126 replies to this topic

[RingFenceTheCity]

No, I *did* look up the moon phases. Thank you for the link to the flyby article. It supports my hypothesis imo. Note that the Pioneer anomaly has recently been attributed to non-gravitational reasons. Here's a few quotes which caught my attention:

Quote

[i)At the time many found it surprising that energy
could be transferred to a spacecraft from the orbital-motion angularmomentum
of a planet about the Sun, despite the fact it had been known
since the works of Lagrange, Jacobi, and Tisserand on the three-body problem
[Moulton 1970,Danby 1988], that the energies of comets could be affected
by passing near Jupiter.

The exotic gravity force on the plane of rotation of Jupiter is the reason for our glacial cycle, as detailed in my latest FQXi essay.

Quote

(ii)We have also presented a series of intriguing real-world results associated with flybys
that belie our current understanding of the underlying physics. It is hoped
that further study, which we encourage, can reconcile this situation.

The current physics *doesn't* explain the phenomenon. An extra force is needed, as they suggest in the report as an option.

I think that you are still thinking mathematically. I'm saying that the exotic force on the plane of rotation from exotic comets *ISN'T* subject to the inverse square law as in ordinary matter. I'm saying that the Moon's extra force on this narrow plane is a band of influence, and shouldn't be considered from a point source. Therefore it doesn't matter whether the spacecraft is closer or further away in the conventional sense, it's the time that the spacecraft is within the band of influence as it crosses which is important.

The other point to note which the report states is that the exact time of velocity increases is unknown. It's just *approximately* near the time of closest approach. Also, when I'm taking about the high exotic matter content of the moon, I'm suggesting that it exerts a force on it's 'plane of rotation'. The moon no longer spins on it's own axis, so the exact angle of this plane may no longer be perfectly aligned with the moon's equatorial plane. It's an approximation which fits very well with the data. Remember that this a genuine mystery and one which shouldn't be swept under the carpet so easily. The exact position and aspect of the moon is needed for each flyby for the detailed analysis.

Juno is scheduled to resolve the situation. The voyage to Jupiter will take five years, which will include an Earth flyby in October 2013. The exotic matter hypothesis and the moon will be shown to be the primary influence imo. Let's wait and see. The Juno gravity assist from a flyby of Earth is set for Oct 9, 2013. The first quarter date is 11 October, so unfortunately this doesn't bode well for a big energy increase.

http://upload.wikime..._trajectory.jpg

Edited by SunnyBlues, 19 September 2012 - 12:38 PM.

[sepulchrave]

SunnyBlues, on 19 September 2012 - 12:32 PM, said:

I'm saying that the exotic force on the plane of rotation from exotic comets *ISN'T* subject to the inverse square law as in ordinary matter.

Yes, I understand that.

SunnyBlues, on 19 September 2012 - 12:32 PM, said:

I'm saying that the Moon's extra force on this narrow plane is a band of influence, and shouldn't be considered from a point source.

So what, this ``non baryonic matter'' isn't made of point-like particles?
Or the principle of superposition doesn't apply?

SunnyBlues, on 19 September 2012 - 12:32 PM, said:

Therefore it doesn't matter whether the spacecraft is closer or further away in the conventional sense, it's the time that the spacecraft is within the band of influence as it crosses which is important.

Conservation of energy isn't important either, I guess?

SunnyBlues, on 19 September 2012 - 12:32 PM, said:

The other point to note which the report states is that the exact time of velocity increases is unknown. It's just *approximately* near the time of closest approach. Also, when I'm taking about the high exotic matter content of the moon, I'm suggesting that it exerts a force on it's 'plane of rotation'. The moon no longer spins on it's own axis, so the exact angle of this plane may no longer be perfectly aligned with the moon's equatorial plane. It's an approximation which fits very well with the data.

Of course. Any object in orbit around Earth will cross any plane that is coincident with the Moon at some point.

Why have no satellite operators have observed anomalous energy boosts in the orbits of their satellites?

SunnyBlues, on 19 September 2012 - 12:32 PM, said:

Remember that this a genuine mystery and one which shouldn't be swept under the carpet so easily.

Of course, but the solution should be commensurate with the scope of the problem.

Our ``current physics'' can calculate the trajectories of comets, asteroids, spacecraft, satellites, etc. with very high accuracy.

Your proposed solution is:

• Not quantitative (you have provided no theory for calculating the effect of this force),
  
• Requires a substantial addition to the Standard Model of particles (and forces), and
  
• Violates conservation of energy.

Remember, the anomalous speed gained by NEAR (the spacecraft with the largest gain, listed in the wiki) was a gain of less than one part in a million.

Finally, remember that the second and third ROSETTA flybys were also designed to test the anomalous speed gain, and they both failed to detect any anomalous gain.

[RingFenceTheCity]

Okay, I'm changed my mind about the exact mechanism involved. The evidence still shows that the moon *is* in the same phase when all three big energy increases were detected. This implies a lunar tidal explanation is highly possible. I've attached an illustration to help with my hypothesis. The tidal bulge which precedes the moon is responsible imo. I suggest that this bulge dislodges a dark matter comet within an inner halo of the Earth. This is the source of the extra force which is given as a credible solution in your research article.

There *is* evidence of such spurious energy increases of aircraft as well as spacecraft. The Vile Vortices by Ivan T. Sanderson and the mysterious aeroplane/ship disappearances is a *real* connection to the flyby phenomenon.

Attached Files

•  FlybyLunarTidalEffect 001.jpg   56.68K   11 downloads

[sepulchrave]

SunnyBlues, on 20 September 2012 - 09:27 AM, said:

The evidence still shows that the moon *is* in the same phase when all three big energy increases were detected.

How so? The moon was waning for all three, but it wasn't the same degree of ``fullness''.

See here :

Gallileo 1: 65% full, waning
Gallileo 2: 90% full, waning
NEAR: 30% full, waning
Cassini: 40% full, waxing
Rosetta: 50% full, waning
Messenger: 10% full, waning

SunnyBlues, on 20 September 2012 - 09:27 AM, said:

This implies a lunar tidal explanation is highly possible.

I don't disagree with that.

However note that the lunar phase is only important if you are considering the Earth-Moon-Sun system. If you are not including the influence of the Sun, then the lunar phase is not important.

SunnyBlues, on 20 September 2012 - 09:27 AM, said:

There *is* evidence of such spurious energy increases of aircraft as well as spacecraft. The Vile Vortices by Ivan T. Sanderson and the mysterious aeroplane/ship disappearances is a *real* connection to the flyby phenomenon.

I am not sure I would call Sanderson's work ``evidence''.

[RingFenceTheCity]

You seem to have made an error with the three moon phases. They are all within 4 days of one another. The three big increases are:

(i) Galileo I : date = 12/8/1990, moon phase= 1 day before last quarter
(ii) NEAR : date = 01/23/1998, moon phase= 3 days after last quarter
(iii) Rosetta-1, date = 03/04/2005, moon phase= 1 day after last quarter

*No other* flyby dates are at this precise time in the moon's orbit. No other significant energy increases are recorded at any other moon phase. Therefore there *is* evidence to suggest that a lunar tidal explanation is highly possible, which I'm glad you agree with .

I'm guessing that the Missing Aircraft dates will match with the same moon phase. Not every case of course, but enough for statistical significance. Holy Cow! The first two are exactly the same: I day after new moon this time! Wow, then one on the first quarter and the next 4 around the time of the full moon. There's more around the time of the full moon. I suspect that there is another reason which I don't want to discuss at the moment. The evidence is still in my favour imo.

Edited by SunnyBlues, 21 September 2012 - 11:01 AM.

[sepulchrave]

SunnyBlues, on 21 September 2012 - 10:46 AM, said:

You seem to have made an error with the three moon phases. They are all within 4 days of one another. The three big increases are:

(i) Galileo I : date = 12/8/1990, moon phase= 1 day before last quarter
(ii) NEAR : date = 01/23/1998, moon phase= 3 days after last quarter
(iii) Rosetta-1, date = 03/04/2005, moon phase= 1 day after last quarter

Your data is basically the same as mine, when I say ``50% full, waning'' I mean ``last quarter''. But I was just eyeballing images of the moon, so we can go with your numbers.

SunnyBlues, on 21 September 2012 - 10:46 AM, said:

*No other* flyby dates are at this precise time in the moon's orbit. No other significant energy increases are recorded at any other moon phase. Therefore there *is* evidence to suggest that a lunar tidal explanation is highly possible, which I'm glad you agree with .

There is evidence, but it is weak. Your correlation consists of matching the 3 (out of 8) flybys with significant positive energy increases to a time period (4 days) which spans 14% of the possible phases of the moon (28 days or so). The magnitude of the energy increase is not correlated with the phase of the moon.

Further, the two cases with significant negative energy increases are not correlated with any particular phase (Gallileo-II occurred at almost a full moon, and Cassini occurred perhaps a day before the first quarter judging by the phases here).

SunnyBlues, on 21 September 2012 - 10:46 AM, said:

I'm guessing that the Missing Aircraft dates will match with the same moon phase. Not every case of course, but enough for statistical significance. Holy Cow! The first two are exactly the same: I day after new moon this time! Wow, then one on the first quarter and the next 4 around the time of the full moon. There's more around the time of the full moon. I suspect that there is another reason which I don't want to discuss at the moment. The evidence is still in my favour imo.

Now you are just spinning your wheels.

For the spacecraft you were working under the assumption that the anomalous velocity increase occurred when the spacecraft crossed the lunar tidal point. Since the exact time at which the velocity increase occurred is unknown, and since the spacecraft - in Earth orbit - definitely would at some point be close to the tidal point, this is (remotely) plausible.

Now you are saying that out of a collection of 23 events (the wiki list of missing aircraft) perhaps 10 of them occur during the first quarter-to-full moon time-frame (about 25% of the possible moon phases?). This time frame does not overlap with the previous one (a 4-day period around the third quarter), and the odds that 10 out of 23 events would share the same quartile are about 1 in 10 which is makes the null hypothesis (the phase of the moon has no effect) pretty reasonable.

Further, you are now attaching two completely different events (spacecraft speeding up, and planes crashing) to two completely different quarters of the moon. There are only 4 quarters - or even more broadly, only 28 phases - are you going to find an anomalous (and otherwise unconnected) event to tie to each situation?

Here's what you can do to help your case: Using a spreadsheet, or some other graphing program, plot the anomalous change in speed for all spacecraft (even the ones with no anomalous change, or the ones that don't fit your hypothesis) against the number of days since a particular phase of the moon (any phase, I assume the 3rd quarter would be the best choice judging by your above arguments), and see if there is a trend.

[RingFenceTheCity]

Ignoring airships which are a different kettle of fish altogether, the percentage of missing aircraft around the time of the full moon is overwhelming. I'll do the graph just as soon as I can. The evidence is *definitely* there.

Let's look at the wikipedia Bermuda Triangle data. The first TWO match with the flyby data! My guess is that it's the Bermuda Triangle anomaly which is activated by the lunar tide at around the last quarter. This extra exotic force acts on the metal of the aircraft or ship, due to it's cubic centre-bodied structure. [Maybe ships and planes of the future will be made from plastic?!]

• USS Cyclops: 2 days before last quarter.
  
• Carroll A. Deering: 1 day after last quarter.
  
• Flight 19: 1 day after new moon.
  
• Star Tiger: 3 days before full moon.
  
• Star Ariel: 4 days before full moon.
  
• Douglas DC-3: 2 days before new moon.
  
• KC-135 Stratotankers: 1 day after first quarter.
  
• Connemara IV: 2 days after first quarter.

I've been honest here. The first two are a perfect fit for the anomaly hypothesis. I *know* that the rest even out the data!! More is needed for any signal to be detected.

The List of Bermuda Triangle incidents is interesting in that the first two are listed above and the next three incidents have regular reasons after an accident investigation report. Therefore 100% of *suspicious/mysterious* incidents at sea fit with the gravity anomaly hypothesis.

Edited by SunnyBlues, 22 September 2012 - 11:32 AM.

[sepulchrave]

SunnyBlues, on 22 September 2012 - 11:30 AM, said:

Let's look at the wikipedia Bermuda Triangle data. The first TWO match with the flyby data! My guess is that it's the Bermuda Triangle anomaly which is activated by the lunar tide at around the last quarter. This extra exotic force acts on the metal of the aircraft or ship, due to it's cubic centre-bodied structure. [snip...] Therefore 100% of *suspicious/mysterious* incidents at sea fit with the gravity anomaly hypothesis.

So when the Earth and the Moon form an isosceles triangle with the Sun as the elongated vertex, then some anomalous gravitational force, which has only a significant effect on bcc metals, drags ships and planes down to their doom?

For the sake of argument, I will accept a 100% correlation between mysterious loss of ship or aircraft and the third quarter of the moon. But the above is a rather ``colourful'' hypothesis.

I still think your description of the anomalous force violates conservation of energy and let's face it: the face of the earth is covered with steel buildings but they rarely collapse spontaneously during the third quarter of the moon.

[RingFenceTheCity]

sepulchrave, on 22 September 2012 - 02:17 PM, said:

So when the Earth and the Moon form an isosceles triangle with the Sun as the elongated vertex, then some anomalous gravitational force, which has only a significant effect on bcc metals, drags ships and planes down to their doom?

Yes, that's the basics if you like.

sepulchrave, on 22 September 2012 - 02:17 PM, said:

For the sake of argument, I will accept a 100% correlation between mysterious loss of ship or aircraft and the third quarter of the moon. But the above is a rather ``colourful'' hypothesis.

Thank you for that acceptance of the correlation. There's a lot more data that Wikipedia doesn't feature of course. I'll order the relevant book just a.s.a.p. I suspect you didn't give my explanatory illustration much consideration. See attached.

sepulchrave, on 22 September 2012 - 02:17 PM, said:

I still think your description of the anomalous force violates conservation of energy..

I'm proposing that the exotic matter is created during the final spin of a supernovae collapse. Much like a washing washine. The debris is then distributed evenly with some exotic comets impacting planets and moons. I don't understand where the "violation of energy conservation" concern comes from. Can you explain further for me please?

sepulchrave, on 22 September 2012 - 02:17 PM, said:

..and let's face it: the face of the earth is covered with steel buildings but they rarely collapse spontaneously during the third quarter of the moon.

The buildings with steel girders within the Bermuda Triangle during the third quarter of the moon would experience an additional force which isn't measured by any instruments, because it isn't expected in the physics philosophy of construction. The additional force would easily be within the scope of the strength of the entire building. A ship on the other hand could be in heavy sea swell which causes the ship to suddenly list with the onset of an impulse of additional gravity force, making it take on water. The hazard to a ship is much easier to understand than to buildings on solid foundations. We should also remember that no distress calls are given before these mysterious ships are lost with no traces found. The exotic comet hypothesis fits extremely well.

This is a hypothesis with ongoing concerns. If true, it will be found out within our lifetimes for sure.

Attached Files

•  FlybyLunarTidalEffect.jpg   56.68K   5 downloads

Edited by SunnyBlues, 24 September 2012 - 11:17 AM.

[RingFenceTheCity]

Sep? Do you concede that this a revolutionary new idea which can be easily tested? All it needs is permanent monitoring sites using torsion balances scattered within the Bermuda Triangle. The correlation with instuments on the exact opposite side of the globe in the SE Asian 'Dragon Sea' would be the pinnacle of achievement.

[sepulchrave]

Sorry for the late reply, I was travelling again.

SunnyBlues, on 24 September 2012 - 11:13 AM, said:

I'm proposing that the exotic matter is created during the final spin of a supernovae collapse. Much like a washing washine. The debris is then distributed evenly with some exotic comets impacting planets and moons. I don't understand where the "violation of energy conservation" concern comes from. Can you explain further for me please?

It has to do with the transmission of the force. Your mechanism for the anomalous gravitational force is still ``action at a distance'', which means it needs to be transmitted by a field (presumably it is just an addition to the regular gravitational field, but that doesn't matter).

Your mechanism for the anomalous gravitational force is also highly ``focussed''; it's influence is primarily along lines or planes. One could place an object in this plane (or line), and let the anomalous gravitational force pull the object for a bit (i.e. do work), then move the object outside of the plane and slide it back to the initial position with little or no effort (because your force isn't acting in the region outside the plane), and repeat the process. This means you are gaining free energy from the anomalous gravitational field.

This is one of reasons why I am a bit dismissive of your theory. As I understand it, your theory is based on this simple statement:

A source creates a force.

In your specific case, the ``source'' is non-baryonic exotic matter, and the ``force'' is an anomalous gravitational field, but these specifics are not important to the very general mathematical argument that any force that does not satisfy the divergence theorem violates conservation of energy.

In simpler terms, any physical field needs to be a conservative field, where the energy gained (or lost) moving between point A and point B depends only on the locations of points A and B, and not on the particular path taken between them.

We have actually argued this point many times in the past, including here.

SunnyBlues, on 24 September 2012 - 11:13 AM, said:

The buildings with steel girders within the Bermuda Triangle during the third quarter of the moon would experience an additional force which isn't measured by any instruments, because it isn't expected in the physics philosophy of construction. The additional force would easily be within the scope of the strength of the entire building. A ship on the other hand could be in heavy sea swell which causes the ship to suddenly list with the onset of an impulse of additional gravity force, making it take on water. The hazard to a ship is much easier to understand than to buildings on solid foundations. We should also remember that no distress calls are given before these mysterious ships are lost with no traces found. The exotic comet hypothesis fits extremely well.

How is this force going to cause the ship to suddenly list? This force is focussed enough that it only affects one side of the ship? Not only does this compound the violation of conservation of energy I discussed above, it makes the force so limited in scope that it is rather ridiculous.

SunnyBlues, on 25 September 2012 - 10:48 AM, said:

Sep? Do you concede that this a revolutionary new idea which can be easily tested? All it needs is permanent monitoring sites using torsion balances scattered within the Bermuda Triangle. The correlation with instuments on the exact opposite side of the globe in the SE Asian 'Dragon Sea' would be the pinnacle of achievement.

No, I do not concede that it is a ``revolutionary new idea''. There is a gravitational wave observatory operating in Louisiana (see here) that has not detected any anomalous gravity in excess of 1 part in 10²¹.

Secondly, why is the Bermuda triangle ``special'', if the source is an exotic matter halo in the Earth's core? Should not anomalous gravity events happen elsewhere as well; and therefore should not the unexplained shipping losses be from all over?

Thirdly, why is bcc iron special? What is different about a bcc metal and an fcc metal?

[RingFenceTheCity]

Okay, you're back talking like someone with a superiority complex because they have an indepth knowledge of Einstein's GR etc. Just my opinion of course. You do make a fair point about the direction of anomalous force on a ship within the Bermuda Triangle during the quarter before new moon. I propose that the 'dislodging of the inner halo exotic comet by the lunar tide' means that the force has a very fast lateral component. The ship which is rolling in a large swell could very easily continue to roll with this additional impulse of energy and suddenly take on water.

All your other complaints are due to the implicit assumption of Newton's isotropy and equivalence within the current mainstream predicament of world physics. Mathematical arguments are therefore nullified. Also note that I don't propose a 'spooky action at a distance' but a common sense Archmedes screw graviton mechanical transfer of force instead.

Edited by SunnyBlues, 26 September 2012 - 11:14 AM.

[sepulchrave]

SunnyBlues, on 26 September 2012 - 11:12 AM, said:

All your other complaints are due to the implicit assumption of Newton's isotropy and equivalence within the current mainstream predicament of world physics. Mathematical arguments are therefore nullified. Also note that I don't propose a 'spooky action at a distance' but a common sense Archmedes screw graviton mechanical transfer of force instead.

I agree that this is the essence of our disagreement.

Is the ``dark matter halo'' you speak of physically flying up and hitting the ship? No? Then your force is action at a distance (we can drop the ``spooky'' moniker). Forces that act over distances need to be divergence-less (outside the physical extent of the object creating that force) or they violate conservation of energy.

I know I cannot convince you that it doesn't matter what model you have for the propagation of such a force; it is a simple, elegant, and universal mathematical fact that if the force has a non-zero divergence anywhere outside the physical extent of the object creating the force they will violate conservation of energy.

The divergence theorem plus ``isotropy of point sources'' is the origin of the inverse-square law for force (which of course is only valid in 3D space), but waiving the isotropy requirement does not waive the divergence theorem.

Magnetism can come from dipole point sources, after all, and these clearly are not spherically isotropic; but the dipole magnetic fields are indeed divergence-less.

[RingFenceTheCity]

sepulchrave, on 26 September 2012 - 05:01 PM, said:

I agree that this is the essence of our disagreement.

Good.

sepulchrave, on 26 September 2012 - 05:01 PM, said:

Forces that act over distances need to be divergence-less (outside the physical extent of the object creating that force) or they violate conservation of energy.

You need to show why this is so from *first principles*. You don't have a water-tight physical model of matter, so I don't see how you can say that my model "violates conservation of energy".

[sepulchrave]

SunnyBlues, on 28 September 2012 - 09:21 AM, said:

You need to show why this is so from *first principles*. You don't have a water-tight physical model of matter, so I don't see how you can say that my model "violates conservation of energy".

The Divergence theorem is pretty close to ``first principles''.

You will never get any traction in the scientific community with your theories unless you have a good grasp of the mathematical basis of current theories. Even if you don't believe that contemporary physics or mathematics is correct, you need to understand the language.

I accept, dogmatically, as a point of faith that events in the real world can be accurately predicted with mathematics, and I likewise accept that for science to be meaningful, it must be able to use mathematics to make accurate quantitative predictions.

You have a source (the dark matter halo) that is generating a vector field (the anomalous gravitational force).

Does your gravitational force have an action and a direction? Surely it does, or you wouldn't call it ``gravity''.

Then the divergence theorem applies.