Nereid,

Non linear means the gravitational forces acting on matter in this range are based upon a real physical vortex. As this vortex acts upon matter it pushes it in a vortex manner combining an orbital vector with a straight line vector push toward the source, resulting in an angular push shown of page 57E.

From page 57E the Newtonian range follows the inverse square law and ar./cr. would be equal to one, which you could call isotropic.
What is the relationship between the position at which {something}

The definition of the ar. (active range is where the forces of gravity become none linear, meaning the force is not in a straight line to the gravitational source.

Any point/ distance cr. within the active range matter is acted upon in a non-linear fassion. One tensor toward the gravitational source and the other orthogonal two it. The resultant vector would be at an angle to the straight line of sight to the gravitational source.

It is only a multiplication sign.

I call these equations "limit equations" like Newtonian inverse square equations which result from the mathematical limit calculations of GR.
The "≈" means "approximately." Accordingly there would always be unpredictable variable in such gravity currents that change from time to time so that any prediction must be necessarily accompanied by a tolerance range. The assertion here is that all gravitational formulations such a Newtonian, GR and these formulations all would require a tolerance range for a prediction.

It simply represents the force of gravity represented in angular vectors which is unique to these formulations.

respectfully, forrest

Nereid,

Non linear means the gravitational forces acting on matter in this range are based upon a real physical vortex. As this vortex acts upon matter it pushes it in a vortex manner combining an orbital vector with a straight line vector push toward the source, resulting in an angular push shown of page 57E.

From page 57E the Newtonian range follows the inverse square law and ar./cr. would be equal to one, which you could call isotropic.
What is the relationship between the position at which {something}

The definition of the ar. (active range is where the forces of gravity become none linear, meaning the force is not in a straight line to the gravitational source.

Any point/ distance cr. within the active range matter is acted upon in a non-linear fassion. One tensor toward the gravitational source and the other orthogonal to it. The resultant vector would be at an angle to the straight line of sight to the gravitational source.

It is only a multiplication sign.

I call these equations "limit equations" like Newtonian inverse square equations which result from the mathematical limit calculations of GR.
The "≈" means "approximately." Accordingly there would always be unpredictable variable in such gravity currents that change from time to time so that any prediction must be necessarily accompanied by a tolerance range. The assertion here is that all gravitational formulations such a Newtonian, GR and these formulations all would require a tolerance range for a prediction.

It simply represents the force of gravity acting in angular vectors which is not unique to these formulations. GR also has non-linear vectors but not at this magnitude in this range.

respectfully, forrest

How did you estimate this? Was it the mean thermal emission?
I imagine so.
Can you show us how you did this, or point us to the relevant page in your book?
So what does that mean for the fall-off in the actual pressure of the aether?
But this speed is relevant to this discussion as it forms the main part of your proposed test of your theory? I thought that you were claiming a difference in the one-way speeeds of light (due to the aether velocity).

I have enjoyed discussing this idea with you as I am also a proponent of push gravity, and I can tell you have put a lot of thought into it, but I still see no quantative formulas for any of the questions we are asking, and the ones that have already been presented appear to be incorrect or do not relate properly, so I can't tell where you are getting your values from. Guessing doesn't work, and just saying it works out the same as we observe without explanation isn't good enough; you have to prove it. If you want other people to be able to use and build upon these ideas in the way you have described them, you will need to be able to at least provide the basics so that others can follow them.

__________________
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."

Thanks for these answers.

From the diagram on p57E, I (vaguely) understand ar and cr in the case of two objects (the Sun and a nearby star, for example).

What I can't work out is how ar and cr could even be defined, let alone estimated, in an N-body system.

Take the alpha Cen system of stars, for example. There are two stars, A and B, of approx equal mass, relatively close to each other (certainly MUCH closer than 3/8 ly, let alone 1 1/2 ly!), with a third, less massive star, Proxima, orbiting the common centre of mass at a considerably greater distance (but still less than 1 1/8 ly).

Is every vortex spherical? Or are they bent and dented, depending on how they bump up against other vortices? Do ar and/or cr depend upon which pair of vortices is being considered?

Are the edges of each vortex sharp? As in, over a distance of 1 km, 1 m, 1 micron, ... the vortex goes from a significant, non-zero value to zero? Or is each vortex infinite, per the "Vortex Range of gravity"?

respectfully, Nereid

(bold added)

As you have described the proposed experiment, in this thread, at its heart is light traveling through air. Further, the distance through air is long (~100 miles), and further^2, the null hypothesis assumes a constant SOL through two ~100 mile paths through air, one ~horizontal, the other at a small angle (~1 degree) to the horizontal.

At low elevations, differential refraction is plainly visible to the unaided eye (look at the nice colours of Venus these days when it is close to the horizon, on a clear night at a non-polluted site), so it takes no math at all to appreciate how much greater the absolute refraction is.

Please explain how you intend to zero out the effects of refraction, in your proposed experiment.

Wrt satellites: as has been mentioned before, in several posts, "possible aspects aspects of time dilation", for non-terrestrial light paths, are not only well-understood, but the successful operation of the GPS system, the precision and accuracy of much geophysical data, etc, etc, etc shows that the universe (or at least this part of it) behaves as theory predicts (to within the estimated uncertainties). And as I began to show, those uncertainties are way smaller than 1 ppb.

But perhaps I'm not understanding your point here ... can you clarify please? Specifically, what "possible aspects aspects of time dilation" cannot be quite precisely estimated (if not actually measured, albeit indirectly)?

respectfully, Nereid

Also what about variations in temp and atmospheric pressure? They will both introduce variables into your laser path.

__________________
All Moderation in Purple
To report a post (even this one) to the moderation team, click the reporting icon in the upper-right corner of the post:
─────────────────────────────────────────────
◄Rules For Posting To This Board ► ◄Forum FAQs ► ◄ Conspiracy Theory Advice ► ◄ Alternate Theory Advice ►

Captain Swoop,

In such an experiment one is relying on the differential speed of up vs. down. All ambient conditions will be duly recorded. Minor variations caused by the atmosphere, temperature and pressure and other conceivable variables should be minimal since the light going one way vs. the other would be done through the same atmosphere at the same time, so seemingly would be influenced in the same way. We will try to test under mild atmospheric conditions as much as possible.

respectfully, forrest

Huh?

Now I'm confused (again).

I thought the heart of the proposed experiment involves a comparison of something to do with a horizontal ~100 mile sightline vs the same thing to do with an elevated ~100 mile sightline (~1 degree).

Have I misunderstood (again)? If so, please clarify.

In any case, how do you intend to determine "[a]ll ambient conditions" along the two ~100 mile sightlines?

And won't the elevated sightline pass through a part of the atmosphere whose "temperature and pressure and other conceivable variables" deltas will be anything but "minimal" (wrt the horizontal sightline)?

I really, really would like you to present at least an OOM analysis of the differential refraction of the two sightlines, with the objective of ascertaining how large these deltas would be expected to be, wrt the ~50 ppb effect you predict (from your 'pushing theory of gravity'). And also the effect of the difference in local gravity ('g') - averaged, integrated, or estimated in some other robust fashion - along the two sightlines*.

respectfully, Nereid

* I assume you are familiar with the relevant geophysics, and in particular 'the vertical gradient of gravity', its expected effect on any measurement of the SOL, etc. Variation in local 'g' along the horizontal sightline may be significant, at the 50 ppb level, and will certainly be significant along the elevated sightline, if only because the 'far end' station of this sightline will have an altitude well above the local geoid.

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."

This was based upon scientific estimates of the earth's EM radiation minus the re-radiation of our atmospheric temperature heated by the sun. Maybe something like 50K, which accordingly would be solely based upon the mass of the earth.

------------------------------------------------------------

"The tricky part was converting that number into an aether quantity."

I know what range I might expect the differential in the speed of light to be found, i.e. too large an effect would have already been detected. If gravity is caused by a difference in aether pressure then accordingly the EM radiation based upon the earth's mass would accordingly be the cause. There would be an aether replacement cycle at the earth's surface. If there is an inflowing aether then it should be detectable based upon a difference in the speed of light up vs. down. This is the logic.

The median value, in the possible expected range, was about 32 feet per second. Based upon the expected value of the aether speed the conversion factor for this replacement was calculated. This figure was used to estimate the quantity of aether particles per photon. None of these estimates were discussed within my book.

--------------------------------------------------------------

"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."

As a said before, I expect there to be a linear relationship between this pressure differential and the acceleration of gravity. Accordingly I would expect this pressure differential to fall off according to the inverse square law.

-----------------------------------------------------------

"A specific speed rate of the aether is not a part of the book or related 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."

This is true, but the expected range of this velocity is based upon the conclusion that any greater velocity in the speed of the aether, if it correlates to the speed of light, would have already been detected. The 32 feet per second is about the median value of this expected range.


respectfully, forrest

grav,

Thank you for your comments. The only other significant quantitative analysis that I can think of relating to gravity is in the Pan Theory of Relativity section of the book. It is generally related to gravitational motions observed from a distance greater than a redshift of 1.

Of course I did my best in this regard -- to present the material in a way so that others who wished could build upon it. These explanations and formulations on this thread, as far as the entire theory of gravity presented herein, are taken out of the context of the book. For this theory as a whole, any part taken out of context is close to impossible to understand. This is clearly stated in the beginning of the book. Since you are a fellow pushing gravity proponent, and logical, I would appreciate it if you read the entire book. Afterwords I believe your editorial comments concerning the book would be very constructive. Please contact me on the website.

respectfully, forrest

Nereid,

The brunt of the test and measurements are not concerned with the speed of light. Such measurements in air are well know. This experiment concerns the differential speed up vs. down. The null effect testing will be done on the horizontal to verify the equipment, procedure, and instrumentation only.

My expectations are that any such variations that could exist would accordingly be inconsequential in differential speed measurements up vs down -- if tested in the exact same location at exactly the same time, the speed vector up compared to down. I believe the two sightlines will be separated by less than a foot, shooting back and forth zillions of times.

Since we will be shooting from target to target such refraction would seemingly be meaningless concerning the speed differential being evaluated.
Do you see any value in such calculations beforehand or measurements on site? As long it's a long range laser that easily can activate the target at 100 miles. Again any flaw would seemingly be detected in the null-effect testing on the horizontal.

I will try to address your other postings probably tomorrow evening.

respectfully, forrest

I'm speechless. You're trying so hard to get a footing for this theory of yours, but for the one crucial test that you propose, that is supposed to show real tiny variations, you have done no research into influences of the testing environment?

I'm no physicist, but I know that c is usually defined as the speed of light in a vacuum. The atmosphere is not a perfect gas, with rather large differences in local circumstances. Modern large telescopes use artificial laser 'stars' to correct for dynamic atmospheric influences... and those have to do it for up, where the atmosphere is a lot thinner than where you propose your experiment.

Your laser beams are a foot apart, after 100 miles? Did I understand that correctly? Or did you mean one beam will diverge a foot? I'm not sure if you mentioned what type of laser will be used in your experiment. (Guess I wasn't speechless after all... )

__________________
"Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge" -- Charles Darwin
"Your right to hold an opinion is not being contested. Your expectation that it be taken seriously is." -- Jason Thompson
Meet the OOONG TOE.

Good point. Over 100 miles the beam will diverge quite a bit. how big are your targets and what power of mean are you proposing to use?

__________________
All Moderation in Purple
To report a post (even this one) to the moderation team, click the reporting icon in the upper-right corner of the post:
─────────────────────────────────────────────
◄Rules For Posting To This Board ► ◄Forum FAQs ► ◄ Conspiracy Theory Advice ► ◄ Alternate Theory Advice ►

Well, I've read some of it, but the only other comment I have right now, other than the speed of the aether thing earlier, is that your formula for the force of gravity cannot stand as it is. For instance, you say 'n' can be anything from one to infinity. But if n is one, then we no longer have a force, but energy. With n=4, it becomes a pressure. What you will need to do is to include the dimensionless units of cr/ar separately in order to leave the units of force as they should be.

With most models of push gravity and tired light, for instance, the energy or pressure falls off as some of it is absorbed, and then falls off slightly less after that since there is less that can be absorbed, etc., generally working out to a resulting pressure for gravity or energy for light that is 1 / (e^x) times smaller than the original pressure or energy. So your formula for gravity, if related in this way, might become something like F = [G M m / r^2] / [e ^ (r / ar)] or [G M m / ar r] / [e ^ (r / ar) - 1] or something, which would fall off faster than Newtonian gravity (although 'x' in e^x for push gravity would normally have something to do with the densities of the gravitating bodies), or if it relates somewhat differently, it might fall with atan (r / ar) or something similar, just so long as the basic units of force are not affected.

Also, I ran across a couple of links, here and here, that I thought might interest you.

__________________
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."

Nereid,

Take the core for the Milky Way as an example. It is pretty close to an N-body system. Stars are orbiting on all planes with a dominance on the plane of the Milky Way. I would model it with some symmetry something like a spherical vortex with two lesser strength vortices with their flutes facing inward. Each funnel generally directed toward the galactic center. All good models are based upon observations. This is true for all gravity models for any theory. The better the information the better the model. I suppose my model would differ from the Newtonian model in that there would be a little less “attraction” between the stars and a little more push reinforcing the overall orbital momentum. Otherwise I would expect the model to be similar to the Newtonian model

I like your example. This system would be difficult to model. Accordingly there would be at least five vortices involved in this modeling. One would be the overall vortex which would be funneling in from all sides of the plane of this three star system. The curvature on the outside vortex lines would be configured in the direction of the mean plane of the mass of the system. The second vortex would be on the plane of the close binary pair. The last three would be the individual vortices of each star. Other possible intermediate minor vortices might be needed to explain all observed motions.

Such modeling of three of more interacting stars or galaxies that are not interacting on the same plane are very difficult to model and any predictions from such a model would require tolerancing. The additional problem would be the balancing of the relative strengths of the vortices. I call this process “best-fit” modeling.

Most vortices of elliptical galaxies would be close to spherical. The funneling in of the aether would accordingly come in nearly equally from all sides. Many of these galaxies rotate little compared to the background of galaxies so their primary vortex would not be curved around the edges. Rotation would be close to flat from the inside out. Spiral galaxy vortices would most likely be flattened on parallel planes to the disk of the galaxy.

Yes, each vortex model has its own active range. The considered range is not needed unless you wish to evaluate something in particular within the active range. Then generally only one vortex model is needed for this area of the model.

respectfully, forrest

Slang,

I expect to get an equal speed shooting north and south, and shooting east and west I expect to see the rotation of the earth in the experiment. If I cannot get both of these results then there would be no need to proceed further. I also expect there to be no significant effect due to the atmosphere, my research will be concentrated on the instrumentation.

The simplest version of the experiment goes like this. You have two lasers each with an adjacent target. Each laser has a precision timer. Both timers are synchronized. Both lasers have a timed program of firing. At that given time one laser will fire at the others' target. The synchronized timer will measure the length of time from the firing until its target is hit. As both lasers record the time for each hit the time summation for each will accumulate.

The time differential between the two would be the difference in the speed of light shooting one way compared to the other. Each instrument will be alternated in its position as well as the electronics and targets. Shooting north south in all cases would need to get the exact same results. If not, the set-up or the instruments would have a flaw. The laser beams from each may be as close as one foot apart.

As to the instruments themselves, I still do not know the best equipment available out there for this testing. Unfortunately I have time limitations since this is not the only thing that I do.

respectfully, forrest

Captain Swoop,

Captain, I do expect presently that I may be shooting 100 miles. If however the instrumentation is sensitive enough I will be shooting only 4.5 miles at a 30 degree angle, or some distance in between. I presently expect no divergence in the path of the laser up to 100 miles, only inconsequential refraction. If there is a problem in this respect, I will necessarily reduce the distance. In the end, a null effect is needed shooting north-south.

respectfully, forrest

grav,

Thanks again for your comments. You are right; the force must not be effected. In this case the equations involve the division of the force of Newtonian gravity in a non-linear direction, meaning one tensor is in the direction of the source of gravity and the other is orthogonal to it in the direction of the orbital momentum of the system. A third tensor may be required in the direction of the orbital plane of the system if there is one. In general the orthogonal vectors would accordingly increase the orbital momentum of the stars or galaxies within the orbiting system.

respectfully, forrest

Nereid,

I expect that refraction will not be a problem with a long range laser. As long as there is enough light remaining to activate the target there would be no problem. If however such a problem were encountered then the distance would be reduced.

Nereid, on this matter I think you are mistaken concerning present-day predictions of science. Every couple of months since the 1960's there have been continuous surprises, i.e. unexpected observations. This I assert is because we are using the wrong models of the universe i.e. the BB model. etc. Special Relativity works fine but so do Lorentz transforms since they are the same equations.

If there is an aether, Special Relativity will fall. If there is no dark matter then General Relativity will need serious revision or replacement. If Einstein, Shroedinger, and many other's opinions including my own are correct, quantum theory will fall. The mathematical models of it will remain in place but descriptions of the quantum world would accordingly be completely changed.

Within a hundred years, it is my belief, that all of these modern day theories of Physics will be seriously challenged, changed, or eliminated. Along with these changes, I believe, there will be much fewer surprises.

It is my opinion, Nereid, that we understand how to use the formulations required to estimate time dilation under every possible condition. I assert the problem is that the process of dilation is not understood at all if in fact such dilation is the result of aether mechanics, which I believe it is.

respectfully, forrest

Nereid,

Was looking at your postings trying to find those that I missed and came up with this one. If there are others that I may have missed identify them for me so that I can address them.

I agree with you that this is important for my pocket book -- unless someone lends me the equipment for this experiment. I have talked with few high level physicists concerning this test, as to whether they may be aware of any experiment that might contradict what I am proposing. The last I talked to was more than 5 years ago, although I talked to some of them from time to time in Physics chat rooms. None have directed me to contradictory evidence. I assume that they put on their thinking caps to give me an answer since what I'm proposing is 100% against the Mainstream.

On this thread Tensor discussed an experiment from a satellite using different lines of sight that seemed to be somewhat related. On further examination it does not seem to be relevant but I did not fully understand the info that I read concerning this experiment. So to date I've fond nothing out there that would seem to contradict the possible speed differential.

This of course does not mean that there isn't some experiment that would seem to contradict this proposal. Once I get a commitment for the equipment I expect many occupational physicists will volunteer their knowledge and opinions. Hopefully, if there is contradictory evidence out there I hope that I can evaluate it before hand.

Thanks for the recommendations Nereid.

If anybody out there has any ideas concerning contradictory evidence please step to the plate. I promise it's only a slow pitch game of kickball, such as pitch it to me with slow with baby bounces. Anybody can play this game. Look at posts #141 & 145. This we might call lighter perspectives of gravity.

OK it's Miller time!!!!! Friday the 13th bigtime. When Levity intervenes he is usually a welcomed guest.

My hero, Fred Hoyle. Sorry I never met him. Einstein, in his lectures at Princeton, would end some of them by saying it's time for Beany, which was a live puppeteer's show by Bob Clampet on television in the late 40's and early 50's. At the same real time here in California, some 60 years ago, I was also watching the same program that Einstein was here in California -- so we had a kinship of interests

Will be back in Los Angeles Saturday evening.

best regards, forrest

To round out one missing piece not discussed on this thread as yet would be the speed of gravity according to this theory.

A thought experiment was conceived long ago showing the difference between Einstein’s gravity model and Newton’s. The proposal was concerning what would happen to the earth if the sun somehow would instantaneously disappear.

In Newton’s model, gravity reacts instantaneously therefore the earth would immediately move off on a tangent to its orbit in a straight line out of the solar system.

In Einstein’s model the effects of gravity would move at the speed of light so that it would take about 8 1/3 minutes for the earth to exit its orbital position in a tangent.

The Pan-Gravity Model is different from both of these other models. The aether field around the sun would be a low pressure area relative to the surrounding field density away from the sun. The pressure differential would decrease according to the inverse square law. For all gravity systems these pressure differentials would exist for mass of all sizes. The surrounding field could be called an accompanying, source-propagated field. When a gravitational mass would enter this field the force of pushing gravity would come from without rather than within. This new mass in the field would experience this difference in pressure almost immediately, because of the pre-existing pressure differentials, so that the speed of gravity would seem to be superluminous.

When light waves enter this field, its path would be bent at a rate in accord with its own speed, the speed of light. After received the light from this event, the propagation effects of the gravitational event would unfold to us at the speed of light.

If the sun were to somehow disappear, however, according to this theory the first apparent effects could be observed at the speed of light. This effect would propagate throughout the field at a much slower rate, according to this theory, so that the earth's orbit would begin to decay at a relatively slow rate. It might take thousands of years for the field to break down completely and recover to a uniform pressure. Only at that time would the earth stop orbiting the original position of the sun and move out of the inner solar system. By this process, most of the earth's orbital momentum would be lost to the decaying field. The earth would remain in the vicinity of the solar system for maybe millions of years before it may finally come under the gravitational influence of another star.

The implications of this theory of gravity seem to leave at least one other avenue open for testing of its tenets. Similar mechanics may also be consistent with other aether related pushing-gravity models.

respectfully, forrest

Concerning the concept of massless aether particles as the source of gravity and massless photons being something other than massless in a gravitational field.

This posting is to clarify the word massless in the aether vortex model of gravity. Since the pushing forces of aether are accordingly the cause of gravity, what is the meaning of massless?

The most common definition of mass is this one: the property of a body that causes it to have weight in a gravitational field.

The most common definition of weight is: the vertical force exerted by a mass as a result of gravity.

The old idea of atmospheric gases was that they were weightless since they did not sink under the influence of gravity. Since then we realize that if gases are rare enough they will sink under the influence of gravity.

This theory proposes the same reasoning exists concerning aether particles. Yes, they have substance and are accordingly pushed around like matter by vortex currents of gravity. But collectively they are the pushing force of gravity themselves and cannot be separated from the aether so they float around in the aether like atmospheric gases because they are a part of the aether atmosphere and cannot be individually selected to be pushed down.

Photons, on the other hand, are accordingly made up of the largest strings of aether field particles (or engaged strings) that become only short lived particles, a longer lived version of virtual particles. Their longevity in a wave would accordingly last maybe only a millisecond but that's a long time in the quantum world. During this time however, they could be considered to have mass since individually they react to the forces of gravity as the waves that propel them move in the direction of a lower density volumes of field like matter does (their path is accordingly bent by the influence of gravity, just like matter).

respectfully, forrest

Is 50 K the equivalent blackbody temperature that you are working with? Why should it be based purely on the mass of the earth? The temperature of a planet depends strongly on its distance from the Sun.
In summary this seems to say,
"It must be smaller than x, otherwise we would already have detected it, but it must be large enough for us to detect at some point".
Why couldn't the value be vanishingly small?
To determine a median, you need to have a distribution of values, i.e. you list all the possible values in ascending order, and the median is tha value that is half way up the list. So, the obvious question, is how did you determine this distribution of possible values?
Am I correct in saying that this means that the speed that you are quoting is just the halfway point between zero and some arbitrary speed that you believe wouldn't have been detected by current techniques? Not only does this seem a bit ad hoc, but it seems hard to justify quoting a value to 2 significant figues, i.e. 32 ft/sec.
I wasn't asking about the pressure differential. If there is a pressure differential, then there must also be a pressure. How does the pressure fall off with distance?

from #429:

I too would really like to see your analysis, of a quantative nature rather than "I expect".

__________________
"Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge" -- Charles Darwin
"Your right to hold an opinion is not being contested. Your expectation that it be taken seriously is." -- Jason Thompson
Meet the OOONG TOE.

Fortis, These are all good questions.

The theory here is that the heat from the sun is totally re-radiated away by the earth in a perpetual heat cycle. Even though the earth always has its largest heat component and retention as a result of solar heating, only the net outflow over the inflow would accordingly control the pressure differential of the surrounding aether field. The EM radiation emanating from a blackbody-mass in space outside a galaxy accordingly would be very close to a blackbody's radiation due to gravitational heating influences only.

Yes this is true. If I get a null result from this testing this is certainly one of the likely possibilities. Another possibility would be that there is another source of the aether pressure differential other than aether flow. A third possibility would be that this theoretical mechanism of gravity is wrong and that another mechanism is the source of gravity.

This statement is also true. It was done by estimating the smallest possible value that I believed this experiment could detect relative to NS presently I thing is roughly 2 feet per second. The fastest possible speed is presently thought to be 66 feet per second, otherwise I would think that this effect would have already been detected. This would be the expected range of 3 standard deviations. So I chose a middle value. The prediction itself is only that a difference in the differential speed of up vs. down exists.

This is true but above I am giving the 3 sigma expected range. But you are correct in that based upon this method of estimated expectations a single significant figure such as 30 feet per second difference from the horizontal or 60 for the differential speed, or just the expected range might be more appropriate.

The theory is that the earth would accordingly be the source of the blackbody radiation that produces outgoing pressure waves of EM radiation. In the same manor all fermions produce waves in the field that diminish in magnitude according to the inverse square law. The original pressure is based upon the density of the aether and its flux, the analogy being gas pressure. The density would decrease according to the above mechanism resulting in a reduced field pressure in the direction of the earth, in this case.

respectfully, forrest

Slang,

Thanks for your comment Slang. The prediction itself is based upon the Pan-Gravity Theory and is non-quantitative.The prediction is only that a difference in the speed of light up vs. down exists. The quantitative values I have given, as expressed in my reply to Fortis, are only based upon expected values. Any value at all would be in accord with my prediction. Making some quantitative assessment in accord with my expectations is not real science. If I get a positive result from this testing then I would probably come up with many estimations in accord with my theory, attempting to theoretically explain the mean value observed.

I'll be back in Los Angeles this evening to address new or unanswered postings.

respectfully, forrest

Can you say what, in units of photons per second per square metre, or Watts/m², the value that this flux should be? I assume that you have done this calculation.
So this test would not be able to disprove your model. Is that correct?
You seem to be suggesting that the pressure should drop according to an inverse square law. Is that correct?

If so, then pressure differentials should fall as the inverse cube of the distance. (This is just from basic calculus.) Does that make sense to you?

forrest, I don't understand this response. No matter how often I reread Nereid's question, I don't see how you could take it as a request to calculate the effects of your theory. But maybe it is me that misunderstands... As I see it, the request is to quantify other effects that may or may not hide the effect that you try to measure. Perhaps Nereid can clarify when she returns.

__________________
"Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge" -- Charles Darwin
"Your right to hold an opinion is not being contested. Your expectation that it be taken seriously is." -- Jason Thompson
Meet the OOONG TOE.

Fortis, Saturday night back home. Miller Time.

In this theory photons are just along for the ride. The essential ingredient is the pressure waves of aether. As these outward moving waves of EM radiation and De Broglie waves move away from matter, they create a low pressure area in the field surrounding matter. Maybe a understandable analogy might be the internal low pressure area of a storm vortex.

We addressed this question before in your post #143 and my reply posting #142 which addressed where in the book you could see how the inverse square drop off of field pressure was derived – pages 57C-57D. The basis for this logic is the surface area of a sphere. The same logic also applies to both light and magnetism.

respectfully, forrest