126 replies to this topic

[Waspie_Dwarf]

keithisco, on 10 October 2012 - 07:19 PM, said:

Argue with me or MID or Waspie, if you really want to be shown up as a fool. We are all Aerospace Engineers, some of us with a provenance in Air Crash Investigation that span decades!!!

I'm not. I'm an ex-chemist and this stuff is a bit out of my league.

I may be an ex-chemist but I am still a moderator. SunnyBlues you have begun to resort to ad homs against sepulchrave. I would suggest that is a path you desist from.

SunnyBlues, on 10 October 2012 - 11:13 AM, said:

All your queries are easily countered, but you are increasingly too ignorant to appreciate the situation. I have been in discussion with serious physicists and Professors of Physics. They have the professionalism to understand where I'm coming from. You don't.

Edited by Waspie_Dwarf, 10 October 2012 - 07:39 PM.

[sepulchrave]

keithisco, on 10 October 2012 - 07:19 PM, said:

Firstly: Tha data from gravity Probe II is seriously flawed, which proves nothing more than a need to address the testability of what they were looking for.

I am just curious; how so?

SunnyBlues, on 10 October 2012 - 11:13 AM, said:

No! No! No! I'm saying the exotic comets have already impacted the earth and have re-emerged on the seafloor and been moved in strong ice age ocean currents and deposited on shallow island banks. If you don't read my posts with consideration then please don't bother to read them at all! There is therefore a number of smaller exotic comets in our oceans and also the Great Lakes from ice age glacial giant rivers which also deposited exotic comets.

I am sorry. I was confused at how you keep calling things ``comets'' after they have already impacted with a larger body.

Now I am confused at how the great lakes, the seafloor, and large rivers are significant; I thought you were focussed on the Bermuda triangle?

So - if I understand you correctly - the Earth has anomalous gravity sources all over it but detailed measurements of Earth's surface gravity have failed to reveal any anomalies greater than 1% (and often much less)?

SunnyBlues, on 10 October 2012 - 11:13 AM, said:

P.S. You're *not* a practictioner of FUNDAMENTAL PHYSICS such as FQXi, of which I'm a participating member. All your queries are easily countered, but you are increasingly too ignorant to appreciate the situation. I have been in discussion with serious physicists and Professors of Physics. They have the professionalism to understand where I'm coming from. You don't.

I suppose. However I have been arguing this subject with you for over a year, if I recall correctly. I may be slow to grasp what you are claiming, but it seems to me that once I do, and begin asking specific questions you switch topics.

We started this thread with your assertion that the phase of the moon had a strong correlation with the flyby anomaly.

You then started claiming that anomalous gravity came from bcc iron and an exotic matter halo in the core of the earth that was perturbed by the phase of the moon.

You shifted to claiming that anomalous gravity affected everything, but it was only present in the Bermuda triangle.

Now you are claiming that it is everywhere, but only affects Gravity Probe B or CAT?

Please answer this: Would your anomalous gravity affect a human being? (And if not, why not?)

[sepulchrave]

sepulchrave, on 10 October 2012 - 10:56 PM, said:

I am just curious; how so?

Scratch that, I forgot about the unexpected signal noise, and the fancy error analysis that needed to be done to correct for it.

Still I was under the impression that even without that, Gravity Probe B measured a geodetic effect that was consistent with the predictions from General Relativity (see here).

The geodetic effect was not the primary goal of the Gravity Probe B mission (I am pretty sure it had been measured before), but it still is a validation of General Relativity. (Also, if I recall correctly, Gravity Probe B only measured this effect with a precision of about 1%, when it was originally supposed to do so with a precision of 0.01%. So there were problems with this measurement, but even without the fancy - and perhaps dubious - statistical treatment of the data the results are still pretty good; I think the previous measurements were only precise to 10 - 15%.)

I guess one could argue that Gravity Probe B's attempt to measure the frame-dragging effect, which I think was the main goal (and definitely a much harder thing to detect), was flawed.

I, personally, am inclined to trust the final results presented last year (see here) which claims confirmation of GR in both aspects (geodetic and frame-dragging) - but I can appreciate other's hesitation to do so. However I think the measurement of the geodetic effect is definitely valid, and definitely supports the predictions made from GR.

Having said that, I would like to add another challenge to SunnyBlues:
How does an anomalous force affect the precession of gyroscopes in a way that would otherwise appear consistent with the GR prediction of the geodetic effect?

[RingFenceTheCity]

sepulchrave, on 10 October 2012 - 10:56 PM, said:

So - if I understand you correctly - the Earth has anomalous gravity sources all over it but detailed measurements of Earth's surface gravity have failed to reveal any anomalies greater than 1% (and often much less)?

The resolution of the data isn't fine enough of course! The tiny exotic comet would be less than a red pinprick on the global mapping!! (see attached). The probe wasn't looking for anomalies this tiny and isolated, so it didn't find any!

sepulchrave, on 10 October 2012 - 10:56 PM, said:

Now you are claiming that it is everywhere, but only affects Gravity Probe B or CAT?
Please answer this: Would your anomalous gravity affect a human being? (And if not, why not?)

Why do you keep making the same silly mistake?? I'm saying the anomalous force is from tiny sources all over the globe. The supergravity field can be seen to have a force of around 1.6g at 30,000ft! It can seen to affect the ocean at sea level and depress the surface by 4 feet with a width of just 20 feet. Please, try using some imagination for once! And then keep it consistent.

P.S. (i) There's a book called 'The Great Lakes Triangle' which i'm just about to order.
    (ii) Trying to unpick NASA's most expensive mission in history isn't a trivial matter is it? Give me some time.

Attached Files

•  GRACE_globe_2.png   40.96K   0 downloads

Edited by SunnyBlues, 11 October 2012 - 09:32 AM.

[sepulchrave]

SunnyBlues, on 11 October 2012 - 09:30 AM, said:

The resolution of the data isn't fine enough of course! The tiny exotic comet would be less than a red pinprick on the global mapping!! (see attached). The probe wasn't looking for anomalies this tiny and isolated, so it didn't find any!

The position of the GRACE satellites were known to a precision of one centimeter (see here), and they detected variations in the gravitational equipotential surface on the order of millimeters. A supergravity field of only 1.01g would increase the equipotential surface by about 30 km.

SunnyBlues, on 11 October 2012 - 09:30 AM, said:

Why do you keep making the same silly mistake??

I am trying to make sure that you understand the consequences of what you are claiming. By attributing flyby anomalies, unexplained aircraft crashes, and other things in terms of anomalous gravitational fields you are claiming that extremely specific events are caused by extremely general forces. And yet none of the specific and highly precise measuring equipment anywhere on the planet or in space has ever detected any anomaly in these general forces, even though several of them were specifically designed to do so.

SunnyBlues, on 11 October 2012 - 09:30 AM, said:

I'm saying the anomalous force is from tiny sources all over the globe. The supergravity field can be seen to have a force of around 1.6g at 30,000ft! It can seen to affect the ocean at sea level and depress the surface by 4 feet with a width of just 20 feet. Please, try using some imagination for once! And then keep it consistent.

Ok, I will try. Based on what you have already said:

• The anomalous force must be extremely transient, and most of the time it must be ``off'', otherwise it would be unambiguously detected, especially if it was a gravity source of 1.6g. If the time scale of being ``on'' were longer than a minute or so, then it would create widespread concentric ripples in the ocean, air, and probably crust which would be noticed.
  
• The anomalous force must also be extremely focussed.
  
• The anomalous force cannot occur in urban areas, or it would get noticed.
  
• Probably the anomalous force cannot occur on land, because the distortions it made in the ground would be permanent. In the ocean the water would refill any distortions, and the ocean floor is relatively unknown. (Sinkholes have well known causes.)
  
• The anomalous force cannot be ``switched on'' by any planetary or Solar system wide mechanism, because these do not change on a time scale of minutes.
  
• The anomalous force must involve constant energy transfer from the source; to preserve conservation of energy the source must be gradually depleted when the force is ``on''.
  
• Because the anomalous force is radiative and attractive, the force carriers must somehow transport ``negative momentum''.
  
• Since the anomalous force is focussed, to preserve conservation of momentum the source must start moving when the force is ``on'', or radiate the force both frontwards and backwards.
  
• Since the anomalous force is focussed, the source must have a rather complicated geometry.
  
• For a force of 1.6g, acting on a Boeing 737 (with an average mass per area of 145 kg/m²), the source would have to radiate about 7 x 10¹¹ W/m² in power, which over an area of about 30 m² (going by your ``20 feet'' claim from above) is about 2 x 10¹³ W, and over a period of about 1 minute is 1.2 x 10¹⁵ J.

So we have basically some sort of ``negative-momentum gravitational laser'' that sits somewhere in the ocean that ``turn on'' only when pesky scientists are not looking. These ``gravitational lasers'' have the same power output as the entire human civilization, but only last a minute or so. The only ``plausible'' conclusion I can draw from this is that an extraterrestrial civilization planted the ``gravitational lasers'' just to cause some (minor) trouble.

That is the best I can do with your concepts.

[RingFenceTheCity]

Okay, thanks for sticking with it. You get the general idea upto point no.7. I'm saying that the force is *only attractive* and has a long narrow field of effect which widens from around 20 feet wide at sea-level at an angle of around 6 degrees. The mechanism for making more ship incidents happening during the neap phases of the moon is due to the tidal changes in the Florida current and the Gulf Stream. On a full or new moon, the high tides will make one current stronger than the other. On the neap phase inbetween, the weaker ocean tides change this arrangement. I suspect that the special rocks are rolling in hollows. I'm still dubious about the gravity probe B data. If NASA specifically looked for the small specs of supergravity in the Bermuda Triangle then I'm sure it would find them. Until then, there is just much *too* much bias where Einstein's GR is involved. The experiment was apparently beset with problems aswell which makes me suspicious.

[sepulchrave]

SunnyBlues, on 11 October 2012 - 03:40 PM, said:

The mechanism for making more ship incidents happening during the neap phases of the moon is due to the tidal changes in the Florida current and the Gulf Stream. On a full or new moon, the high tides will make one current stronger than the other. On the neap phase inbetween, the weaker ocean tides change this arrangement. I suspect that the special rocks are rolling in hollows.

So how long is the supergravity turned ``on''? Neap tides occur over a period of hours.

[RingFenceTheCity]

sepulchrave, on 11 October 2012 - 11:42 PM, said:

So how long is the supergravity turned ``on''? Neap tides occur over a period of hours.

(i) It's not so much a question of "turned on" but the amount of movement and the orientation that the special rock is sitting in. It's not particularly easy to imagine,  I agree, but the overall shape of the entity is likely to be more disc shaped, like a silver dollar. There's only supergravity radiating out from the *'edges'* of this rocky amalgamation. Therefore the shape of the entity is prone to 'rocking' if one edge is forced down towards the earth's center. The amount of g at the edge of the entity must be many times that felt at 30,000 ft. A swfit current however could still influence the angle and amount of 'jitter' of the resting place. The disc comet would then sweep a narrow supergravity field over a much much wider area, hence the probability of an interaction is greatly increased. There must be some places where the supergravity field is almost in the same location, but perhaps much further from the entity itself, which is lying at an acute angle for example. On land, these exotic comet locations are known as 'gravity hills'.

The weaker neap tides seem to give the most activity over the Bahamas area which is slightly counter-intuitive. As an example of how this can create more turbulence, I can give the local woodland stream where I volunteer as an example. Normally the flow produces a very loud and pleasing 'babble' as it rolls along the gravel bed. But now that the it's rained for days, the dark flow has filled the banks to near overflowing and the swiftness is just a whisper of it's normal self. Eerily quiet despite the much greater flow.

(ii) I've found out that Gravity Probe B *DID* most likely detect the supergrvaity fields:

Quote

In reality, an unexpected damped polhode motion of all the GP-B rotors, and some larger than expected classical torques on them, were discovered on orbit. In addition, about a year of science data was cut into 10 segments by various spacecraft (S/C) anomalies. This has turned a “simple” data analysis strategy into a challenging adaptive estimation process involving a multi-level filtering machinery.

Edited by SunnyBlues, 12 October 2012 - 11:31 AM.

[sepulchrave]

SunnyBlues, on 12 October 2012 - 11:14 AM, said:

The amount of g at the edge of the entity must be many times that felt at 30,000 ft.

I hate to be pedantic, but I want to be completely sure you understand what that means.

If a supergravity field were suddenly switched ``on'', and at the surface of the ocean it had an effective acceleration of 1.6g, then suddenly the geoid surface would increase by about 1200 km. (Roughly speaking, if g is modified to be xg, for some scaling factor x, then the geoid surface changes by a distance r where r = R(1-x^-0.5) where R is the geoid radius prior to the modification, i.e. the radius of the Earth at that point.)

This means that water would quickly move into this region; and eventually there would be a column of water towering 1200 km above the regular surface of the ocean. (Or even more if you assume a non-inverse-square attenuation of the supergravity field.)

[RingFenceTheCity]

Let's assume that the supergravity is 2g at the edge of the exotic comet and the about the same at the ocean surface with a width of 20 feet. I suspect that there would be an overall dome effect of the water with a sharply defined depression at it's centre. This is what was witnessed by two people who also felt the hard force of the supergravity field which broke the man's wife's wrists. You still aren't comprehending what I'm proposing.

I intend to locate the original unadulterated data of the Gravity Probe B and show that NASA has unwittingly shown that Einstein's space-time theory must be wrong.

[sepulchrave]

SunnyBlues, on 13 October 2012 - 09:17 AM, said:

Let's assume that the supergravity is 2g... You still aren't comprehending what I'm proposing.

I guess not. I can't comprehend how there can be a local area, within a fluid (the atmosphere and ocean) with twice the surface gravity as everywhere else, without causing cataclysmic effects.

I agree that a 2g force could break someone's wrists. I don't have a problem with the your described effect of the supergravity on the human body.

I have a problem with your described effect of the supergravity on the ocean and the atmosphere. On average, the entire atmosphere and ocean are have a pressure balance with a gravitational force of 1g. How in the world can you double the force and not cause a huge effect?

Fluids flow to areas of lower potential energy. Ignoring waves and the like, the surface of the ocean is the a curve where all points have equal gravitational potential. If you double the gravitational acceleration in one area, you double the height of that equipotential surface.

There shouldn't be a ``dome effect'' of the water. There should be an enormous inward flow of water and air. I understand that since the force is transient, water is somewhat compressible, and air certainly is, this column probably wouldn't reach thousands of kilometers in height. But I think it certainly would be a kilometer high, and I doubt anyone could be in close visual range and survive.

SunnyBlues, on 13 October 2012 - 09:17 AM, said:

I intend to locate the original unadulterated data of the Gravity Probe B and show that NASA has unwittingly shown that Einstein's space-time theory must be wrong.

Here it is, figure 7 (red curves, the blue curves are the fits to the data). Good luck!

[RingFenceTheCity]

sepulchrave, on 13 October 2012 - 12:39 PM, said:

I have a problem with your described effect of the supergravity on the ocean and the atmosphere. On average, the entire atmosphere and ocean are have a pressure balance with a gravitational force of 1g. How in the world can you double the force and not cause a huge effect?

I have a probelm with your calculations. Why don't you draw a diagram and do some science to try and *show* that there would be some adverse affect. Personally, I'm happy to accept the eye witness report of a professional who said that water columns suddenly appeared that were 50 feet high. (see attached, from Charles Berlitz 'Without A Trace')

sepulchrave, on 13 October 2012 - 12:39 PM, said:

Here it is, figure 7 (red curves, the blue curves are the fits to the data). Good luck!

No, this *isn't* the original unadulterated data.

Quote

Figure 7 (April 2007) shows what is effectively raw data from the four gyroscopes in the North-South (orbital) plane. The geodetic effect is at once obvious, but so are a number of unexplained wiggles.

Quote

As early as September 2005, it was visible in the raw data, or more exactly, in the data after an initial processing in which the aberration signals were used for approximate calibration, and then removed from the plotted curve (compare Figure 7).

This sounds like a mistake on top of a mistake imo:

Quote

‘Patch effect’ is the name given to contact potential differences between different crystalline or contamination regions on a metal surface (Darling (1989)). The concern prior to launch was of patches on the rotor creating a net overall dipole moment which would interact with the gyro suspension voltages to cause a torque. Kelvin probe measurements on flat samples indicated crystals so minute that any such effect would vanish. This conclusion was, as later UV scanning measurements on one flight-quality rotor revealed, incorrect, but gradually, more important, it became evident that individual patches on the rotor could interact with nearby patches on the housing causing significant disturbing forces. Put simply, while mechanically both rotor and housing are exceedingly spherical, electrically they are not. These patch effect terms are now known to explain the two classes of anomalous Newtonian torques, and quite probably also the changing polhode period just referred to.

And this is the biggest joke of all given at the start of the conclusions:

Quote

The underlying physics of the major disturbances to the science measurement is understood. Methods to remove them credibly from the measurement have a solid physics foundation and result in greatly improved quality of fit to the data model.

Here's a report from Discover Magazine

Quote

In May, after trying for six years to understand anomalies in the gyroscopes’ spin, Stanford University astrophysicist Francis Everitt reported that Einstein was correct on both counts. Some physicists grumbled over the 19 percent margin of error associated with the frame-dragging measurement, but Everitt stands by his results. “This was the most powerful test ever conducted to confirm general relativity,” he says.

Attached Files

•  SeaTrough.jpg   89.61K   10 downloads
•  SeaTrough&Column.jpg   156.11K   9 downloads

Edited by SunnyBlues, 15 October 2012 - 11:03 AM.

[sepulchrave]

SunnyBlues, on 15 October 2012 - 10:33 AM, said:

I have a probelm with your calculations. Why don't you draw a diagram and do some science to try and *show* that there would be some adverse affect.

I have already provided a rough quantitative analysis in my previous post. Why do I need to draw a diagram when I provided an equation?

I am also reluctant to do a detailed study. I provided one before, if you recall, which you blithely reposted to FQXi without really reading it, or seemingly understanding what I was saying.

However I am willing to look into the matter further, but I need clarification from you: specifically what (if anything) in ``mainstream'' physics that you regard as valid. Here are my questions (I realize I may have asked some of them before, I apologize for repeating):

• We have previously agreed that ``supergravity'' must be related to radiation rather than a static field. I believe you have said that in your theory all gravity is radiation, is that correct?
  
• Is conservation of energy correct?
  
• Is conservation of momentum correct?
  
• Is it valid to approximate ocean water as an incompressible fluid subject to Bernouilli's principle?
  
• Is vector calculus an appropriate mathematical language to describe forces and flows?

SunnyBlues, on 15 October 2012 - 10:33 AM, said:

Personally, I'm happy to accept the eye witness report of a professional who said that water columns suddenly appeared that were 50 feet high. (see attached, from Charles Berlitz 'Without A Trace')

I am not sure that reports given to a ``paranormal investigator'' by a fisherman count as ``expert witness'', but for the purposes of this discussion I will accept that they happened as described.

What I don't accept is that your ``model'' is the appropriate explanation for these sort of phenomena. In this discussion, you have raised two points of data:

• Aircraft have experienced sudden and unexpected forces of 1.6g during flight.
  
• Somebody saw a strange water feature in the ocean.

It seems to me that the simple explanation for both of these is that the atmosphere and the ocean are highly chaotic, turbulent fluids spanning thousands of miles - so all kinds of crazy small-scale behaviour can randomly occur.

But you are trying to connect both of these with your ``alternative theory of gravity'' that you have been peddling for the last few years.

The ``expert witness'' in Charles Berwitz's book did not claim there was a local gravity field of 1.6g, or 2.0g, or whatever. He mentions breaking ribs, he doesn't say that he ``suddenly felt like he had gained 80 lbs'' (or whatever 60% - 100% of his normal weight was).

A sudden anomalous gravity field would suddenly cause everything (boats, planes, people, water, air, etc.) to spontaneously gain weight, in this case an appreciable amount.

SunnyBlues, on 15 October 2012 - 10:33 AM, said:

No, this *isn't* the original unadulterated data.

I guess. Try following these steps, maybe?

[RingFenceTheCity]

sepulchrave, on 15 October 2012 - 12:38 PM, said:

• We have previously agreed that ``supergravity'' must be related to radiation rather than a static field. I believe you have said that in your theory all gravity is radiation, is that correct?
  
• Is conservation of energy correct?
  
• Is conservation of momentum correct?
  
• Is it valid to approximate ocean water as an incompressible fluid subject to Bernouilli's principle?
  
• Is vector calculus an appropriate mathematical language to describe forces and flows?

(i) Yes, it's exactly the same as mainstream physics except that the graviton is assumed to be the force carrying particle. No space-time is required in my model. I have attached my explanation of the depression and column effects on the ocean surface.

(ii) The electronic fog is seen to cause severe hallucinations in pilots, brilliantly evidence by Captain Byrd who flew over the North Pole and then the South Pole along the 70 degree parallel, which takes him directly over the Geomagnetic South Pole incidentally (see attached). This report from Charles Berlitz's book is amazing, see attached. A Polar Exotic Field would explain the air density being *HALF* that of the rest of the planet!! This field must be the easiest to detect with satellite technology surely?!

(iii) A 2g Polar Field would likely cause an increase in polar glaciation rates during the Ice Age, (due to Jupiter-increased ocean tides). Water vapour would be brought down in these electronic fogs which would then frost on contact with the ground or existing ice sheet. This ties in with my FQXi essay incidentally.

(iv) Thanks for the datalink for the Probe B. They really *don't* want to emphasize all the problems they've had, do they? Gravity Probe B mission timeline. So where's the *original* data? Can we trust them that a 2g signal *hasn't* been removed from the raw data? I don't think so.

Quote

On February 9, 2007 it was announced that a number of unexpected signals had been received and that these would need to be separated out before final results could be released. Consequently, the date for the final release of data has been pushed back from April 2007 to December 2007.
Speculation on some internet sites, such as PhysicsForums.org, has centered around the source and nature of these anomalous signals. Several posters and alternative theorists (some skeptical of GPB and its methodology) have indicated that understanding these signals may be more interesting than the original goal of testing GR.
Stanford has agreed to release the raw data to the public at an unspecified date in the future. It is likely that this data will be examined by independent scientists and independently reported to the public well after the December 2007 release. Because future interpretations of the data by scientists outside of GPB may differ from the official results, it may take several more years for all of the data received by GPB to be completely understood.

Attached Files

•  CalmOrTurbulentSea.jpg   43.8K   9 downloads
•  PolarExoticField.jpg   118.55K   12 downloads
•  GeomagneticSouthPole.jpg   29.63K   4 downloads

Edited by SunnyBlues, 16 October 2012 - 04:04 PM.

[RingFenceTheCity]

P.S. Your concerns over the height of the water of a "geoid surface" being "at least a kilometer" in reaction to a 20ft wide strip of 2g graviton field have been observed it seems. (see attached, from Charles Berlitz's book 'Without A Trace'). Note that the exotic comet would have to be pointing perpendicularly to the glassy flat surface for ideal mushrooming conditions. The Puerto Rico location is an interesting one.

Quote

The observers calculated the rising mass of water to be somewhere between a half to one mile wide and with a height of over three thousand feet.

Attached Files

•  GiantOceanBubblesRico1.jpg   73.93K   11 downloads
•  GiantOceanBubblesRico.jpg   111.28K   11 downloads

Edited by SunnyBlues, 17 October 2012 - 10:13 AM.