Can someone offer a promising explanation to the Allais effect (see link)?
http://www.economist.com/science/displaySt...tory_id=3104321
The Allais effect is due to field effects.
When the Earth 'effectively' decreases magnetic density due to the in-line Earth-Moon---->Sun the field spin of the Earth is very slightly increased, increasing the 'gravity' measured on Earth.
Electric spin and magnetic density are harmonically linked..... when one parameter rises the other falls. We see the B density fall as the planets expand....and E increases.
This explanation is in accord with the theory of Electrodynamic Spin Gravity.
When the Earth 'effectively' decreases magnetic density due to the in-line Earth-Moon---->Sun the field spin of the Earth is very slightly increased, increasing the 'gravity' measured on Earth.
Electric spin and magnetic density are harmonically linked..... when one parameter rises the other falls. We see the B density fall as the planets expand....and E increases.
This explanation is in accord with the theory of Electrodynamic Spin Gravity.
Thanks for the answer.
Does this answer assume a specific theory of gravity? (i.e. something beyond Einstein)
It seems you are tying together EM and gravity forces, can you do that?
Cheers!
Does this answer assume a specific theory of gravity? (i.e. something beyond Einstein)
It seems you are tying together EM and gravity forces, can you do that?
Cheers!
One of the problems with the Allias effect is it is inconsistently measured. If true, it's easy to dismiss because we don't have a good phenomenological model that predicts what researcher X will measure, so the theorists at best have to pick and choose which pendulum and gravimeter experiments they rely on. If false, there is precedent that 50 years or more will pass before people stop bringing up the discredited effect on forums like this. Even in the fringe journals, most are taking a wait-and-see attitude on the experimental science. The sting of cold fusion and N-rays are with us yet.
http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0604069
http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0408023
http://home.t01.itscom.net/allais/blackpri...vanruymbeke.pdf
Cahill and Van Flandern, who have individually been shown that they can't compute in GR in various papers, each have a theory of gravity which they claim predicts Allias effects.
http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0307003
http://www.eclipse2006.boun.edu.tr/sss/paper01.pdf
It seems to me, that if the moon has any special gravitational effect, every terrestrial satillite (with orbit periods from 24 hours down to 80 minutes) would be perturbed by the moon in a distinctly non-Newtonian way. It seems to me that tidal magma flows might induce ground movements in some places and not others, leading to inconsistant results -- these would be purely terrestrial effects in that case. But the jury is still out.
http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntr..._1962000032.pdf
http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0604069
http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0408023
http://home.t01.itscom.net/allais/blackpri...vanruymbeke.pdf
Cahill and Van Flandern, who have individually been shown that they can't compute in GR in various papers, each have a theory of gravity which they claim predicts Allias effects.
http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0307003
http://www.eclipse2006.boun.edu.tr/sss/paper01.pdf
It seems to me, that if the moon has any special gravitational effect, every terrestrial satillite (with orbit periods from 24 hours down to 80 minutes) would be perturbed by the moon in a distinctly non-Newtonian way. It seems to me that tidal magma flows might induce ground movements in some places and not others, leading to inconsistant results -- these would be purely terrestrial effects in that case. But the jury is still out.
http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntr..._1962000032.pdf
>> Does this answer assume a specific theory of gravity? (i.e. something beyond Einstein)
yes
>> It seems you are tying together EM and gravity forces, can you do that?
yes, electrodynamic considerations tie "gravity" with the electric and magnetic field (orthogonally crossed, spherical) of a cosmic body
More correctly gravity is tied to the spin of the electric field
The magnetic field (dependant upon 'mass' density) determines the size of the field which via Mach's principle determines the field spin which determines gravity
(Earth's field spin is all linked into the Sun's E field spin, and then back to beyond.... )
In the Allias effect the magnetic density of the planet (Earth) is slightly lowered by the shielding satellite (Moon),
in effect the radius of Earth is slightly increased, decreasing the magnetic density
the magnetic density B is harmonically linked to the E spin, so if B drops E increases -----> translates to a higher g.
yes
>> It seems you are tying together EM and gravity forces, can you do that?
yes, electrodynamic considerations tie "gravity" with the electric and magnetic field (orthogonally crossed, spherical) of a cosmic body
More correctly gravity is tied to the spin of the electric field
The magnetic field (dependant upon 'mass' density) determines the size of the field which via Mach's principle determines the field spin which determines gravity
(Earth's field spin is all linked into the Sun's E field spin, and then back to beyond.... )
In the Allias effect the magnetic density of the planet (Earth) is slightly lowered by the shielding satellite (Moon),
in effect the radius of Earth is slightly increased, decreasing the magnetic density
the magnetic density B is harmonically linked to the E spin, so if B drops E increases -----> translates to a higher g.
rpenner & Zarkov,
I thank you both for your replies. I especially appreciate the pointers to resources for further investigation.
I have another question, if you don't mind...
Does the change in velocity of the Voyager spacecraft (as they "leave our solar system") fall into the poorly measured phenomena OR is there a good "standard" (nothing novel) explanation for these effects?
Thanks again.
Edit: Sorry, I had not yet followed the links, maybe I should retract my question, and read a bit more.
I thank you both for your replies. I especially appreciate the pointers to resources for further investigation.
I have another question, if you don't mind...
Does the change in velocity of the Voyager spacecraft (as they "leave our solar system") fall into the poorly measured phenomena OR is there a good "standard" (nothing novel) explanation for these effects?
Thanks again.
Edit: Sorry, I had not yet followed the links, maybe I should retract my question, and read a bit more.
>> the change in velocity of the Voyager spacecraft
Warning
This post is drawn from my own mathematical investigations of the Solar System, and will contain very controversial concepts.
Between each planet and the Sun is a place called a Lagrangian point, L1
These points (for each planet) represent a magnetic Bloch wall.
It seems that the above spacecraft are being drawn back to the Sun more than they should, they are slowing down too quickly. ( ie the gravity of the Sun is greater than theoretically it should be)
The area of slowing is between Jupiter and out past Neptune.
Explanation
The gas giants, are changing the various Bloch wall structures and increasing the Sun's field spin at that distance. (this is to do with the internal energy these planets are radiating)
The rate of field spin is reflected in gravity, so a spacecraft going through this enhanced Sun field spin will experience an extra negative acceleration (extra gravity) over and above the "normal field spin" gravity of the Sun. (eg say at Earth distance.)
Image a whirlpool, where some intermediate spin layer is push slightly faster than it is normally driven. Jupiter et al are the cause of this greater push on the spin field.
Yes this phenomena is not well documented, however by using radio frequency ranging the phenomenon is well accepted as a real observation.
Warning
This post is drawn from my own mathematical investigations of the Solar System, and will contain very controversial concepts.
Between each planet and the Sun is a place called a Lagrangian point, L1
These points (for each planet) represent a magnetic Bloch wall.
It seems that the above spacecraft are being drawn back to the Sun more than they should, they are slowing down too quickly. ( ie the gravity of the Sun is greater than theoretically it should be)
The area of slowing is between Jupiter and out past Neptune.
Explanation
The gas giants, are changing the various Bloch wall structures and increasing the Sun's field spin at that distance. (this is to do with the internal energy these planets are radiating)
The rate of field spin is reflected in gravity, so a spacecraft going through this enhanced Sun field spin will experience an extra negative acceleration (extra gravity) over and above the "normal field spin" gravity of the Sun. (eg say at Earth distance.)
Image a whirlpool, where some intermediate spin layer is push slightly faster than it is normally driven. Jupiter et al are the cause of this greater push on the spin field.
Yes this phenomena is not well documented, however by using radio frequency ranging the phenomenon is well accepted as a real observation.
Hello,
Thanks for the reply, Zarkov. Does the theory you mention account for the gravitational effects between non-rotating objects? (like two masses, suspended on strings, in a laboratory?) I was pretty sure that there is a gravitational attraction in this case too. Or am I missing something?
Another question: In the recent "Discover" magazine they presented the MOND theory of gravitation (and cast some doubts on Einstein's works), does anyone here have a clear understanding of MOND, and can tell me why its either A) a dead-end, or B) a new avenue of inquiry which needs more investigation.
As for doubting Einstein, I can see the rationale for such doubts: 1) requiring N-dimensional space (where only 3 are apparent), 2) requiring dark matter & dark energy (where, again, neither are apparent). These have the appearance of band-aids, trying to facilitate clinging to an outdated model that is in need of being replaced. I'm not saying MOND is the replacement, but it does seem to have some merit.
Thanks again
Thanks for the reply, Zarkov. Does the theory you mention account for the gravitational effects between non-rotating objects? (like two masses, suspended on strings, in a laboratory?) I was pretty sure that there is a gravitational attraction in this case too. Or am I missing something?
Another question: In the recent "Discover" magazine they presented the MOND theory of gravitation (and cast some doubts on Einstein's works), does anyone here have a clear understanding of MOND, and can tell me why its either A) a dead-end, or B) a new avenue of inquiry which needs more investigation.
As for doubting Einstein, I can see the rationale for such doubts: 1) requiring N-dimensional space (where only 3 are apparent), 2) requiring dark matter & dark energy (where, again, neither are apparent). These have the appearance of band-aids, trying to facilitate clinging to an outdated model that is in need of being replaced. I'm not saying MOND is the replacement, but it does seem to have some merit.
Thanks again
>> Does the theory you mention account for the gravitational effects between non-rotating objects? (like two masses, suspended on strings, in a laboratory?)
yes in measurements of the Newtonian Gravitational Constant G
so called "attraction" is measured (really measuring electrostatic/magnetic circulation due to the mass dnesity of the system)
note masses used HAVE to be heavy and relatively small for technical reasons so it is very difficult to draw meaningful information from the Cavendish experiment.
yes in measurements of the Newtonian Gravitational Constant G
so called "attraction" is measured (really measuring electrostatic/magnetic circulation due to the mass dnesity of the system)
note masses used HAVE to be heavy and relatively small for technical reasons so it is very difficult to draw meaningful information from the Cavendish experiment.
QUOTE (Zarkov+Jul 25 2006, 12:01 AM)
note masses used HAVE to be heavy and relatively small for technical reasons so it is very difficult to draw meaningful information from the Cavendish experiment.
Still there is "attraction" (whatever reasons are) in line with 1/r^2 , which is in fact an approximation of wave-kind potential exp(-r_g/); r_g = HM and H = G/c^2 or much better H = G*epsilon_0*mu_0 where epsilon and mu are well-known EM constants. So, consider H (my great honor to O. Heaviside) as fundamental, G and c are not constants in bottom line. Also c is not any kind of "speed limit".
So, seems to me we share one fundamental insight - EM and gravity are deeply interconnected form the very beginning. On the surface I see one linear electrogravity, but at the roots highly nonlinear wave dynamics of space.
As far "Cavendish", if put the masses in spin (gyro) there has to be find pure Coulomb's force, ergo spin is charge. Angular momentum is its measure so as Planck's h. Nuclear forces are fictions. They are the same as here expressed "gyromagnetic forces". That is real basic of cosmic science. Cosmic systems (all without exception) are in spin. One holistic Universe.
With all respect, D T
Still there is "attraction" (whatever reasons are) in line with 1/r^2 , which is in fact an approximation of wave-kind potential exp(-r_g/); r_g = HM and H = G/c^2 or much better H = G*epsilon_0*mu_0 where epsilon and mu are well-known EM constants. So, consider H (my great honor to O. Heaviside) as fundamental, G and c are not constants in bottom line. Also c is not any kind of "speed limit".
So, seems to me we share one fundamental insight - EM and gravity are deeply interconnected form the very beginning. On the surface I see one linear electrogravity, but at the roots highly nonlinear wave dynamics of space.
As far "Cavendish", if put the masses in spin (gyro) there has to be find pure Coulomb's force, ergo spin is charge. Angular momentum is its measure so as Planck's h. Nuclear forces are fictions. They are the same as here expressed "gyromagnetic forces". That is real basic of cosmic science. Cosmic systems (all without exception) are in spin. One holistic Universe.
With all respect, D T
>> With all respect
You are well versed in agreed logic.
You are well versed in agreed logic.
QUOTE (Zarkov+Jul 25 2006, 10:16 AM)
>> With all respect
You are well versed in agreed logic.
Very bad in economics
Sorry, this is totally "out" and on the edge of allowed: any direct meaning for You
5.317...
if Yes please put next 5 digit.
However, pleasure was totally mine
You are well versed in agreed logic.
Very bad in economics
Sorry, this is totally "out" and on the edge of allowed: any direct meaning for You
5.317...
if Yes please put next 5 digit.
However, pleasure was totally mine
Been looking into Heaviside paper "A gravitational and Electromagnetic analogy". Quite interesting, maybe we went down wrong path MANY years ago.
Cheers!
Cheers!
Except it gives the wrong answer for Mercury.
By using a strict analogy with Maxwell's equations, they get the coefficient in front of "magnetic" effects wrong, as seen in Wald, General Relativity. The result is their prediction of Mercury's orbit is wrong.
By using a strict analogy with Maxwell's equations, they get the coefficient in front of "magnetic" effects wrong, as seen in Wald, General Relativity. The result is their prediction of Mercury's orbit is wrong.
QUOTE (rpenner+Aug 1 2006, 07:32 PM)
Except it gives the wrong answer for Mercury.
By using a strict analogy with Maxwell's equations, they get the coefficient in front of "magnetic" effects wrong, as seen in Wald, General Relativity. The result is their prediction of Mercury's orbit is wrong.
Kindly see from arXiv (sorry for this kind of reference, this is from my paper):
de Matos C.J. and Tajmar M., Advance of Mercury Perihelion Explained by Cogravity, XXIII Spanish relativity Meeting on “Reference Frames and Gravitomagnetism” (2003)
also fine approach recently by Thierry de Mess at http://users.telenet.be/demees/_sgg/f10000.htm
and by Joseph Nduriri at www.gravitomagnetism.com
By using a strict analogy with Maxwell's equations, they get the coefficient in front of "magnetic" effects wrong, as seen in Wald, General Relativity. The result is their prediction of Mercury's orbit is wrong.
Kindly see from arXiv (sorry for this kind of reference, this is from my paper):
de Matos C.J. and Tajmar M., Advance of Mercury Perihelion Explained by Cogravity, XXIII Spanish relativity Meeting on “Reference Frames and Gravitomagnetism” (2003)
also fine approach recently by Thierry de Mess at http://users.telenet.be/demees/_sgg/f10000.htm
and by Joseph Nduriri at www.gravitomagnetism.com
I am familiar with http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0005040
Advance of Mercury Perihelion Explained by Cogravity
... which shows de Matos and Tajmar are on the wrong track.
The same essential mistake is here: http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0304104
The point being unless you use the linearized equtions of GR, there is no way a priori to conclude that both v_G = c and the proper coefficients in the Graviational analogue of the Lorentz force. Thus de Matos and Tajmar depend on linearized GR to get as far as they do, thus they predict the same as Einstein because they have used Einstein's math and their own theory which rests on no postulates. Having stolen Einstein's math without insight, they are left with a sterile theory.
Compare http://www.as.wvu.edu/coll03/phys/www/OJ/Heavisid.htm where the correct factors are missing.
Advance of Mercury Perihelion Explained by Cogravity
QUOTE
This shows clearly that the linearized theory of GR is not perfectly isomorphic with electromagnetism...
... which shows de Matos and Tajmar are on the wrong track.
The same essential mistake is here: http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0304104
The point being unless you use the linearized equtions of GR, there is no way a priori to conclude that both v_G = c and the proper coefficients in the Graviational analogue of the Lorentz force. Thus de Matos and Tajmar depend on linearized GR to get as far as they do, thus they predict the same as Einstein because they have used Einstein's math and their own theory which rests on no postulates. Having stolen Einstein's math without insight, they are left with a sterile theory.
Compare http://www.as.wvu.edu/coll03/phys/www/OJ/Heavisid.htm where the correct factors are missing.
rpenner,
I like the simple approach. If the Sun & Moon affect the Oceans; then what you've suggested regarding magma flows gives a fairly sound explanation to gravitation variance seen in instances of such alignment.
Zarkov,
>> the change in velocity of the Voyager spacecraft ?
Could this be due to an increase in interplanetary dust?...would slow down the probe a tad.
I like the simple approach. If the Sun & Moon affect the Oceans; then what you've suggested regarding magma flows gives a fairly sound explanation to gravitation variance seen in instances of such alignment.
Zarkov,
>> the change in velocity of the Voyager spacecraft ?
Could this be due to an increase in interplanetary dust?...would slow down the probe a tad.
>> the change in velocity of the Voyager spacecraft ?
As far as I know, the Voyger anomaly is an anomaly because all KNOW factors that could play a part have been addressed to no avail.
What I posted is the reason. Jupiter is an energy emitter thus the field spin velocity of the Sun at that distance is increased, thus increasing the gravity value of the Sun at that distance. (drawn form a mathematical analysis)
As far as I know, the Voyger anomaly is an anomaly because all KNOW factors that could play a part have been addressed to no avail.
What I posted is the reason. Jupiter is an energy emitter thus the field spin velocity of the Sun at that distance is increased, thus increasing the gravity value of the Sun at that distance. (drawn form a mathematical analysis)
QUOTE (nrg4space+Jul 17 2006, 07:41 PM)
Can someone offer a promising explanation to the Allais effect (see link)?
http://www.economist.com/science/displaySt...tory_id=3104321
The Allais Effect is due to Sun's gravitational field variation that in turn induces a varying gravitomagnetic, the varying gravitomagnetic field creats, in gases and liquids, Foucault masse currents (Eddy masse currents)
http://www.economist.com/science/displaySt...tory_id=3104321
The Allais Effect is due to Sun's gravitational field variation that in turn induces a varying gravitomagnetic, the varying gravitomagnetic field creats, in gases and liquids, Foucault masse currents (Eddy masse currents)
Thanks to all who are contributing to this discussion. I'm still digging into these subjects, but I came upon another question - always easier than answers :-)
Regarding the ejection of matter from galaxies via jets (see: http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap041211.html ) and a novel paper concerning anti-gravitational effect of spinning masses (see http://arxiv.org/pdf/gr-qc/0505099 ) Could the paper be explaining the observed effect? Could the paper also explain the repulsive gravitational force, currently being ascribed to dark energy?
Thanks!
Regarding the ejection of matter from galaxies via jets (see: http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap041211.html ) and a novel paper concerning anti-gravitational effect of spinning masses (see http://arxiv.org/pdf/gr-qc/0505099 ) Could the paper be explaining the observed effect? Could the paper also explain the repulsive gravitational force, currently being ascribed to dark energy?
Thanks!
PhysOrg scientific forums are totally dedicated to science, physics, and technology. Besides topical forums such as nanotechnology, quantum physics, silicon and III-V technology, applied physics, materials, space and others, you can also join our news and publications discussions. We also provide an off-topic forum category. If you need specific help on a scientific problem or have a question related to physics or technology, visit the PhysOrg Forums. Here you’ll find experts from various fields online every day.
To quit out of "lo-fi" mode and return to the regular forums, please click here.