Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
NatureBoff

Mathematicians Offer Unified Theory of Dark M

127 posts in this topic

Aircraft, like the Boeing 737, are mostly made of aluminum - not iron. Aluminum, like most metals, is a face-centred cubic.

How does your anomalous gravity, which you have claimed only affects iron, pull down an aluminum aircraft?

You're disappointing me now Sep. I said previously that the new evidence I've just read from the two books which detail Bermuda Triangle incidents point to a general gravity force model. The *WATER* in the sea was depressed by FOUR FEET!!

I've done the math myself anyway, and come to the startling conclusion, namely, that the source appears to be in the order of just 3km down in the crust.

The passenger aircraft CAT (Clear Air Turbulence) is the phrase the industry uses to describe these events.

[media=]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nJAqC-i7vTo[/media]

post-94765-0-92558800-1349517691_thumb.j

Edited by SunnyBlues

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry SunnyBlues, I somehow missed this post.

Can you give specific examples please.

Umm... every single prediction of orbital motion since Newton?

A radiation field that is attractive would have to somehow transmit negative momentum, which I suppose might not be impossible but would be pretty weird.

The modelling of supernova isn't possible with mainstream physics. My model will solve these issues in the near future.

What do supernovae have to do with it? I was talking about accelerator experiments.

Firstly, the spacecraft earth-flyby phenomena *is* detection of an extra gravity force!

No it is NOT. Until you have a quantitative model which can accurately calculate the anomalous energy gain, you are merely speculating. There are plenty of other speculative answers to the fly-by phenomena, yours is only one.

You're disappointing me now Sep. I said previously that the new evidence I've just read from the two books which detail Bermuda Triangle incidents point to a general gravity force model. The *WATER* in the sea was depressed by FOUR FEET!!

I apologize again. You change your theory so rapidly, I have trouble keeping up.

A local increased gravitational field would not depress water. It is true that an increased field could compress water a little bit, but any depression formed would be immediately filled by the adjacent water flowing in to the hole.

In fact, since the surface of the ocean is an equipotential surface (ignoring waves, for the moment), assuming the anomalous field lasted for a few minutes the local surface of the ocean would be higher than the surrounding.

Since you are now suggesting that the anomalous gravity affects everything, I must return to one of my original questions: Why haven't we noticed the effects of this anomalous gravity on land? If it is due to the proximity of the moon, surely it can occur over land as well as over ocean. If gravity is suddenly increasing to 1.6g, why aren't buildings falling over? Or for that matter, people collapsing?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sep, you really need to read the Bermuda triangle books to have any credibility as an authority on the subject.

Everyone else: (i) I've come to the simple conclusion that the supergravity anomaly creates 'electronic fog' which is reported very often in incident cases. The extra gravity area creates a dense black fog of descending water vapour and airborne particles which becomes electrically charged. This is the secondary phenomenon when encountered by aircraft or ship. These 'electronic fogs' can then be in areas where the field is absent, creating additional confusion in analysis of events.

(ii) The most likely explanation is that an exotic comet hit the Earth at a shallow angle, creating the Bahamas' Tongue Of The Ocean and buried itself deep in the crust below Bimini atoll. The smaller circle reaching from Bimini to the Florida coast is the most likely true area of affect of the supergravity field itself. Perhaps further a field and perhaps there are more exotic comets buried elsewhere in the so-called Triangle. The evidence is very accessible imo.

(iii) Gravity Probe B can now be seen to be an illusionary confirmation of Einstein's space-time theory. In reality, all the probe has done is measure the extra force from exotic comets. It merely proves that Newton's theory isn't correct, *not* that Einstein's *is*.

(iv) I've re-done the depth calculation and come to the figure of 83km below the surface. (https://www.aapg.org/explorer/2012/08aug/historical0812.cfm)

Edited by SunnyBlues

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sep, you really need to read the Bermuda triangle books to have any credibility as an authority on the subject.

See, that is what I find so confusing.

When we started this discussion, your theory was that a particular Sun-Moon alignment caused an anomalous perturbation of the Earth's gravity (from your hypothesized exotic matter at the centre of the Earth or Moon or both).

In fact, over the last year or so you have repeatedly made claims that a wide variety of astronomical objects have exotic matter halos at their cores, and that the presence of these halos - coupled with an almost entirely unphysical model of gravity - explained basically every astronomical phenomena not currently explained by contemporary physics.

However now, in the space of only a few pages, you have entirely revised your theory to focus only on exotic matter that is local to the Bermuda triangle.

So I agree completely that I am not a credible authority on the Bermuda triangle.

I was labouring under the misconception that you were attempting to present evidence for a revised model of gravity, a subject that - as a practicing physicist - I believe I am a credible authority on.

-----------

Going back to the subject of the fly-by anomaly, the Rosetta spacecraft gained anomalous velocity of 1.8 mm/s during its flyby, but passed nowhere near the Bermuda triangle.

I unfortunately cannot find an explicit image of the NEAR fly-by (with the largest anomalous velocity gain of 13.46 mm/s), but the instructions for viewing the spacecraft during the flyby from the US all tell the observer to look northwest. Since the Bermuda triangle is east of Florida, it also seems that NEAR did not pass over the Bermuda triangle either.

Thoughts?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, I've come to amazing conclusion that exotic matter comets exist on the seafloor and appear to have been deposited by strong ice age currents onto island underwater banks. The ballpark calculation of depth should have been 84 *feet* and not kilometers! Careful analysis of the data indicates that an extra gravity source exists just north of Bimini island at around 800ft, one near Florida Key West and another south west of Bermuda at least. There's probably more from the Pacific currents too which have been washed up in the South China Sea and Dragon Sea. The question will soon be: "Who's waters is that exotic comet actually in?".

"On average, however, four aircraft and about twenty yachts vanish each year."

"The pattern was the same -mostly over the Bahamas; it continued; from 1984 to 1994 thiry-two [aircraft] vanished."

Sep, do you concede that the Gravity Probe B can now be seen to be an illusionary confirmation of Einstein's space-time theory. In reality, all the probe has done is measure the extra force from exotic comets. It merely proves that Newton's theory isn't correct, *not* that Einstein's *is*.

Edit: I just found some more interesting data Turbulence injuries

Edited by SunnyBlues

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, I've come to amazing conclusion that exotic matter comets exist on the seafloor and appear to have been deposited by strong ice age currents onto island underwater banks. The ballpark calculation of depth should have been 84 *feet* and not kilometers! Careful analysis of the data indicates that an extra gravity source exists just north of Bimini island at around 800ft, one near Florida Key West and another south west of Bermuda at least. There's probably more from the Pacific currents too which have been washed up in the South China Sea and Dragon Sea. The question will soon be: "Who's waters is that exotic comet actually in?".

Sep, do you concede that the Gravity Probe B can now be seen to be an illusionary confirmation of Einstein's space-time theory. In reality, all the probe has done is measure the extra force from exotic comets. It merely proves that Newton's theory isn't correct, *not* that Einstein's *is*.

Edit: I just found some more interesting data Turbulence injuries

Unfortunately SunnyBlues, nothing you have offered constitutes "proof" of any such thing.

It gets really tedious reading your posts in relation to "Exotic Matter", without any "science" in terms of density and provenance to support it. Also, I have not seen your "Math" to support your conjecture.

What exactly is this "Exotic matter"? If we are to take you seriously then you should be able to calculate the density and mass from the effects it causes (not exactly Rocket Science), and that would give you a starting point for determining its Nature.

Equally tedious is your constant reference to an undersea "Comet"!! Please look up the definition of a comet and explain why Your comet is so different...Please also publish (post) your math for calculation of depth... before I lose the will to live!!!

Edited by keithisco

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sep, do you concede that the Gravity Probe B can now be seen to be an illusionary confirmation of Einstein's space-time theory. In reality, all the probe has done is measure the extra force from exotic comets. It merely proves that Newton's theory isn't correct, *not* that Einstein's *is*.

Absolutely not. The data from Gravity Probe B provides a very impressive validation of General Relativity.

A comet buzzing by the probe would produce a transient force on the gyroscopes. The data for the gyroscopic drift is here (see Figure 2); it is pretty smooth over the 1.5 year period. There are some sharp spikes, but they are small compared to the scale of the gradual drift.

I second keithisco's plea, by the way. The main motivation for your theory has been constant (basically your claim is that ``everybody is completely wrong except me''), but the specifics of your theory change so dramatically and so randomly (exotic matter is in the core of the Sun - no wait, the Moon - no wait, the Earth - no wait, it is 84 feet below the sea in then Bermuda triangle), it would be nice if you could at least summarize the main points.

For example, earlier in this thread you were obsessing over the spacecraft flyby anomaly, and now you are obsessing over the Bermuda triangle. Since, as I've shown above, at least 2 of the 3 spacecraft that experienced anomalous positive-energy gains never went near the Bermuda triangle, can I assume you are no longer attempting to explain the flyby anomaly?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A comet buzzing by the probe..

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.

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here's more evidence:

In the cruise at FL280 en-route Bahrain to London Gatwick Airport, light Clear Air Turbulence (CAT) was encountered and the commander activated the Seat Belt sign. In accordance withnormal company procedures, the cabin staff checked that all the passengers were strapped in and reported this fact to the commander. He allowed the cabin service to continue but warned the cabin crew to be alert for any increase in turbulence.

About five minutes later, severe CAT was suddenly encountered. The aircraft climbed rapidly andthe commander disengaged the autopilot to manually control the airspeed. During the subsequent manoeuvres, the aircraft altitude varied between FL283 and FL278. Within the passenger cabin, the cabin crew and trolleys were thrown about. Following the incident, doctors amongst the passengers on board treated the injured personnel and confirmed that none required immediate hospitalisation. With this knowledge, and with no indication of any damage to the aircraft, the commander continued to his planned destination for an uneventful landing.

There had been no CAT forecast for the area in which the turbulence was experienced. Additionally, the aircraft radar had not indicated any significant weather on the aircraft route although thunderstorm flashes had been observed some 50 miles away.

Post flight analysis indicated that the aircraft had been subjected to a maximum of plus 2.08g and a minimum of minus 0.24g over a period of two seconds. A Phase 1 Severe Turbulence check on G-MONR confirmed that there was no damage.

On 18 July 2003, a passenger flight, HDA060, was enroute from Kota Kinabalu to Hong Kong along Route M754 within the Manila FIR cruising at Flight Level (FL) 410. Prompted by weather returns displayed on the weather radar, the flight crew requested permission from Air Traffic Control (ATC) in Manila to deviate right of track to avoid weather. Soon after commencement of the track deviation, the aircraft encountered severe turbulence. At the time of the occurrence, the Fasten Seat Belt Signs (FSBS) were selected ON and all passengers were seated with their seat belts fastened. However, as the cabin crew were serving meals along the aisles and galley areas they were not strapped in. Based on the Digital Flight Data Recorder (DFDR) data, during the turbulence encounter, the cruising level varied between FL 408 and FL 416. The aircraft experienced a rapid sequence of jolts that resulted in various degrees of injuries to all twelve cabin crew members. Of the 236 passengers on board, three sustained minor injuries.

The accident occurred within the Manila Flight Information Region (FIR) where a tropical depression had just moved to an area over the sea to the west of the Philippines, moving on a track of west-northwest and was forecast to intensify over water. At the time of the accident, the aircraft was deviating 6 NM to the right of Route M754 northbound at a position approximately 160 NM to the west-northwest of the centre of the tropical depression.

After the accident, the aircraft was promptly accorded priority landing at Hong Kong. It subsequently landed safely at Hong Kong International Airport (HKIA).

As the occurrence resulted in serious injuries, in the form of bone fractures, to persons on board, it was classified as an aircraft accident. The Chief Inspector of Accidents therefore ordered an Inspector’s Investigation be carried out in accordance with the Hong Kong Civil Aviation (Investigation of Accidents) Regulations 1983.

The investigation concluded that the aircraft inadvertently flew into an area of turbulent weather caused by strong convective activity associated with the tropical depression. Based on the evidence as to the way in which the weather radar was operated, it was highly probable that the flight crew were not presented with the optimum weather radar picture that would have enabled a full appreciation of the intensity and extent of the weather in the vicinity of the aircraft. As a result, the deviation around weather was not initiated early enough, nor was the deviation large enough to avoid the weather.

The aircraft was on a flight from London to Harare and was approaching the airway reporting point KINDU, situated over central Africa, at FL370. Some intermittent light turbulence had been encountered approximately one hour earlier whilst navigating around isolated storm activity, associated with the Inter Tropical Convergence Zone, but the aircraft had since experienced smooth flying conditions.

The captain (the commander) was in a crew bunk on his rest break whilst two first officers remained on the flight deck. Although it was dark, the operating pilots could see that they were clear of cloud due to the stars visible to them in the night's sky. Also, they were both monitoring the weather radar which showed no sign of weather activity affecting their route. With the flying conditions smooth and no indications of turbulence ahead, the seat belt signs had been off for some time. As it was night the lights in the cabin had been dimmed with most passengers attempting to get some sleep. Some of the cabin crew, particularly those in the rear galley, were however starting to prepare trolleys for the forthcoming breakfast service.

Suddenly, the aircraft experienced a small positive 'g' movement followed by a slight shake of the airframe. The passenger seatbelt signs were immediately switched on from the flight deck at which point the aircraft suffered a severe downward movement with associated negative 'g'. The operating pilots guarded the thrust levers and speedbrake in order to control the airspeed, however this remained constant throughout. The disturbance quickly stopped and the aircraft resumed its normal flight path, the flight conditions becoming smooth again. The seat belts signs were left on and over the next hour small amounts of clear air turbulence were experienced, although none were as severe as the initial encounter.

The incident occurred on a scheduled flight from Brisbane, Australia to Singapore. The aircraft was in level flight at FL390, in the vicinity of airway intersection SABIL, when severe turbulence was experienced. In the passenger cabin a meal service was being carried out. Turbulence was not anticipated and the seat belt signs were off. The turbulence was of short duration, lasting for 15 seconds, but there were a number of injuries. The aircraft commander decided to continue the flight to Singapore and made a request for medical services to meet the aircraft on arrival. The aircraft landed at Singapore 44 minutes later. An engineering inspection was carried out after landing and revealed no damage to the aircraft.
Turbulence injury, Boeing 757-223, June 5, 2005. During cruise descent the airplane encountered convectively induced turbulence (CIT) and two flight attendants were injured. One of the injured flight attendants was located in the aft galley preparing for landing when the airplane encountered the turbulence. The flight attendant stated that she heard the captain say "prepare for landing" and "all of [a] sudden I got lifted off the ground and slammed into the 4R door." This flight attendant suffered a fractured ankle. The other injured flight attendant was located near the aft lavatories preparing for landing when the airplane encountered the turbulence. The flight attendant stated that the airplane "hit some type of severe turbulence without warning" and that she was "thrown to the floor." This flight attendant suffered minor injuries to her shoulder, hip, foot, and lower back. Data from the airplane's Digital Flight Data Recorder (DFDR) was extracted and indicated that the airplane experienced vertical accelerations that were consistent with a CIT event. During the approximately 4 second CIT encounter, the maximum and minimum vertical accelerations were about 1.9g and 0.5g, respectively.
Turbulence injury, Boeing 737-700, April 29, 2005. Several minutes later, the flight encountered a thin layer of haze. Upon exiting the layer of haze, the flight crew noticed "an unusual cloud formation" directly ahead. The captain initiated a right turn as the flight encountered "two abrupt bumps and a gain in air speed." The captain added that the encounter lasted about 15-20 seconds, which was light to moderate turbulence. Following the turbulence upset, the captain was notified by a cabin crew member that a flight attendant sustained a leg injury in the aft galley, and would need medical attention upon arrival at STL.

There's plenty more examples. These were just at the top of the list!

Edited by SunnyBlues

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Clear Air Turbulence is a well recorded phenomena, but one I strongly suspect that you, SunnyBlues, do not understand. There is no mystery here, it is not as predictable as you would like to suggest, and a flight from Bahrein to UK would go nowhere near the Bermuda Triangle. But, I forget, your imaginary Exotic Comets (for which you have offered no mathematical evidence) seem to appear everywhere that CAT occurs.

You know what? CAT occurs more frequently over a continental land mass than it does over the sea!!

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!!!

Second thoughts.. dont, this is so far off - topic that you need to start a new thread... then your theory can be shown to be the House of Cards that it really is...

Edited by keithisco

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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?

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)?

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?)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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!

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.

post-94765-0-52361300-1349947416_thumb.p

Edited by SunnyBlues

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

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.

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:

  1. 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.
  2. The anomalous force must also be extremely focussed.
  3. The anomalous force cannot occur in urban areas, or it would get noticed.
  4. 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.)
  5. 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.
  6. 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''.
  7. Because the anomalous force is radiative and attractive, the force carriers must somehow transport ``negative momentum''.
  8. 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.
  9. Since the anomalous force is focussed, the source must have a rather complicated geometry.
  10. 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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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:

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

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!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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')

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.
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.

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:

‘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:

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

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.

post-94765-0-69302700-1350297138_thumb.j

post-94765-0-73300800-1350297148_thumb.j

Edited by SunnyBlues

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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?

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.

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

I guess. Try following these steps, maybe?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 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.

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.

post-94765-0-71680300-1350400779_thumb.j

post-94765-0-83681700-1350401282_thumb.j

post-94765-0-99804600-1350402269_thumb.j

Edited by SunnyBlues

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

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.

post-94765-0-53006400-1350468511_thumb.j

post-94765-0-50475300-1350468522_thumb.j

Edited by SunnyBlues

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.