126 replies to this topic

[sepulchrave]

SunnyBlues, on 16 October 2012 - 03:30 PM, said:

(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.

You understand that the origins of space-time come from reconciling Newton's laws of motion with Maxwell's electromagnetic wave equation? Space-time has nothing to do with gravity. Curvature in space-time is related to gravity, but other space-time phenomena (time dilation, length contraction) are general properties and not due (exclusively) to gravity.

SunnyBlues, on 16 October 2012 - 03:30 PM, said:

(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?!

Yes it would be.
There are several satellites that study the atmosphere. There is even a satellite dedicated to polar regions. There are also several land-based radar arrays studying the poles (I am good friends with some scientists who work with these arrays). Finally, since 1998 commercial flights have flown directly over the North Pole.

Somehow none of these have noticed a 50% change in air density. Air density is a vital parameter for over-the-horizon radar, and obviously very important to aircraft.

Technically, of course, even Captain Byrd's testimony (and by that, I mean ``what some kid remembered hearing Capt. Byrd say on the radio, even though nobody else does'') doesn't suggest that there was a 50% change in air density. Somehow you have extrapolated the claims that Capt. Byrd saw verdant fields over the pole (or hallucinated the fields) as proof that there was a 2g anomalous gravity field.

If Capt. Byrd had said (or had been reported to say) ``Holy #$#%! My plane is suddenly falling from the sky like a rock, even though all flight systems are working fine!'' before crashing, that might be extrapolated to suggesting an anomalous gravity field.

SunnyBlues, on 16 October 2012 - 03:30 PM, said:

(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?

I am not searching for any conspiracies or coverups, so I think they have done a good job. In the official report they point out that there were unexpected signals, they show them in Figure 7, and they attempt to explain them.

Neither you, nor I, nor anyone without detailed knowledge of the actual equipment setup for Gravity Probe B would know what to do with the original data. What is wrong with the data in Figure 7?

SunnyBlues, on 16 October 2012 - 03:30 PM, said:

Can we trust them that a 2g signal *hasn't* been removed from the raw data? I don't think so.

Any reasonable person could. A 2g ``signal'' would clearly manifest as a dramatic change in the orbital trajectory of the probe, not just in the precession of the gyroscopes.

SunnyBlues, on 17 October 2012 - 10:09 AM, said:

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.

Ok. So we apparently have a 2g field that is enough to elevate about 500 000 000 tonnes (a cylinder 1/2 mile = 0.8 km in diameter an 1 km high) of water, but the good residents of Puerto Rico a scant 100 km away didn't notice a rather large tidal wave?

And apparently the air above this dome was unperturbed, since the good pilots did not report any sudden turbulence? (Not to mention the fact that the only pilot to go on record stating his name and his observations did not claim that the water bubble was 3000 feet tall, only that it was broad enough for JFK airport (Idlewild was the old name for JFK, so I assume that is what the pilot meant) could fit within it easily.)

[RingFenceTheCity]

(i) Sep, you're being too unreasonable imo but thanks for your time.

(ii) Ah, I made a mistake earlier. It appears that the entire air-pocket including aircraft can be accelerated at around 2g, which is brilliantly seen in the Azores report attached. [Scanner not working at present, will attach tomorrow]

(iii) Gravity Probe B scores 'F' in NASA review

(iv)

Quote

Well, it seems that GPB experimental results face quite a lot challenges even in China's scientists community. I have just read an excellent essay from J. Beijing University of Technology 10/2011 issue that posted a serious challenge:

A Question on Gravity Probe B Experiment Results

Dr. Hao Shi

Abstract

The final results of the Gravity Probe B (GPB) experiment for testing general relativity (GR) theory published on May 4, 2011 by NASA is somewhat controversial. Since GP-B scientific sensors have symmetric property about the satellite spin axis, we thus believe the measurement errors of both the geodetic effect and the frame-dragging effect should be close to each other. However, in the published results, the former is 2.5 times of the latter, which has not been explained by GP-B final report and thus shows that some physics is probably still missing or inadequately addressed in processing experimental data.

Quoted from J. of Beijing University of Technology 2011-10

Edited by SunnyBlues, 18 October 2012 - 11:51 AM.

[RingFenceTheCity]

My latest thoughts:

(i) The Azores Great Meteor Seamount is an interesting feature as well as the New England hotspot.

(ii) Volcanism as a mechanism of re-surfacing smaller exotic comets is also a good possibility.

[sepulchrave]

I just want to point out that I think you are ``cherry picking'' misleading statements about Gravity Probe B, or you did not read the reports you link to closely enough.

For example: ``Gravity Probe B scores an `F' in NASA review''. That is true, but the review was over whether or not to continue funding the analysis of the Gravity Probe B data. NASA decided that it was not worth it.

Pretty much all of the controversy over Gravity Probe B is due to its measurement of the frame-dragging effect. Gravity Probe B was supposed to provide a very precise measurement of this effect. Unfortunately problems with the data prevented the unambiguous detection of this effect.

The Gravity Probe B scientists claim that they were able to determine what caused the problems with the data (the ``Patch effect'' mentioned in the final report), model the influence of these problems, and successfully subtract them from the data (and, for the record, I believe this claim). They therefore claim to have measured the frame-dragging effect, albeit less precisely than the mission planned for (the oft-mentioned and criticised 15-20% margin of error in the measurement).

I think it is fair to be suspicious of this process, and to doubt the validity of the Gravity Probe B results in regards to the frame-dragging effect.

However Gravity Probe B was able to unambiguously measure the geodetic effect to a high accuracy. This is because the geodetic effect is considerably larger than the frame-dragging effect (170 times), and despite the unexpected ``wiggles'' in the data, the presence of the effect is very clear.

The detection of the geodetic effect is not considered very important, because the effect was already verified by earlier experiments.

Therefore, at best, Gravity Probe B's measurements of the geodetic effect and the frame-dragging effect are consistent with the predictions of General Relativity.

At worst, Gravity Probe B's measurements of the geodetic effect are consistent with the predictions of General Relativity, and the frame-dragging effect could not be measured conclusively.

----------
By the way, you should probably provide a link to the quote you copied from another site. The actual abstract to that paper can be found here. I cannot access the full-text of the paper, but in the abstract it seems that the author takes issue with the differences in the magnitudes of the errors for both measurements. I think the author is wrong - and making a rather simplistic statement as well. I would also point out that it is not clear that the author is a member of ``China's science community'', especially since the author's affiliation is a Cupertino-based private company.
---------

Lastly, for the quantitative analysis of the effects of ``supergravity'' on water that I promised; can you elaborate on or estimate on the angular spread of the ``supergravity'', and on the effective attenuation (how fast does the force reduce in strength as it gets higher above the surface)?

[RingFenceTheCity]

You're holding me back Sep. The evidence is coming faster than ever. I just re-watched 'Flight 447: Chaos In The Skies' after chatting with my hairdresser yesterday, who happens to be a military history enthusiast. We had a good chat about how the three pilots seemed unabled to detect the effect of plummeting nose-up from 30,000ft; "How could that be?"

"OMG", I said to myself, Bonin was pulling back on the stick because the aircraft was stuck in a 2g line of effect. They didn't feel the descent because the airpocket itself was being accelerated towards the ocean surface. The South Atlantic Anomaly was my immediate suspect. This fits with the fact that they had just crossed the equator and so ties in with the Earth fly-by anomaly.

(i) The pilots and crew should be considered heroes who reacted professionally to the end.
(ii) The passengers *wouldn't* have had a "bumpy descent" due to the entire airpocket being affected and so wouldn't have been aware of the impending danger.
(iii) The training of such future incidents should include the deviation to the right or left if in a prolonged descent because the aircraft might be tracking directly along the narrow stretch of 2g field intensity.
(iv) The pitot probes *were* working properly, as evidenced by their testing after the crash site was located.

Quote

The drift rate of the SAA is very close to the rotation differential between the Earth's core and its surface, estimated to be between 0.3 and 0.5 degrees per year.

Attached Files

•  ROSAT_SAA.gif   17.32K   1 downloads
•  447_path.png   30.91K   1 downloads

[sepulchrave]

SunnyBlues, on 20 October 2012 - 10:19 AM, said:

You're holding me back Sep.

I think that is what I am supposed to do.

You keep tweaking your theory when ever you come across a new event you think fits with it. Remember how this thread started? First it was exotic matter in the core of the Moon, then it was exotic matter in the core of the Earth coupled to the phase of the Moon, then it was the Bermuda Triangle, and now it is geological hotspots?

And your explanation is that a gravitationally-related force is responsible, despite the fact that it only seems to affect ships, aircraft, and spacecraft, not satellite trajectories, gravitational probes, readings from weather satellites or radar, etc.

SunnyBlues, on 20 October 2012 - 10:19 AM, said:

"OMG", I said to myself, Bonin was pulling back on the stick because the aircraft was stuck in a 2g line of effect. They didn't feel the descent because the airpocket itself was being accelerated towards the ocean surface.

Have you read any of the official reports (for example here or the lengthy final report here)?

A few facts:

• The aircraft was at 37 500 ft, with a vertical speed of 700 ft/min 252 seconds before it hit the water. Simple kinematics shows that the average unbalanced downward force on the aircraft was about 0.04g (presumably a total downward force of 1.04g including regular gravity).
  
• Whether or not the airpocket surrounding the aircraft was also being accelerated towards the ocean or not was irrelevant from the perspective of the crew. If the airpocket was dropping with the aircraft there would be negligible air resistance, but the crew and passengers inside the aircraft would still feel like they were falling.¹
  
• A sudden downwards force does not affect lateral motion. The horizontal airspeed should not have changed, so the airspeed readings should have been constant if the pitots were working properly.²

Notes:
[1] If the airpocket fell with the aircraft, then it makes sense for the aircraft to hit the water intact (as the findings indicate it did), since there would not be any excessive stress on the wings from air resistance. However, on the other hand, the average unbalanced force was only 0.04 g which I am sure is within tolerance. And, of course, having an airpocket falling with the aircraft makes no sense if the cause is gravitational; since there is air everywhere between the ground and the aircraft.
[2] Also note that the pitots appeared to give correct readings after 1 minute into the fall, the aircraft still fell for 3 minutes and 12 seconds after the pitots were consistent with ISIS readings.

[RingFenceTheCity]

See attached.

Attached Files

•  Revelation1.jpg   55.94K   7 downloads
•  Revelation2.jpg   61.57K   9 downloads
•  Revelation3.jpg   39.16K   9 downloads
•  Revelation4.jpg   56.36K   10 downloads
•  Revelation5+.jpg   31.56K   8 downloads

[RingFenceTheCity]

SunnyBlues, on 22 October 2012 - 11:53 AM, said:

See attached.

Oops, not the Yucatan Peninsula of course, but the opposite side of the globe to the Himalayas perhaps. A circa 2g exotic comet as the impactor which generated the evolution of our special moon is a good candidate now that the Bermuda Triangle data has been decoded. The South Atlantic Anomaly is the current site of this impactor's gravitational effect. I presume it is further down in the Earth and perhaps embedded in the inner core. The anomalous 1,470yr climate cycle discovered in the ice core data and elsewhere is likely due to the moon's relation to this gravity hotspot.

[RingFenceTheCity]

SunnyBlues, on 25 October 2012 - 10:11 AM, said:

Oops, not the Yucatan Peninsula of course, but the opposite side of the globe to the Himalayas perhaps. A circa 2g exotic comet as the impactor which generated the evolution of our special moon is a good candidate now that the Bermuda Triangle data has been decoded. The South Atlantic Anomaly is the current site of this impactor's gravitational effect. I presume it is further down in the Earth and perhaps embedded in the inner core. The anomalous 1,470yr climate cycle discovered in the ice core data and elsewhere is likely due to the moon's relation to this gravity hotspot.

Ah, now I've thought it through some more, the idea of a multitude of smaller exotic comets being swept into the Mid-Atlantic Trench since the the ice ages of 2 million years ago seems reasonable. The alternative of a large exotic comet at the Earth's core would presumably have such a wide circa 2g field that it's hard to imagine that It wouldn't be obvious to detect it on the surface on both sides of the globe. The SAA is clearly just on one side of the planet without a corresponding area on the opposite face of the globe.

[RingFenceTheCity]

SunnyBlues, on 26 October 2012 - 09:27 AM, said:

Ah, now I've thought it through some more, the idea of a multitude of smaller exotic comets being swept into the Mid-Atlantic Trench since the the ice ages of 2 million years ago seems reasonable. The alternative of a large exotic comet at the Earth's core would presumably have such a wide circa 2g field that it's hard to imagine that It wouldn't be obvious to detect it on the surface on both sides of the globe. The SAA is clearly just on one side of the planet without a corresponding area on the opposite face of the globe.

It still seems logical to assume that large exotic comets have congregated nearer the centre of the earth and are perhaps evenly distributed so that their circa 2g effect is spread fairly evenly around the globes equator. An explanation for the increased gravity on the earth's equator compared to it's poles.

[sepulchrave]

SunnyBlues, on 26 October 2012 - 02:02 PM, said:

It still seems logical to assume that large exotic comets have congregated nearer the centre of the earth and are perhaps evenly distributed so that their circa 2g effect is spread fairly evenly around the globes equator. An explanation for the increased gravity on the earth's equator compared to it's poles.

I know you don't want to hear anything that conflicts with your internal narrative, but the Earth has stronger gravity at the poles than at the equator. (And the reason is well known; the differences are due to the competing but not quite equal effects of the Earth's equatorial bulge and centrifugal force, the latter being the stronger effect.)

Not only that but if the effect of these ``exotic comets'' was  ``evenly distributed'' around the equator then why didn't the GRACE probe show anything special on the equator?

[RingFenceTheCity]

sepulchrave, on 26 October 2012 - 07:14 PM, said:

I know you don't want to hear anything that conflicts with your internal narrative, but the Earth has stronger gravity at the poles than at the equator. (And the reason is well known; the differences are due to the competing but not quite equal effects of the Earth's equatorial bulge and centrifugal force, the latter being the stronger effect.)

Not only that but if the effect of these ``exotic comets'' was  ``evenly distributed'' around the equator then why didn't the GRACE probe show anything special on the equator?

(i) Oops, thanks, I got that the wrong way round. Remember Sep, it's only speculation even from the mainstream point of view, or can you show me some calculations which show that "the reason is well known; the differences are due to the competing but not quite equal effects of the Earth's equatorial bulge and centrifugal force, the latter being the stronger effect". Ans=no.

(ii) The Moon's Gravity Anomalies now need further scrutiny.

Quote

The major characteristic of the Moon's gravitational field is the presence of mascons, which are large positive gravity anomalies associated with some of the giant impact basins. These anomalies greatly influence the orbit of spacecraft about the Moon, and an accurate gravitational model is necessary in the planning of both manned and unmanned missions. They were initially discovered by the analysis of Lunar Orbiter tracking data,^[2] since navigation tests prior to the Apollo program experienced positioning errors much larger than mission specifications.
The origin of mascons are in part due to the presence of dense mare basaltic lava flows that fill some of the impact basins. However, lava flows by themselves cannot explain the entirety of the gravitational variations, and uplift of the crust-mantle interface is required as well. Based on Lunar Prospector gravitational models, it has been suggested that some mascons exist that do not show evidence for mare basaltic volcanism.^[3] The huge expanse of mare basaltic volcanism associated with Oceanus Procellarum does not possess a positive gravity anomaly.

(iii) The mysterious crustal magnetic field of the moon can similarly be explained by exotic comet impacts imo.

Edited by SunnyBlues, 27 October 2012 - 10:01 AM.

[sepulchrave]

SunnyBlues, on 27 October 2012 - 09:38 AM, said:

(i) Oops, thanks, I got that the wrong way round. Remember Sep, it's only speculation even from the mainstream point of view, or can you show me some calculations which show that "the reason is well known; the differences are due to the competing but not quite equal effects of the Earth's equatorial bulge and centrifugal force, the latter being the stronger effect". Ans=no.

See, I gave you sufficient information - information that, coupled with a knowledge of Newtonian physics - any knowledgeable reader should be able to understand where I was drawing my conclusions from. (I also gave links which go into greater detail.)

I respect that you may not believe Newtonian mechanics is a valid theory (or you may believe it is; I have trouble following your position on exactly what part of mainstream physics you disagree with at any given time) but you should at least understand what the claims of Newtonian mechanics are.

Anyway, to give specifics:

From the wiki the radius of the Earth at the poles is 6.3568 x 10⁶ m, the radius of the earth at the equator is 6.3781 x 10⁶ m, and the mass of the Earth is 5.9736 x 10²⁴ kg. Even if you don't agree with the current theories of physics, you should still respect empirical measurements.

Making the simplifying assumption that most of the mass of the Earth is below the crust (i.e. the mass of the crust is negligible), and also assuming that only the crust bulges (i.e. the distortion of the core from a sphere is negligible) than the gravity of the Earth at the pole should be (using Newton's Law of Universal Gravitation with the entire mass of the Earth approximated as a sphere below the crust, as mentioned), the gravitational acceleration at the pole is 9.866 m/s², and the gravitational acceleration at the equator is 9.800 m/s².

The Earth is also spinning, however; obviously making 1 rotation per day, so at the equator this is a rotational speed of 4.638 x 10² m/s. Using the rules of Newtonian mechanics for circular motion there must be a centripetal acceleration of 3.373 x 10^-2 m/s².

The total effective gravitational acceleration at the equator (based on the assumptions described above, obviously) is (9.800 - 0.034) m/s² = 9.766 m/s² which is a difference of (9.866 - 9.766)/ 9.766 = 1%.

(If you think about it, this is an upper limit for the difference; since the mass of the Earth is not entirely contained below the crust, and since the region below the crust is not completely spherical. This is why actual measurements suggest a difference of 0.3 - 0.5%.)

Now, if you are suggesting that there is extra gravity at the equator of the earth due to ``exotic comets'', how does this translate to having higher effective gravity at the poles?

[RingFenceTheCity]

Here's my explanation for the moon creation and the extra gravity at the poles. (see attached)

Attached Files

•  MoonCreation1.jpg   59.18K   8 downloads
•  MoonsCreation3.jpg   67.88K   9 downloads
•  MoonsCreation2.jpg   32.41K   6 downloads

Edited by SunnyBlues, 29 October 2012 - 11:23 AM.

[sepulchrave]

So if you are saying that gravity is stronger along the rotational axis of a body than along the rotation plane of a body, does that mean you abandoned your previous theory that of exotic in-plane gravity (see here, for example) that you claimed explained the sequence of the ice ages, galactic rotation curves, and the previously mentioned spacecraft flyby anomalies?