mean to use Mn in the formula instead of Mm? In your formula, is 'n' in the denominator the same as 'n' in the numerator?

Yeah you're right, it's a mistype. It should have been Mm as you suggested, thanks for that. -- see page 57 at pantheory.org

This is not the Newtonian formula as you can recognize, it is my variation of it. Mm refers to the two masses being considered. The letter "n" in the formula is a variable that is determined by two other as yet unknown constants for our solar system. see pages 57 & 57D2 along with the following pages which explain how the "n" variable is determined in this modified Newtonian formula.

The distance "r" is not effected, only the exponent of it which is 2 in the Newtonian formula. In my formula the "n" can be any number between 1 and infinity as explained on page 57D2-57E and the following pages. But it is important to note that the strength would never change from the Newtonian formula, only the direction of the push, which accordingly would be non-linear and parabolic over a distance range. The range of this formula only charges from the inverse square force near a star or its stellar boundary with another star. Since this formula applies to stellar boundaries, it also applies to orbital motions of the disk stars in a spiral galaxy, as well as galaxies in a clusters, and cosmological formulations as a whole.

post#239

Quote:

Originally Posted by grav

Quote:

Originally Posted by forrest noble

The distance "r" is not effected, only the exponent of it which is 2 in the Newtonian formula. In my formula the "n" can be any number between 1 and infinity as explained on page 57D2-57E and the following pages.

In geometry, r refers to length, r^2 to area, and r^3 to volume. So what would, say, r^(2.0001) represent? How would we convert G M m / r^(2.0001) to the regular units of force that we normally use?

post#242

Quote:

Originally Posted by forrest noble

Quote:

Originally Posted by grav

In geometry, "r" refers to length, r^2 to area, and r^3 to volume. So what would, say, r^(2.0001) represent? How would we convert G M m / r^(2.0001) to the regular units of force that we normally use?

Based on the formulation the "r" quotient can never be smaller than 2 as you suggested. As I said before the actual strength of gravity never is more of less than 2. What happens is that at a 2.0001 quotient the linear force of gravity would be just a little bit weaker pushing against some matter that's out there at that distance. The extent of this decrease would be 2/ 2.0001, or decrease in the linear force by a factor of .00005. The difference between this reduced force would be a perpendicular vector of the same amount .00005. Together the two vectors would add up to two in accord with the inverse square law is concerned as for as the strength of gravity. Look at page 57E at pantheory.org and read the subsequent pages. now its beer time.

Tensor's post#247 is quite relevant; however, it's too long to copy. Forrest noble's reply is in post#293

post#250

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fortis

Quote:

Originally Posted by forrest noble

The distance "r" is not effected, only the exponent of it which is 2 in the Newtonian formula. In my formula the "n" can be any number between 1 and infinity as explained on page 57D2-57E and the following pages. But it is important to note that the strength would never change from the Newtonian formula, only the direction of the push, which accordingly would be non-linear and parabolic over a distance range.

I'm guessing that you didn't really mean this. Are you really saying that it is only the direction of the force that changes from the Newtonian model, not the magnitude?

post#255

Quote:

Originally Posted by forrest noble

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fortis

I'm guessing that you didn't really mean this. Are you really saying that it is only the direction of the force that changes from the Newtonian model, not the magnitude?

Yeah, That's a true statement. Look again at the drawing on page 57E or 57D2 for short range gravity.The curved parabolic line accordingly represents the directional vectors from the stellar boundary toward the sun and its variation from the straight line of Newtonian gravity. If you would put little arrows on that line toward the sun they accordingly would represent the directional vectors of my vortex model of pushing gravity. This drawing however is a simplified version since there also could be third dimensional vector variations "z", from the two dimensional vectors shown unless the path considered was on the same plane as the solar (stellar) system like the examples shown. The secondary vector force on the drawing would be in the direction of the orbiting planets of the stellar system perpendicular to straight-line gravity. The sum of all these vectors accordingly would be in accord with the inverse square law.

If I've missed any significant posts, please add them!

Nereid · #**329** (**permalink**) 03-February-2009, 05:24 PM

Prediction 17: (bold in original)

Quote:

(S)(C) The speed of light here on Earth is not constant –Outgoing radiation, perpendicular to the Earth’s surface, would be slower than incoming radiation because of the accelerating aether producing gravity, is moving into the earth. The speed of light is relative to the time frame the light was emitted.

In post#300, forrest says this about prediction 17:

Quote:

Prediction #17 is the only quantitative prediction concerning gravity but it is not a small prediction. It is contrary to the Special Theory of Relativity concerning the speed of light and the existence of aether. It is my prediction stated in the beginning post. If this prediction were true, as I said before, it generally would eliminate the Special Theory of Relativity in favor of Lorentz transforms. I believe it would suggest the use of General relativity would not be accurate for long range evaluations, as well as the mathematics of the Big Bang model which require the use of long-range GR as its mathematical model.

In the OP, this, and the proposed test, is phrased thusly:

Quote:

As Einstein showed, gravity also bends photons and there waves which I propose are pressure waves of aether. To test both this theory of light and the above theory of gravity there should accordingly be a difference in the speed of light, down traveling at 64 feet per second faster than the speed going up (twice the acceleration speed of gravity). Michelson and Morley’s experiment could not test up vs. down nor could it detect such a small difference in the speed of light. The experiment I propose would be a North-South (to discount differences due to the rotation of the Earth) shooting of reciprocal lasers for as far a distance as possible at roughly a 30 degree angle. The actual angle doesn't really matter because the speed difference could be trigged out if the distance and angle are great enough. Satellite laser shootings seemingly could be inconclusive since their orbital momentum would alter the results and make the results more difficult to calculate and therefore more controversial. A ground based experiment would be seemingly simpler anyway.

I intend to conduct this experiment as soon as I can locate the appropriate lasers and precision timing devices, hopefully off the shelf somewhere. If this experiment shows the predicted difference it would nullify Special Relativity in favor of Lorentz transforms, it would nullify General Relativity because it would generally confirm a different theory of gravity and its equations which I have developed, as well as bringing in to question the Big Bang Theory which has as its mathematical basis the equations of General Relativity. It would change aspects of Quantum Theory etc. etc. All based upon one simple experiment. This difference in the speed of EM radiation proposed through the air would be very small and accordingly would be the reason why it hasn't been detected as yet

The test, and possible alternatives, are discussed in several posts.

post #123

Quote:

Originally Posted by hhEb09'1

In your OP, you said "To test both this theory of light and the above theory of gravity there should accordingly be a difference in the speed of light, down traveling at 64 feet per second faster than the speed going up (twice the acceleration speed of gravity)." What does that two seconds represent? Is that the time of the experiment, to measure the speed of light?

post #131

Quote:

Originally Posted by forrest noble

Quote:

Originally Posted by hhEb09'1

In your OP, you said "To test both this theory of light and the above theory of gravity there should accordingly be a difference in the speed of light, down traveling at 64 feet per second faster than the speed going up (twice the acceleration speed of gravity)." What does that two seconds represent? Is that the time of the experiment, to measure the speed of light?

I was discussing how the speed of the aether quantitatively relates to the acceleration rate of gravity. 2 seconds would be just an adjustment factor relating speed to acceleration. The actual acceleration rate of the aether field would accordingly be very small: 3.788 times 10^-7 ft./sec./sec. with an ultimate speed at the earth's surface proposed to be 32 ft. per second.

post #202

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nereid

Quote:

Originally Posted by forrest noble

Although the proposed experiment given in the posting at the beginning of thread would not prove or disprove my theory, it would be strong evidence in its favor or against it in the case of a null effect.

That "proposed experiment", in the OP, does not say what the expected, or predicted, result would be, much less provide any calculations or analyses leading to such a prediction, that can be independently verified.

What - quantitatively, with expected error bars - is the predicted effect?

Where can the details of the derivation of that quantitative prediction be found?

post #238

Quote:

These are relevant questions.

The prediction is that there will be a significant difference in the speed of light here on Earth concerning the speed of EM Radiation going away from the earth compared to similar radiation coming in. The prediction itself has no quantitative assertion. However, the expected deferential speed is 64 ft. per second. 32 feet per second faster for light coming down than light traveling in the horizontal plane, and 32 ft. per second slower when the light is radiated away from the earth than the horizontal plane. The reasons for this expected differential quantity is discussed on other postings of this thread. There is no predicted tolerance. But if I had to guess if the range was not the amount that I expected, then I would guess it to be within the range of let's say 64 +/- 40 feet per second.

It accordingly can't be too large a difference or it would have been detected by now.

post #243

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nereid

Thanks for this.

Just to be clear, that's ~50 ppb (parts per billion)?

post #253

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nereid

Quote:

Originally Posted by forrest noble

Sorry Nereid, I don't understand your first question.

I do not know the details of your proposed experiment, but it will, at heart, involve the comparison of two (sets of) datapoints* directly derived from instrument readouts. Let's say they are a time difference, Δt, and a time, t (of course, depending on the design, they could be a distance difference and a distance, or two times, or ...).

Your prediction is that there is a difference in the speed of light, of "64 +/- 40 feet per second". In feet per second, c is 9.8 x 10^8 (to two significant figures).
64/(9.8 x 10^8) = 6.5 x 10^-8, or 65 x 10^-9, which is ~50 ppb.

Again, depending on the details of your proposed experiment, and assuming the two (sets of) datapoints it comes up with are Δt and t, then a key part of the hypothesis you are testing can be restated as something like Δt/t ~50 ppb.

I trust that this clarifies what I meant.

Have I understood your proposed experiment, in this regard, correctly? If not, please clarify.

post #256

Quote:

Originally Posted by forrest noble

Yeah, It seems right to me. Just a little phraseology difference. My prediction is that there will be a difference in the speed of light up vs. down. My expectation is that the difference between those two speeds would be 64 ft. per second. If it varies from that amount I would expect the variation to be within the range of 64 +/- 40 feet per second.

post #257

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fortis

Is the uncertainty in your expected value of 64 +/- 40 ft/sec something like a 1 sigma uncertainty, or is it a hard uncertainty, i.e. would a value of less than 24 ft/second be inconsistent with your model?

post #259

Quote:

Originally Posted by forrest noble

Maybe close to a 2 sigma expectation. I would be surprised if the difference were faster than the predicted range since if it were faster than that, I would suspect that they would have realized it by now. If it were smaller than that range I don't think that the speed differential could be observed with present-day equipment, and such a small difference would be difficult, I currently believe, to adequately explain the forces involved according to my model.

post #251

Quote:

Originally Posted by stutefish

Quote:

Originally Posted by forrest noble

The prediction is that there will be a significant difference in the speed of light here on Earth concerning the speed of EM Radiation going away from the earth compared to similar radiation coming in. The prediction itself has no quantitative assertion. However, the expected deferential speed is 64 ft. per second. 32 feet per second faster for light coming down than light traveling in the horizontal plane, and 32 ft. per second slower when the light is radiated away from the earth than the horizontal plane. The reasons for this expected differential quantity is discussed on other postings of this thread. There is no predicted tolerance. But if I had to guess if the range was not the amount that I expected, then I would guess it to be within the range of let's say 64 +/- 40 feet per second.

It accordingly can't be too large a difference or it would have been detected by now.

Surely this would be trivial to test, simply by comparing timestamps on messages to an outbound probe with timestamps coming from an outbound probe?

I'd be surprised if our current probes don't already carry clocks precise and accurate enough for this kind of test.

forrest, to what extent would you consider your theory falsified if such a test were conducted, and no such discrepancy were observed?

post #258

Quote:

Originally Posted by forrest noble

Quote:

Surely this would be trivial to test, simply by comparing timestamps on messages to an outbound probe with timestamps coming from an outbound probe?

I'd be surprised if our current probes don't already carry clocks precise and accurate enough for this kind of test.

Stutefish, satellites are not a good way to check such an effect because there are a number of factors that would effect time dilation. One is that time moves a little faster out in space. Another factor is that of time also moves slower because the crafts are moving or orbiting at relatively high speeds. Together there could be no proof from such a experiment, I believe, because the results would most likely be debatable and too difficult to calculate.

Quote:

forrest, to what extent would you consider your theory falsified if such a test were conducted, and no such discrepancy were observed?

Good question. It would be a blow against my theory of gravity for sure. Even with a positive result exactly in accord with my expectation, the result would not be proof of this gravity theory, maybe strong evidence to support it at best.

[...]

post #267

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nereid

Quote:

Originally Posted by forrest noble

In my reply to stutefish, post 258, I explained why I believe satellites would not work for such an experiment of mine concerning the speed of light. Also, I believe, an "in vacuo" test would seemingly be impossible because the distance required to observe the proposed effect in such a test.

Quote:

Originally Posted by forrest noble

Stutefish, satellites are not a good way to check such an effect because there are a number of factors that would effect time dilation. One is that time moves a little faster out in space. Another factor is that of time also moves slower because the crafts are moving or orbiting at relatively high speeds. Together there could be no proof from such a experiment, I believe, because the results would most likely be debatable and too difficult to calculate.

Quote:

Originally Posted by forrest noble (post#261, extract)

In the thread I stated that I'm not trying to compete with GR in short range calculations, primarily galactic, intergalactic, and cosmological predictions is where I believe GR fails. My short range formula contains two unknown constants which can be seen on page 57D2 pantheory.org. By permutations and observations of the perturbations I could probably figure out what these constants are. That however would not be good enough. I would still have to add an additional equation or two, based upon extrapolations, how this would apply to other close range observations concerning close-range stellar interactions in general.

Huh?!?

If you accept GR "in short range calculations", then all of the "number of factors" can be, and have been, studied, characterised, understood, and incorporated into the relevant operations (and that includes the propagation of 'light' through the atmosphere). This is surely a great plus for your prediction, because variations in the speed of light, by direction, will show up as unmodelled differences/errors/anomalies/etc, in a manner similar to 'the Pioneer effect' and 'the flyby effect' (until it was resolved, as being due to an unmodelled relativity effect)?

On the other hand (OTOH), if a calculation of the size of this predicted effect is done without GR, then all the hard work of figuring out the impact of the "two unknown constants" would have to be done anyway, right?

And several of the confounding factors in your post replying to stutefish are going to occur in any experimental setup, say on the surface of the Earth (e.g. "time moves a little faster out in space" - time 'moves at a different rate' over any vertical distance!)

If I've missed any significant posts, please add them!

Nereid · #**330** (**permalink**) 03-February-2009, 05:36 PM

For avoidance of doubt, I have only two questions for forrest:

1) Please read my last posts carefully. If you notice any errors or serious misrepresentations (etc), please correct them. Otherwise please state, explicitly, that there are no significant errors, omissions, misrepresentations, etc.

2) Please explain your 'pushing theory of gravity' again. Please state which aspects of this theory, and which aspects of the ten predictions (corrected, edited, amended, etc as necessary), are "off topic" for this thread.

respectfully, Nereid

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Grasping Gravity?	dgavin	Against the Mainstream	34	04-August-2005 04:39 PM
WHAT IS GRAVITY?	Rolf Guthmann	Against the Mainstream	0	29-July-2005 03:21 PM
"Relative motion" falls apart when applied to plan	Gary Shelton	Against the Mainstream	256	22-November-2004 04:51 AM
Pushing Gravity and solar eclipse anomalies	John Kierein	Astronomy	0	11-May-2002 03:56 PM
Pushing Gravity	John Kierein	Against the Mainstream	25	20-April-2002 01:15 PM