Fortis, you almost certainly know, but just in the remote chance you don't ...

I too think this question of yours, and the chain it's in (includes earlier posts by hhEb09'1, grav, and to some extent Tensor), are important, both generally (re the 'pushing theory of gravity') and the proposed experiment. I too hope that forrest will answer your questions soon.

Thanks for taking the time to write this post.

However, it did not answer either of the questions I asked.

Further, I really want only a "Yes" (and if so, some details) or "No" (and if so, no details) answer, one to each question.

Here are the questions again, with numbers:

1) Has a paper containing the underlying 'vortex theory of (pushing) gravity' been submitted to a relevant, peer-reviewed journal?

2) Has a paper containing the underlying 'vortex theory of (pushing) gravity' been prepared, in a form that adheres to the style, format, layout, etc requirements of a relevant, peer-reviewed journal (e.g. ApJ's)?

Maybe my math is wonky*, but a 100 mile sightline, at a 30 degree angle to the horizontal, would have one end ~50 miles above the surface of the Earth.

How do you propose to set up this far end of the elevated sightline?

respectfully, Nereid

* if so, I'd appreciate any reader correcting me.

Oops!

I see that my question was ambiguous, apologies.

Here's the chain:
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
Nereid: So if the experiment were conducted at a 1 degree angle, the speed differential at that angle would be only ~0.017 of the differential up vs. down, which works out as ~1 ppb (part per billion).

And if the angle were ~3.6" (arcseconds, 1/1000th of a degree), the difference would be ~1 ppt (part per trillion), or 1 part in ~10^12.

forrest: Nereid, I think the laser shootings would have to be at least a 100 miles minimum, and an angle greater than lets say 15 degrees to be able to detect such a small difference with today's equipment -- and for the results to be decisive statistically.

Nereid: How did you arrive at this conclusion?

Please quote your source(s) wrt the precision and accuracy of "today's equipment".
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =

What I meant was, how did you arrive at the conclusion "at least a 100 miles minimum" and "an angle greater than lets say 15 degrees to be able to detect such a small difference"?

Why not a sightline of 1 km, or 1 m (in an evacuated pipe, perhaps)?

Why not an angle of 1 degree, or 10 arcsecs?

After all, per Tensor's post (well, the paper he provides a link to), at least one experimental setup was able to get to a reliable sensitivity of 10^-9 or 10^-13 (depends on what is being tested, of course).

So, my question has to do with how you came to the conclusion that modern equipment could do no better than ~10 ppb? and would require such a long sightline??

Fortis, Happy Sunday

The speed of the aether accordingly accelerates at 3.788 x10^-7 ft. per second, which would be highly significant at the nano second scale. The acceleration rate of gravity is far different. My expectation is that the difference in the density of the aether and the resultant vector forces, up vs. down which would be acting on matter, has a linear functional relationship to the acceleration rate of gravity. And that the acceleration rate of the aether has a non-linear functional relationship to both.

Again the prediction is that there will be a significant variation in the speed of light up vs. down. The expected range of the differential speed would be 64 ft per second +/- 40 ft. per second. The most likely expectant range would be +/- 20 ft. per second which would accordingly be the +/- 1 sigma range.

The fact that the acceleration rate of gravity and the predicted speed of the aether per second both are the same number and therefore appear to have a linear relationship I expect would accordingly be co-incidental.

respectfully, forrest

Thanks Nereid, Now I get to use the little guy with red face.

Yeah the numbers are 1.302 degrees for a hundred miles. I'll probably be using something close to this here in California.


respectfully, Nereid

Forrest, you have missed what I am asking. Given an acceleration due to gravity of 32x10^-18 ft/ns/ns, what is the aether velocity that you expect.

This is by analogy with your claim that given an acceleration due to gravity of 32 ft/s/s, you believe that the aether velocity is 32 ft/s.

Can you address this?

Some additional tests of the 'pushing theory of gravity', as it relates to an anisotropic speed of light (SOL).

A. Meridian timing/differential rotation of the Earth.

Imagine two observers at the same longitude but separated by ~30 degrees in latitude. Imagine they each have identical meridian transit equipment, and extremely accurate, stable clocks, which have been synchronised. They record the times that point sources ('stars') cross their meridians; imagine the stars are distributed over a range of declinations.

If the SOL down is different than the SOL horizontally, then the transit times for each star will differ, because the elevation of each star, when it crosses the meridian, will be different. Depending on how the observations were collected and analysed, this may appear as a dec dependent timing offset, or a differential rotation of the Earth, or ...

As no such effect has been reported (AFAIK), it would seem that the SOL is constant, to within the uncertainties of the collective body of such observations.

B. VLBI.

Very long baseline interferometry (VLBI) is a method for constructing 2D flux-distribution maps ('images') by recording EM at several locations, over time, and combining the data. The algorithms used in the analysis include the assumption that the SOL is constant, and, in particular, independent of the elevation of the source being observed.

If the SOL down is different than the SOL horizontally, then the images constructed with the standard algorithms will have one or more of several peculiar features: point sources will appear fuzzier than they should, image resolution will vary with the angle of elevation of the source being studied, images of extended sources will change with time.

As no such effects have been reported (AFAIK), it would seem that the SOL is constant, to within the uncertainties of the collective body of such observations.

C. Stability of pulsar signals.

As a pulsar is tracked as it moves across the sky (due to the Earth's rotation), the times between arrival of successive pulses will not be constant, if the SOL down is different than the SOL horizontally. Depending on how the pulsar observations are obtained and analysed, this may show up as an elevation-dependent phase change, an elevation-dependent period change, or an observatory-dependent phase or timing change.

As no such effects have been reported (AFAIK), it would seem that the SOL is constant, to within the uncertainties of the collective body of such observations.

D. Consistency in estimates of location of GPS and GLONASS tracking sites.

The IGS (International GNSS Service) is "a global network of over 350 permanent, continuously operating, geodetic quality GPS and GLONASS tracking sites" (source).

AFAIK, the analyses that were done to arrive at the estimated accuracy of the geocentric coordinates of the >130 IGS tracking sites (referenced) did not include any "SOL down is different than the SOL horizontally", of the kind proposed in the OP.

As these coordinates are, apparently, consistent to within the estimated errors, it would seem that the SOL is constant, to within the uncertainties of the collective body of such observations.

E. LLR.

Lunar laser ranging (LLR) is a number of independent experiments based on shooting lasers at the retro-reflectors that the Apollo astronauts left on the Moon and timing the return.

A number of assumptions go into the analysis of LLR data, including that the SOL is constant; specifically, that there is no "SOL down is different than the SOL horizontally", of the kind proposed in the OP.

Among other things, LLR data has been used to estimate the orbit of the Moon, and to test GR (via models of the Moon's orbit, based on the estimated masses of the major solar system bodies, their positions, etc).

As the Moon's orbit is, apparently, consistent with the GR-based models, it would seem that the SOL is constant, to within the uncertainties of the collective body of such LLR observations.

It would seem, then, that there are at least five, independent, sets of results that can be used to make estimates of an upper bound on any "SOL down is different than the SOL horizontally", of the kind proposed in the OP. These are independent, too, of any terrestrial Lorentz invariance experiments.

Can anyone reading this find any flaws in the content, or logic, here?

Except in rather special circumstances, the return times of laser pulses over these two 100-mile sightlines will be different. And that's the case for any pairs of individual pulses or any averages.

Why? Because the SOL in air varies, due to density (and, no doubt, other factors), and the integrated (or average) air density on the two sightlines will be significantly different (except in rather special circumstances). For example, the average air density of the elevated sightline will be lower than the horizontal one (the density of air falls with height).

How do you propose to remove this expected effect from the data you collect in your proposed experiment, forrest?

respectfully, Nereid

Here's one more, let's call it "G", for gravity.

It seems that geophysicists routinely measure the local value of 'g', both accurately and precisely, to 1 ppb (or less), see here for example.

And it seems that one class of gravimeter (a device used to make an estimate of local 'g') uses a vertical Michelson interferometer (check out LaCoste's absolute freefall gravimeters, for example).

I think it's safe to say that an anisotropy in c as large as that proposed in the OP would have been discovered quite some time ago, by geophysicists ... maybe even three decades ago?

So before you invest in a 100 mile sightline laser experiment forrest, maybe you could consider doing a thorough literature search, of the relevant geophysics journals and conference proceedings?

respectfully, Nereid

Hi all,

As I discussed in a previous post I'll be gone this week until Friday.

Looked over the questions this morning before leaving and all of them appear to require either calculations or research. I'll bring my laptop with me and try to answer some questions during the evenings, PST

regards to all, forrest

(bold added)

After which, by my calculations, this thread will have ~5 days' life left (there's a bit of wiggle, in that the app/program that does the '30-day cull' runs only once a day, and I think it errs on the generous side in its calculation of '30 days').

If you look at my link in post 369 you will find that the test indicated is withing the given limits, and one of the arms is up. So, there is no difference between horizontal and vertical at a minimum of 10^-9 and in some cases up to 10^-13.

Nope, none here. This site may help you. It gives the theory behind and the different constraints for the different types of tests for Lorentz violations. It may also help Forrest in his search as the references at the end of the article include a copious listing of different tests.

__________________
Some try to tell me, thoughts they cannot defend,... - Moody Blues.

Neptune- The original Dark Matter.

The author feels that this technique of deliberately lying will actually make it easier for you to learn the ideas. - Donald Knuth

Thanks Tensor.

Here is the same material, in a somewhat more web-friendly form: Modern Tests of Lorentz Invariance.

The living reviews in relativity website is really good value in general, I find, though it does seem to be down rather too often (i.e. usually when I want to access it!).

fortis,


The logic goes down like this. You have the acceleration rate in billionths of a second. You let the acceleration proceed from a stationary position until you find the speed after one second, which in this case would be in one billionth intervals. At that time the speed of gravity, as a result of this acceleration, would be the same speed as the aether. The numbers would be in this case (for 2 significant figures):

(5^18 x 32^-18) = (3.81 x 10^12) x 3.2 x 10 ^-19 = 1.22 x 10^-8


Therefore the speed of the aether accordingly would be, if I made no mistake, 1.22 x 10^-8 ft per second for the speed of the aether based upon the acceleration rate of gravity which you specified.

respectfully, forrest

Two things.

1) The value for the acceleration that I provided was for the acceleration due to gravity at the surface of the Earth. In other words, if you use the second as your unit of time, it is 32 ft/s/s. I think that you have made some mathematical errors here.

2) Why do you use 1 second? Why not use a time interval of 1 ns?

As I said before, this is key to your prediction, so it needs some justification.

Nereid,

I will reply to these two comments and then I will answer Tensor's question.
After that, if I have time I'll address your other questions two at a time.

Nereid, I don't think you realize how tiny this effect is. It only occurs at the surface of the earth and decreases by the inverse square law. After a couple hundred thousand miles there would be no effect at all. Accordingly the positions of starlight would be unaffected. The difference in the apparent stellar positions would be totally unaffected regardless of the relative position on earth of the observer. If you think I'm not explaining it right, talk about very short distances, no star light which consists of light years distances. Remember you're talking about 50 parts per billion for a distance of 100 miles.

respectfully, forrest

Fortis,

I understand the dilemma. You and others have pointed out that "a second" should be no special interval. I agree with all of you. It just so happened that the calculations of the speed of the aether that would accordingly replace the radiated EM radiation closely coincided with the speed based upon the acceleration rate of gravity after one second. As I said before, I have no reason to believe there is anything other than a non-linear exponential relationship between the two. I realize that it appears to be a real problem with my contentions. Thanks Fortis --

respectfully, forrest

Tensor,

I am interested in the test you're discussing very much, but to read the conclusions alone to me is totally worthless. It would necessary to know exactly how the test was conducted, not just a general description of it like the one that you referred me to. My understanding was that their testing up and down was averaged. If so, that would be perfect for their desired experiment -- but would be totally unrelated to what I'm proposing which is totally up vs.totally down.

An angle would be preferable for this testing since the rotation of the earth, the lessened effects of gravity, as well as orbital motions, would not come to play in the equation.

respectfully, forrest

I went ahead and derived the instantaneous acceleration of the aether as it flows inward while speeding up, according to how you have described it. The inflow speed is v = g T, where g is the acceleration of gravity at some distance from the center of mass and T is one or two seconds that the acceleration is multiplied by to get the speed. The acceleration of the aether is a = dv / dt and v = dr / dt, so

v = g T = G M T / r^2

dv = G M T [1 / r^2 - 1 / (r + dr)^2]

v = dr / dt, so 1 / dt = v / dr

a = dv / dt = G M T [1 / r^2 - (r + dr)^2] [v / dr]

a = G M T [1 / r^2 - 1 / (r + dr)^2] [G M T / (r^2 dr)]

a = (G M T)^2 [((r + dr)^2 - r^2) / (r^2 (r + dr)^2)] [1 / (r^2 dr)]

a = (G M T)^2 [2 r dr / (r^6 dr)]

a = 2 (G M T)^2 / r^5

At the Earth's surface, that would give an acceleration of the inflow of the aether of a = 2 g^2 T^2 / r = 3.021 *10^(-5) m / sec^2 = 9.912 * 10^(-5) ft / sec^2 for T = 1 second. Okay, that was fun, but my question is this. What causes the inflow of the aether to accelerate with the inverse of the fifth power of the distance?

Also, I don't think I really got a satisfactory answer before, but the force you say gravity exerts is F = G M m / r^n. If n is anything other than 2, it is no longer a force, but becomes something else. It would be similar to saying that the acceleration of gravity is 32 ft / sec^(2.001) or something. How would one convert that into ordinary units of force in order that it would be useful to find the speed that is gained over normal units of distance and time?

__________________
Let's put together the pieces of The Grand Puzzle . (website - now revised)

"Let's define another operator, Sz, which we won't pay any attention to."
"This transformation will automatically make zero equal zero."
"It may be true that zero equals zero -- and that is certainly an equality -- but I don't want to go into the details at this time."

Please explain how this variable SOL idea (that you have presented in this thread) is different from refraction (other than one is due to things like differences in material density and the other something to do with an aether).

You do appreciate, I hope, that differential refraction is something astronomers are very familiar with, how small the effect is, and over how short a distance it arises.

Please perform at least an OOM (order of magnitude) calculation showing the size - quantitatively - of the apparent displacement in the position of a distant point source due to the variable SOL idea you have presented in this thread. You may assume any elevation, between 1 and 90 degrees, that simplifies the calculation.

Then your understanding is wrong. Refer to link I provided Nereid and go to page 28 where they discuss cavity experiments. The resonance frequency is dependent on c, it matters not whether the speed is different up or down. If c was different orthogonally, then it would show up. It didn't to the stated constraints. Which are smaller than the effects you stated for your idea. [/quote]

All the above would come into effect. You can't get away from them, if you perform the experiment on earth. And, it doesn't matter if it angles up. All that matters for gravity is the distance from the surface.

__________________
Some try to tell me, thoughts they cannot defend,... - Moody Blues.

Neptune- The original Dark Matter.

The author feels that this technique of deliberately lying will actually make it easier for you to learn the ideas. - Donald Knuth

Fortis,

Sorry, you wanted the answer in nano-seconds. Since the speed of the aether would not change significantly in one second, the answer would be 1.22 x 10^-17 ft per nanosecond.

Now off to work, respectfully, forrest

What does "becomes non-linear" mean?

How do "the vector forces of gravity" "become" non-linear?

At a given "position", is "ar." isotropic?

What is the relationship between the position at which {something} "becomes non-linear" and "the beginning of the active range"?

At a given "position", is "cr." isotropic?

What does the symbol "•" mean, in the formula? Is it some kind of vector cross product?

What does the symbol "≈" mean, in the formula? Is it the usual "approximately equal to"?

What does the symbol "Ø" represent, in the formula?

No problem. You do realise that 1.22x10^-17 ft/ns is equal to 1.22x10^-8 ft/sec, which is not the same value as the one that you provided earlier, i.e. 32 ft/sec?

No problem. As I said, this kind of issue has come up before, and you need to be able to justify this quantity. As this forms part of your predicted difference in vertical light speed, it seems to be pretty key.

Looking at the bit that I have bolded, can you explain:

1) How much EM radiation is radiated, and how did you determine the value?

and

2) How did you equate the speed of the aether to this? Did you use the energy density of the aether?

grav,

[quote]What causes the inflow of the aether to accelerate with the inverse of the fifth power of the distance?

grav,

The acceleration of the aether accordingly is a very small rate. It is also based upon the inverse square law to the extent that a low pressure area of the field surrounds all matter and decreases in the density differential according to the inverse square law. Accordingly there would be a continuous inflow of aether into matter which is subsequently radiated away by the matter in the form of EM radiation. The linear relationship between the force of gravity and the field is not in the accelerating aether field but is a result of the pressure differential of the field which is the source of the inward vector push of gravity.

As the vector force becomes non-linear, see page 57 pantheory.org, the force of gravity can be described in three linear tensors. One would be in a straight line toward the gravitational source and the other would be orthogonal to the source. The third vector would come to play as a "z" vector which would apply when considering a plain outside the planetary disk of a stellar system. In the case of the outer solar system you would see that the gravitational push toward the sun would be less than the inverse square law and the lost force would be a force witch initiates or perpetuates the orbital motion of body.

On the plane of the solar system The tensor forces are described as follows: where (O/ r^2 ) is the calculated orthogonal Newtonian force tensor,(L/ r^2) is the calculated linear force, and (D/ r^2 ) is the diagonal vector at a given point, [(O/ r^2 )^2 + (L/ r^2)^2]^1/2 = (D/ r^2 ). (S/ r^n ) is the summation function or all the diagonal vectors / also called the motion line of mass function of all of the diagonal vectors, as can be seen on page 57E.
The differential equation of the (S/ r^n ) function would yield the ratio between the linear and orthogonal vectors at any given point.

Nereid, There is no refraction or reflection involved in this experiment. It is simply the measurement of the speed of light at an angle to the horizontal. Any observed differential speed would be adjusted trigonometrically based upon the angle tested. We are talking about a hundred mile range so that the order of magnitude is unrelated to this experiment. As I mentioned before the problem with an up vs. down test involving a satellite would be possible aspects aspects of time dilation which would be involved thereby clouding any positive results which then might be attributed to time dilation factors. Again there would be no displacement characteristic either. It is solely a measurement of the speed of light up vs. down, nothing else.

respectfully, forrest

Fortis,

These initial calculations were done in either 1996 or 97. They were based upon the amount of estimated EM radiation that the earth produces. The tricky part was converting that number into an aether quantity. These estimates could be off by a factor of 10 or greater and still would be inconsequential to this theory of gravity since the force of gravity is solely determined by the aether pressure differential that falls off according to the inverse square law. A specific speed rate of the aether is not a part of the book or relater theory only the pressure differential. This proposed differential is not a calculated number; it is simply asserted to be the cause of gravity based upon a one G force differential pressure at the earth's surface (caused by the radiated pressure waves of EM radiation) which accordingly would result in the lower aether pressure at the surface of the earth resulting in the continuous acceleration of matter downward.

Tensor,


I tried to find the fine details of exactly where and how this experiment was conducted but so far through the links you presented I still have not found these exact details.

As you know, in my proposed experiment no satellite could be used for the experiment, no reflection or refraction is involved. The experiment must be conducted solely north-south at an angle. In this way I believe that minor factors including dilation will be eliminated. The control test will be north south to confirm a null effect for both instruments, followed by an angular shoot including alternating instrument locations. If I get a null result on the horizontal and a positive consistent results at three different locations of the world I will publish.

Nereid asked the question whether I'm aware of what equipment is out there and the answer is only vaguely based on such experiments that you have presented. I still don't know where I could get the equipment or who would lend their equipment for such an experiment. The equipment that I propose is of simple design. It consists simply of long range lasers coordinated by precision timers and optical sensing precision photo sensitive targets, along with digital or analog time and shot counters.

respectfully, forrest