Gravity – the science is not settled.

Posted: September 17, 2010 by tallbloke in solar system dynamics

Pioneer spacecraft: Image credit: dailygalaxy.com

Pioneer spacecraft: Image credit: dailygalaxy.com


Despite earlier conjectures that the Pioneer probes positional anomaly was probably due to a problem with the spacecraft themselves, it turns out that other probes are getting affected by exactly the same magnitude of anomaly.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/space/1384420/Mysterious-force-holds-back-Nasa-probe-in-deep-space.html
Research to be published shortly in The Physical Review, a leading physics journal, will show that the speed of the two probes is being changed by about 6 mph per century – a barely-perceptible effect about 10 billion times weaker than gravity.

Assertions by some scientists that the force is due to a quirk in the Pioneer probes have also been discounted by the discovery that the effect seems to be affecting Galileo and Ulysses, two other space probes still in the solar system. Data from these two probes suggests the force is of the same strength as that found for the Pioneers.

Dr Duncan Steel, a space scientist at Salford University, says even such a weak force could have huge effects on a cosmic scale. “It might alter the number of comets that come towards us over millions of years, which would have consequences for life on Earth. It also raises the question of whether we know enough about the law of gravity.”


I think the Telegraph headline may have it wrong though. It suffers a solar-centric assumption that it’s a force ‘holding back’ the probes. What if we think about it the other way round. Perhaps out there where the solar wind peters out, the probes are meeting a ‘wind’ of a different kind? Or having their passage slowed by running into a greater density of some kind of aetherial substance?

It’s unlikely to be due to emanations from the galactic centre, because the spacecraft have different trajectories relative to the hub of the Milky Way.

Pioneer and Voyager trajectories

Pioneer and Voyager trajectories

Speculations on a postcard, or just post your thoughts below.

Comments
  1. Dave Smith says:

    There is a possible answer to be found in Electric Universe theory. Though I’m not particularly well-versed in this part of the theory yet, my understanding is that the Sun, instead of being a thermonuclear reactor, is powered externally, electrically. There is a slow “drift current” of electrons towards the sun, which whilst difficult to measure, may be having this effect on the spacecraft concerned. I’m not offering this as a definitive answer, but something well worth consideration. It will take a bit of searching through the holoscience site to find further information on this.

    Cheers, Dave.

  2. “Hollywood Science” (as Prof. Khabibulo Abdusamatov called it), through its Japanese-Canadian famous preacher would explain it like this: “This proves beyond doubt that DARK MATTER exists, and it is being generated by an invisible small BLACK HOLE which is pushing down both ships as to make them being entangled, again, by an invisible field of STRINGS that surrounds all the Solar system….” BUY IT NOW ! (sorry, that was the AD). 🙂

  3. Electric Universe explains this as both shps have reached the “double layer”surrounding the solar system and which could be reproduced at a lab.
    Pitagoras, as for his humble Monochord research would interpret it as both ships have arrived a “gap”(interval or semitone) of the Solar Octave, where there is a mix of vibrations:
    Note/Freq./Wavelength
    G0 24.50 1400.
    G#0/Ab0 25.96 1320.
    A0 27.50 1250.
    Beautiful!, isn´t it?
    If there is a general law out there, which governs all processes in our Universe, then it necessarily implies an ETHOS, which is really a complicated matter for those who proclaim agnosticism, the impossibility of knowing, as it has been taught since the “Illustration”, or way back in history, since DOGMAS were chosen as a way to achieve and keep power in the hands of the elites.
    It has taken a little, more than two thousand years, a whole platonian month, to reach the turning point where we are at the present.

  4. johnnythelowery says:

    Don’t know much about gravity. So I read books about it, and i must say, the subject sucks! Sometimes repulsively so!!! 🙂

    As Hawking was quick to (publish before-I-perish, or Publish before my idea Perishes) his
    theory of M which ‘explains’ how the Law of Gravity explains how the Universe came into being. From nothing. 1 or 0. Take your pick!. So…where does Gravity interact with the particle to keep Herr Willy Nilly tied to the lab floor. Which part of the nucleus? IS it an
    exchange of Gravitons?

  5. P.G. Sharrow says:

    “Gravity” is caused by warpage of the atomic dielectric of matter, this warpage is caused by electrostatic fields in the aether, these fields are caused by the accumulated effects of the charge of matter. No gravitons or gravity waves. Gravity as a thing is a myth. Gravity is the description of the effect of large amounts of matter on matter over distance. pg

  6. johnnythelowery says:

    P.G. Sharrow.
    You probably couldn’t be more diametrically opposed to the current ‘wisdom’ that your the theory postulated. I know enough now from hanging around on the Solar threads here and @WUWT that this is the ‘EU’ view. Why doesn’t EU get more traction?

    I never liked the definition that Gravity was a warping of the time/space membrane because neither Space nor Time exists in and of themselves even though they are injected to make the math work. You can’t actually bend something that doesn’t exist. They exist in the abstract, such as, how long Zeke takes to serve a pint. But there is no particle or force working on a pint of his best as he serves it that is either Time or Space. Yes?……………No? How does the EU treat Time and Space???

  7. P.G. Sharrow says:

    johnnythelowery says:
    September 17, 2010 at 10:57 pm ” How does the EU treat Time and Space???”

    I have not studied “EU” so I have no idea of how “EU” treats anything. Sorry I can’t comment on that.

    My theories are based on my 50 years of personal studies and are not the result of others postulations. I basicly started from scratch and created theories that agreed with all the facts known to me. I think that this is better then trying to add wild arse ideas to theories that don’t cover inconvenunt facts. I believe in K.I.S.S.( keep it simple stupid) form of thought. No strings, worm holes, no extra universes. or a basket full of special quanta to explain everything. But I do need Aether to explain everything to my satisfaction. 🙂 pg

  8. Wallace Thornhill provided his idea on this matter on 20th March 2002:
    http://www.holoscience.com/news/mystery_solved.html
    Regarding gravity the greater the wavelength (size of particle)the greater gravity as compared with the EM field; the smaller the waveleght (particle size) the greater the density of EM field the less gravity. This seems to be the general case, however
    I have pointed out here in this blog the actual experience, not of a theory, but satisfying the request of a client who asked for the same chemical compound with two completely different bulk densities with the SAME particle size. Obviously the one with lower bulk density occupied more volume, i.e., its particles were more charged electrostatically than the one with the higher bulk density: particles repel among them.
    It is in the experience of every chemist sudden changes of “weight”, or rather the impression of it, when a mass of particles once relatively suspended because of individual charges, suddenly precipitate, changing rapidly the common center of mass.
    Nevertheless, the general law which defines gravity as directly related to size/wavelength is valid and so the higher the “pitch” the lesser gravity acts on the vibrating particle.
    As there are notes on a piano keyboard, heavier and lighter, the same order exist in the whole nature, however there is quite different visible light than lead or a stone.
    Thus I agree with johnnythelowery as it is a quality of mass, however this mass is variable as it changes with frequency or grade of exitation.
    As a proof of this, and following the same law Mendeleeiev followed to arrange elements in his table, this same table could be extrapolated to make up an analog table of the “elements”(of course equally neutral)ABOVE hydrogen, as this one as the heavier of the inmediate and lighter elements table. We could thus have a table of neutrons of different qualities and, perhaps, above this one, another of neutrinos and all its qualities or “flavors”.

  9. Whence does it come the discrepancy between harmony and the subjective “real world”

    • Let us imagine we drop a stone in a water pond from right above (orthogonally to the surface, as we would be seeing from 90°).
    • It will produce on the surface of the pond a beautiful round wave, in the shape of a perfect circle, a round note “C”. Clearly an emission field (EF).That wave will produce successive waves around the first wave and with longer radii. Those waves will form round crests in between (called warps by others) which in music are called intervals or gaps in a developing octave, and called planets in the solar system, where there are two bigger than the others: In our example case of decreasing frequency, as we are “playing back”:
    • Note-Freq.Hz) Wavelength (cm)
    Between the notes: G#0/Ab0 25.96 1320.
    Between the notes: C#0/Db0 17.32 1990.
    • These gaps, crest or wraps are caused by the resistance, in our example, of water, and in general by the medium or by the interference of other waves from different emission sources.
    • Now, let us imagine we draw on the surface of the circle/wave two diameters at right angles. It will be obvious that the ratio between two radii, if we consider each of them equal to unity will be ONE. This means, also, that in order to see them equal we are observing them straight from above, this is at an angle of 90° relative to the surface.
    • Physics tells us that, according to Planck, that the amount of energy “E” equals frequency “v” multiplied by the constant which bears his name “h” , this last one he found it to be equal to 0.66252 x 10-23Js
    • 0.66252, a weird number indeed, of course inferred from observation.
    • In order to know whence it came, let us choose then a harmonic number, rounding it to 0.6666, that is equal to the ratio 2/3, which is the inverse of the perfect fifth 3/2.
    • Note.-The difference between 0.66252 and 0.66666 is explained by the action of the local field where the Plank´s experiment was done: On the earth. This gives a 1.98756/3 ratio.
    • The 2/3 ratio (free from local influence) it is not a simple mathematical ratio, but a real one, then the expression of two forces combining, one which goes from the center to the periphery, in this case 2 and the other opposing that force, which decreases the resultant force, in this case 3, the first being the expression of the manifestation of the vector of the octave developing centrifugally, the other the vector opposing centripetally to it from the media, called by some “Gravity”.
    • The resultant force of this triangle of forces is what we see as a wave crest, a warp, and, of course we live on one of these where “mass” can be understood as the transient existence of what we also call a discrete amount of energy, a quanta.

  10. Ulric Lyons says:

    @P.G. Sharrow says:
    September 18, 2010 at 12:10 am

    Keen, starting at square (or triangle) one, is the way to go for sure.

    How do you feel about the idea of repulsion existing between Aether and matter ?

  11. Addenda to the post above:
    • That “constant”, which is the ratio 1:1 of the two radii in our experimental wave, it is not constant at all, but varies with the angle at which it is seen by the observer. Orthogonally it is 1:1; thus, any observer at a certain angle will have, in perspective, a different perceivable “spectrum”.
    As Ulric Lyons says:
    September 19, 2010 at 11:11 am
    starting at square (or triangle) one, is the way to go for sure

  12. Douglas DC says:

    To all you EU folks(I’m convinced there is something to it) any ideas on the
    Jupiter/Uranus/Lunar closeness on the about the 20th? bit OT but I’m not going anywhere near the Oregon coast for a few days….

  13. Douglas DC says:
    September 20, 2010 at 12:02 am
    I would also suggest from the 5th of October through the 29th of October..

  14. • Let us clarify these ideas a bit more: The photoelectric phenomenon was wrongly interpreted: It proved, beyond doubt, the electrical nature of the photon, the incident UV light on the electroscope plate contained in itself the energy of the afterwards emitted electron.
    • Thus, in the photoelectric phenomenon, the UV photon was the “Primum Mobile”, like the stone in our example above. At this point, we should emphasize that, indeed as you may think, we can have “primum mobili” (several first forces) of smaller frequencies, or particles sizes (whatever you prefer).
    • A very important phenomenon occurred when the photoelectrical activity was first detected: If the electroscope was charged leaves fell, but when there was a big “positive” charge in it the leaves did not fall. This shows that what we consider “negative “ or “positive” is the resultant force of the ratio of the two forces, or the two radii in our example: When, for instance, its ratio is, say 3/2 then obviously is more than ONE, so it is “positive”; being the “primum mobile” force greater than the one which opposes to its movement, when it is the contrary, say 2/3, or 0.666, it is less than the unity thus we can call it “negative”, so in this case, the force opposing the first force, is greater than the one which starts the movement, the “primum mobile”. Thus we know, also, if the octave is developing toward higher or lower “pitches”(To the “right” or to the “left” it was always a matter of “spin” 🙂 )
    • Now, if we were to observe closely where waves are resisted, at the crests, and we could watch it as in an instant, we could see transversally a circle where forces are acting as a triangle of forces inscribed in it.
    • As surfers on a round wave, living a fleeting eternal and trasient instant, we would call that wave of energy “mass”, the earth, and the force which keep us on it, gravity.

  15. P.G. Sharrow says:

    Ulric Lyons says:
    September 19, 2010 at 11:11 am

    @P.G. Sharrow says:
    September 18, 2010 at 12:10 am

    Keen, starting at square (or triangle) one, is the way to go for sure.

    How do you feel about the idea of repulsion existing between Aether and matter ?

    Ulric this reply is the short version 😉 pg
    The problem question ,what is gravity? requires the solution of what is mass /inertia. While mass, inertia and gravity are well defined and described, actual cause is a mystery in accepted science.

    The most simple atom, hydrogen,consists of a proton and electron shell. The shell is the physical surface, has charge and a small mass. The proton has a deep lack of charge and carries most of the mass / inertia. The neutron is simply a condensed hydrogen atom plus a slight bit more mass /inertia. When the proton is centered with in its’ electron shell it is “relatively” at rest. When the center is displaced by outside fields the center of mass will try to drag its’ outside, its’ electron shell, to be centered. When the outside, the electron shell, is displaced, the center mass is pulled toward its’ centered position. All of this is well known but why is there mass / inertia? When an object is at rest it wants to stay at rest and if in motion, to stay in motion. Energy has to be exchanged to change motion. An object in motion has greater effective mass but the same inertia requirements to change the motion. Mass and energy is interchangeable.

    All of the above is accepted, but what can tie all of these things together? In a void how can anything have mass/inertia? What is it that prevents changes in motion? There seems to be evidence that there is something out there that carries Electro-Motive Force effects and the effects called gravity over great distances. This something pushes, has effects of energy, and has mass/inertia effects, maybe 97% of the mass of the universe. Not a small thing and we can’t see it or detect it.( actually we can and have, but it is called and described as other things)

    Since early times “Aether” has been used to denote something that is there but is unseen or felt. When the electric / electronic sciences were founded, aether ( ether ) was accepted as the medium that EMF traveled through. So the problem is to describe aether characteristics that will explain all of the above effects.

    Aether has charge, it pushes on its’ self and occupies all non-matter space. I think of charge or lack of charge as most would think of negative or positive charge. In the electrical world if the local charge is equal, there is no charge difference = neutral, not a lack of charge. Positive is a lack of charge.
    It is important to understand there is only charge or the lack of charge.

    It is supra magnetic and in chaos until organized by EMF and returns to chaos as soon as the EMF energy is canceled or dissipated. It is easily influenced, magnetically aligned by all EMF fields traveling through it depending on the local strength of the influence. ( one might think of magnetic bubbles of charge spinning in chaos)

    Now back to the proton, its’ lack of charge is very attractive to the charge of the aether, it pulls on the aether and it reduces the local chaos because the proton is magnetic organization. When the proton moves it drags aether with it. Holding the local aether in organization around it. The electron shell is charge in chaos. The aether all ready feels its’ charge and can easily move around its’ presence.
    Mass is the amount of aether being effected and inertia is the aethers’ resistance to that change in energy. During a change in motion the proton effects a large amount of aether, has high mass/inertia. The electron shell effects a small amount of aether, has a low mass/inertia.

    All of the above explains Gravity. The attraction of very large amounts of matter pull on very large amounts of the aether which are being attracted by other large amounts of matter. This attraction warps the dielectric or position of the center of mass,the proton, within its’ electron shell. This warpage is the energy of gravitation acceleration.

  16. Ulric Lyons says:

    Keen, starting at square (or triangle) one, is the way to go for sur
    Thanks!, the square is mass, that transient moment of equilibrium.

  17. Tenuc says:

    Good stuff PG,and other comment authors – many thanks for much food for thought!

    My take is that the Universe is made up only of energy. What we perceive as solid matter is simply the energy field, which comprises the all pervading cosmic ether, locally concentrated by various interlocking spins. The different spins on the micro and macro scales are self similar and both stir the ether to produce the various harmonics and resonant vibrations observed.

    I think the current standard models for most of the physical and cosmological theories currently in vogue are becoming ever more complex, because our senses preclude us from seeing the truth.

    The whole complex structure of the universe, life…everything has been ordered by turbulent, non-linear, deterministic chaos. A handful of simple ‘rules’ of spin will be found, sh once the current

  18. Tenuc says:

    Good stuff PG,and other comment authors – many thanks for much food for thought!

    My take is that the Universe is made up only of energy. What we perceive as solid matter is simply the energy field, which comprises the all pervading cosmic ether, locally concentrated by various interlocking spins. The different spins on the micro and macro scales are self similar and both stir the ether to produce the various harmonics and resonant vibrations observed.

    I think the current standard models for most of the physical and cosmological theories currently in vogue are becoming ever more complex, because our senses preclude us from seeing the truth.

    The whole complex structure of the universe, life…everything has been ordered by turbulent, non-linear, deterministic chaos. A handful of simple ‘rules’ of spin will be found, once we open our mind to this reality.

  19. P.G. Sharrow says:

    Tenuc says:
    September 21, 2010 at 8:13 pm “The whole complex structure of the universe, life…everything has been ordered by turbulent, non-linear, deterministic chaos. A handful of simple ‘rules’ of spin will be found, once we open our mind to this reality.”

    My feelings exactly. While I need a “thing” that has charge and spins to fixate on. 😉 Whether or not aether is a “thing with charge”that spins or “merely a charge” that spins, is not important. God does not work in complexities. Simple rules, that have to work. Only physics science piles complexities on top of complexities. God works in applied science, only things that work can exist. K.I.S.S. pg

  20. • We have seen that the EM field is the one which goes from the center to the periphery.
    • Then, in the circle we made with our stone on the water pond, the outward force is the EM field, so we can put it as starting from the center, where the stone fell in the water, then if Gravity it is the force which opposes to it we can draw it from the periphery to the center.
    But, as the EM field irradiates in every direction from the center outwards, as the waves produced by our stone proves it, then we can choose to draw anyone of them; then let’s draw an arrow from the center to the periphery but in right angles to the one representing Gravity.
    • Thus we now have a nice triangle of forces, an square triangle.
    • The force of Gravity, the arrow ending in the center we know it is 9.81, a weird number too, because if we ideally have two equal catets (radii) and we make them equal to 1 each one, then our hypothenuse would be equal to Sqr.2. So if we realize that weird 9.81 number is affected by the local EM field, chances are that it can really be equal to 10, so we can have each one of the two catets forming our triangle (radii) equal to 10 and our hypotenuse would be equal to Sqr.200.
    • Then if we want to turn our troublesome catet, Gravity, equal to Zero, we should have to make the other catet equal to the hypothenuse, that’s equal to Sqr.200=14.1421; which it would mean that we should have to increase the outward EM field by 41.421% so making gravity equal to zero.

  21. P.G. Sharrow says:

    Be careful in assuming that god works in decimals or even whole numbers. Pi ( 3.14xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx) is not solvable in numbers but is in fractions. You know, pi are not square, pi are round! The universe is based on the Volume of Spheres. Spheres that ring, the music of the spheres. Energy that moves through space travels in an expanding pressure sphere not a directional “wave”. Pressure increase, pressure decrease, Pressure increase, pressure decrease, Pressure increase, pressure decrease, so on. Not really a wave. Tesla had a hard time getting this through to Marconi when he was teaching Marconi how to create a radio telegraph. This is also the basis of Teslas’ power transmission system. pg

  22. Joe Lalonde says:

    Through the studying of an area no-one has looked at ROTATION, I have found that gravity comes in two forms. Gravity changes through time and many factors make up this energy. Most predominate is electro-magnetics.
    Live gravity and latent energy gravity are the two forms.
    Newton’s theory on motion has corrupted the current knowledge base and has spawned many incorrect following theories.
    Every system and planet rotates, so having string theories and point to point theories are incorrect as points are continuely in motion and rotation.
    Current science is based on formulas and theories that is motion is forever and other factors slow the objects down. If this were true, then no energy changes would mean no evolution as everything would remain constant.
    Actual evidence is that suns, planets and solar systems were infused with rotating energy which slows down naturally as energy is being used. This effects ever changing evolution and energy.

  23. Joe Lalonde says:
    September 23, 2010 at 11:21 am
    Precisely!, that “primum mobile” is the stone of my example above, that “stone” was the “first force” which has been opposed by a constant and contrary force from the “medium.
    As symbols show, through the history, forces combine forming square traingles, and the first triangle is the one of the original proto circle, the one we created with our stone. There, forces, the two radii combine in a ratio which goes from 1 to 0 and from 0 to -1 (sinus). That’s the origin of the polarity of the EM field..

  24. But…what does it happen when our two opposing vectors, the one approaching unity (the positive vector) and the one approaching zero (the negative vector), coincide at the zenith of our original circle?, they subtract one another, but changing direction 180 degrees, originate that force which we imagine coming from “outside” coming from “out there” as a piercing spear which nail us to the ground: Gravity!

  25. Thus, we have demonstrated that only neutral (“buffered”) matter exhibits that neutral (not charged) force called Gravity, and it is subjected to it, ionized matter does not, it is subjected only to local EM field.

  26. Now, what do we call, when being on a certain spot on the earth, it happens a sudden change in the acceleration of gravity?(usually a few tenths)….we call it an earthquake! , so we know now why do “earthquake lights” happen: Because there is a sudden variation in the ratio on which those two vectors of opposite charges combine or neutralize to be gravity, as changing the leads on a motor to change it its direction of turn. In such cases an arc can happen: the earthquake lights we see.

  27. Just to end it beautifully: Both forces when reaching almost equilibrium and producing that neutral force we call Gravity, do not annihilate between them but result in what tradition calls the caduceus. The “axis mundi”, the spinal chord.

  28. Adolfo Giurfa says:
    September 23, 2010 at 4:35 pm
    Error: It should read like this:
    • But…what does it happen when our two opposing vectors, the one approaching unity (the positive vector) and the one approaching also unity (the negative vector)

  29. Then, if we consider the two forces of a field, one to the right (+) and one to the left (-), we will find that one approaches (following the law of sines) the unity=!, the other, starting at 180 degrees equal to -1 approaches (following the law of cosines) zero.
    So Gravity is the sum:
    G=sin y + cos y ; G=1+0
    Which means that the resultant force will be equal to 1, or almost one, as 0.981
    Then, it follows, that when forces are arranged each at an angle above the horizontal being equal to less than 90 degrees, the resultant force will be composed of two vertical vectors: One from the periphery to the center (Gravity) and the other, from the center to the periphery (EM field).
    Thus Then the resultant central vector equals a PERMANENT MAGNET, where its attraction is Gravity (to the center) and its repulsion is the EM field (to the periphery)

  30. Again: Gravity it is equal to ONE but the local EM field subtracts it to 0.981.
    Not considering charge (+ and -) would be a discrimination of gender! 🙂

  31. Tenuc says:

    Yin and Yang, Adolfo!

    The nature of gravity (yin) is to draw things together and create, while charged particles (yang) has a nature to shoot about chaotically through the ether striving to find the end of the cosmos.

    Yang eventually becomes exhausted and it’s dynamic purpose lost in the thermal equilibrium of entropy. However, far from being an energy “dead-end”, it is the ideal starting point for Yin “work” to begin creating new things, ready for a new beginning. Yin does “work”, because it creates a directionality that organizes particles with respect to an arbitrary singularity point, and starts them moving in that direction.

    So the Yin and Yang together ensure the everlasting cosmos stays in a perfect state of deterministically chaotic balance. Yin and Yang are a conjugate pair who’s simple natures create and maintains all the wonders we see about us, in a permanent state of simultaneous destruction and renewal.

  32. @ Tenuc

    That is absolutely true, as this is:
    As you know, symbols are information saved in its most extreme simplicity, so the following symbol summarizes it all:
    http://www.sunday-school-ideas-for-new-teachers.com/sunday-school-coloring-pages-cross-template.html

  33. Tenuc says:

    Adolfo Giurfa says:
    September 24, 2010 at 5:17 pm
    “@ Tenuc
    That is absolutely true, as this is:
    As you know, symbols are information saved in its most extreme simplicity, so the following symbol summarizes it all:”

    Thanks Adolfo. Here’s another symbol which summaries truth…

  34. @ Tenuc:

    Thanks Tenuc! You just made me remember I made a program, many years ago using Borland’s “Turbo-Basic”, of the I-Ching, trying to be faithful to the traditional mixing of straws, not by simply randomly and directly choosing among the 64 hexagrams.
    Thanks again and to Tallbloke for allowing me such a series of chaotic and yang-istic aloud thinking.

  35. Tenuc says:

    @Adolfo

    Glad to have provided the trigger, Adolfo.

    There is much western science has forgotten, especially the simple but profound message behind the Yin and Yang. I read somewhere that the idea was first used by the Druids and was foundational to their understanding of astronomy and other aspects of science. Interesting…

  36. Douglas Dc says:

    “History became legend,legend became myth.”
    “Things were forgotten that should not have been,were lost”.
    One of my favorite JRR Tolkien quotes.

  37. Joe Lalonde says:

    Adolfo,

    Have you considered that solar systems are two dimensional?
    Through rotation, the planets and suns rotate and spread are spread out two dimensionally.
    BUT, they do not line up perfectly with the suns equator, so there is planetary driffing in the gravity as they are not solidly attached together.
    We know this by being able to see the suns north pole but NOT the south pole.

  38. @ Joe Lalonde
    Of course, it is a generalization of an ideal case. As an example the polar field of the sun are not regular as it is interferred by other external fields, including those of the lanets.
    Here, I have been “thinking aloud” and I have ordered my thoughts at:

    http://www.giurfa.com/unified_field.pdf

    What surprised me the most was to find the real explanation of magnetism ( where one of its poles attracts by gravity, while the other repels by the EM field) and of the known but also unknown phenomenon of the permanent magnet, usually made, as you may know, from elements which share in common the oxidation states of +2 and +3, and at the same time its easy oxidation and reduction, as in the case of Fe+3 and Fe+2
    present in magnetite (the sum of FeO and Fe2O3), and, not to forget it, making possible our life as humans by its presence in our blood´s hemoglobin.

  39. Joe Lalonde says:

    Adolfo,

    I like the way you think!
    I have also been studying water in great detail. After all it is 2 parts hydrogen and one part oxygen. Being in a liquid state due to pressurization. When you pressurize a gas, it holds energy as it is NOT in it’s natural state of relaxed gases. Gases held in tanks tend to have an explosive force of wanting to be back in a gas state. So, it holds great amounts of energy. Our bodies are also pressurized and need this energy from the water to function. There is a saying “You will die if you do not have water for 31 hours and food for 31 days?”
    The trace elements it carries due to being exposed to the planet surface and incorporating some of it’s elements such as iron. Plants get iron from both the planets surface and water.
    Water has adapted tricks for evaporation prevention by using salt as an agent in oceans.
    http://www.whoi.edu/page.do?pid=12455&tid=282&cid=897

    I find planetary study absolutely facinating with the interactions this planet has achieved for it’s evolution.

  40. Joe Lalonde says:

    Adolfo,
    My sister-in-law passed away suddenly last Christmas Eve and it took the coroner a few ours to see her body. She was a big woman sitting upright in a chair. But in that time, with the heart not pumping, her blood pooled in the lowest parts of her body from the effects of the iron in her blood being pulled to the planet.

  41. Joe Lalonde says:
    September 25, 2010 at 10:38 am
    If you are interested in water, read the works of the late italian professor Giorgio Piccardi.
    BTW: How do you explain the billions of tons of water, floating above our heads defying gravity?: Simple: Ionized water it is not H2O but H-OH, hydrogen hydroxide, and as such floats over until it loses its charge (lightnings happen BEFORE raining) and falls down to ground. (This discharge process can develope also smoothly through the intermediation of vegetation and trees, without visible discharge-i.e. plasma in the dark mode-).
    I have updated:
    http://www.giurfa.com/unified_field.pdf
    Thanks again!
    http://www.rexresearch.com/piccardi/piccardi.htm

  42. Joe Lalonde says:

    Adolfo,
    Thank you for the information on Prof. Piccardi.
    If I am mistaken..Did he not believe water came from rocks?

    I have been looking at trapped gases at the creation of a planet as the formation of water. The formation of a planet is and energies being stored would be an extremely difficult until a formation of a skin or surface structure as the material will fly off(such is the creation of a moon).
    The energy changes to stressing the mantle under the planets surface with stored energy. A great amount of escaping gases form the atmophere generating back pressure to the surface as now the gases escaping and much dust have trace elements attached that the magnetic field forming is pulling on it.

    I went a totally different route than you have in understanding and researching magnetics, gravity and energy than you have by power generation. Understanding the huge difference in the circumference of a circle to the diameter of a circle. and what energy is doing in both areas. Mechanically, the current turbines only harness 2% of actual energy and any energy not actually touching a blade is inefficient. They were designed for bulk energy harvest and not efficiency.

  43. Joe Lalonde says:
    September 26, 2010 at 12:14 pm
    First let me say that TALLBLOKE has become the MAGISTER LUDI, and this blog THE GLASS BED GAME.
    On what you say: Let me tell you that mass is an epi-phenomenon of energy, and, as explained in my short essay (link above), planets as any accretions in the universe, though fleeting “realities”, transience existences, form following the same laws, so you must expect layers, really “congealed” electric double layers: One above our heads, the inosphere, several below our feet: The SI-AL the aluminum silicate surface or ground formed by the addition of two opposed forces, that of Silica and of Aluminum.
    And so on…

  44. ….intermediated those two polar forces: Si::Al by a higher frequency neutral force: Water. This is why aluminum silicates are hydrated.

  45. Joe Lalonde says:

    Adolfo,
    What your saying is correct on released energy.
    Very few people understand the importance or rotation.
    Mass and gases are two totally different and unique materials.
    If you agitate a gas with massive heat the molecules vibrate and agitate which when compressed can be packed tightly and give the impression of being totally solid.
    Where mass can only be compressed so much as energy saturation occurs.
    You can change the density of mass through rotation or motion.

    I believe “black holes” are the beginning of solar systems when at some point it explodes. Black holes take in rotating planets and suns and can only compress so much as it grows in size due to the volume of material. The energy cannot be transfered to the center, so layering of mixtures occurs in compression as more material accumulates.

    Storing energy and releasing energy is how our Universe was designed through rotation.
    Newtons Laws on physics is incorrect.

  46. Joe Lalonde says:

    Adolfo,
    Our Universe is 3 dimensional yet rotation is 2 dimensional.
    So, solar systems are layered into flat corridors when spreading out.
    Due to this rotaion, if a sun were to go nova and explode, it would ONLY spread out 2 dimensionally.

    A great deal of our physics is based on ideal formulas in a lab with no actual movement except point to point. Apply this to space and it fails as there is no absolute point that is not moving. So, a silly notion like time travel is an impossibility as you need a time to go back and a fixed point to go back to as our solar system and planet are constantly moving.

  47. Joe Lalonde says:
    September 27, 2010 at 11:25 am
    We can analyze reality both ways, as a plane or as three dimensional, the nexus is the diameter.

  48. Conclusion:

    As the old saying says: “Truth is not to be found, it finds you
    -All waves are Gravity waves.
    -All waves are Magnetic waves.
    -All waves are electric waves
    -All waves are sound
    -All waves are light
    -All waves are the LOGOS
    -All waves are but one word: The WORD.