Tuesday, January 20, 2009

The Death of Gravity

Thomas Wilson: The Weakening Gravity-Dominated Cosmos Theory.

Neutron stars and their rapidly spinning pulsar manifestations are among the most outlandish creations bogging down modern astrophysics.

Neutron stars were first proposed as a theoretical possibility in 1933 by Baade and Zwicky. In seeking an explanation for the energy released by supernovae (a term coined by Zwicky), they proposed that a supernova was the result of a normal star transitioning to a neutron star.

They calculated that the supernova energy could be explained by the equivalent transformation of a stellar mass to energy following Einstein’s E=mc^2 equation. Baade and Zwicky's new theory was founded on the assumption that the only energy available to a star is in the star itself. Unfortunately, at that time, no one understood that a star could be part of an immensely long electrical transmission line storing vast amounts of energy.

However, in the late 1930s, Oppenheimer and Volkoff produced a theoretical equation of state that validated the neutron star concept. Ironically, despite this early theoretical work, even today there is no acceptable equation describing the state of neutron stars. Regardless, in 1968, shortly after the first pulsar was discovered, Thomas Gold proposed spinning neutron stars as a mechanical explanation for the pulsed radio emissions.

Over the forty years since the spinning neutron star model has been proposed for pulsars, the astrophysics community has been regularly forced to update the rotational speed limit and has met with a long list of “surprises” in new observations. There have been a number of issues:

* pulsars spinning faster than theoretically believed possible (XTE J1739-285 at 1122 Hz)
* pulsars spinning more slowly than theoretically predicted (PSR J2144-3933, once every 8.5s)
* pulsars with too much mass, in the wrong orbit, and with the wrong binary companion (J1903+0327)

All these observations were contrary to predictions but have not been credited as falsifying the accepted theory of pulsars. However, some of the most important predictions with neutron stars and pulsars concern their role as gravitational wave generators (as predicted by the General Theory of Relativity). ...

LIGO will never detect gravitational waves. Black holes and neutron stars do not exist. There are no mass densities great enough to test General Relativity at that scale. And what is to be gained from testing General Relativity when it merely describes gravity in unphysical geometric terms and doesn’t explain it?

LIGO II (or its equivalent) will likely be built and it will not detect gravitational waves. If the gravity-dominated view of the Universe collapses, it will be from failures on many theoretical fronts. One key theoretical front will be the failure to detect gravitational waves. Another will the failure of General Relativity.

There is no cosmological electromagnetic event hitherto explained by black holes, neutron stars, or their various collisions that is accompanied by gravitational waves. In addition, over the next few years there will be increasing evidence of electrical currents at an immense scale in our own solar system. Probes like Cassini and others continue to amass large quantities of data and images substantiating the role of electricity in space. Change is coming.


Jeffery Keown said...

I have a question. If not gravity, then what explanation for curvature of space and the simple fact that I'm being held in my chair by *something*

I do not mean to be inflamatory, I'm interested in learning the details of your position on these matters.

OilIsMastery said...

Hi Jeffrey,

Welcome to the website.

Space isn't a material object. You cannot hold empty space, void, or a vacuum in your hand.

As astronomer John Dobson says, "Nothing cannot exist."

How can something which does not exist be curved?

Space is the a priori form of our intuition (Kant 1781, 1787).

Therefore space cannot be curved except in our imagination (math class).

Furthermore, according to Lobachevsky Theorem 20, Riemannian geometry is impossible.

As far as being held in our chairs, saying "gravity" does it is the same as saying "God" does it and Newton says so explicitly in the General Scholium Book 3 (1687).

In other words, saying gravity does it is no explanation at all.

How come argon and carbon dioxide which are heavier than oxygen and nitrogen defy gravity?

How come ozone (O3) which is heavier than oxygen (O2) defies gravity?

How come clouds defy gravity?

How come the Earth and Sun don't fall on eachother by their gravitational attraction?

How come the moon doesn't fall towards the Earth at 9.8 m/s^2?



OilIsMastery said...

I say gravity is electromagnetic and this is known as plasma cosmology.

"The picture of an atom began to look more like a miniature solar system with an atomic nucleus for the sun, and electrons for planets. The analogy with the planetary system can be further strengthened by these facts: the atomic nucleus contains 99.97 per cent of the total atomic mass as compared with 99.87 per cent of the solar system concentrated in the sun, and the distances between the planetary electrons exceed their diameters by about the same factor (several thousand times) which we find when comparing interplanetary distances with the diameters of the planets. The more important analogy lies, however, in the fact that the electric attraction-forces between the atomic nucleus and the electrons obey the same mathematical law of inverse square (that is, the forces are inversely proportionate to the square of the distance between two bodies) as the gravity forces acting between the sun and the planets. This makes the electrons describe the circular and elliptic trajectories around the nucleus, similar to those along which the planets and comets move in the solar system." -- George Gamow, physicist, 1961

"...in 1913—G. E. Hale published his paper on “The general magnetic field of the sun” (Contr. M. Wilson Obs., #71), in which he estimated the general magnetic field of the sun as of 50 Gauss intensity. At this intensity “under certain conditions electromagnetic forces are much stronger than gravitation.” (Alfven) The last named author in his “cosmical Electro-dynamics” (Oxford, 1950, p. 2) shows that a hydrogen atom at the distance of the earth from the sun and moving with the earth’s orbital velocity, if ionized, is acted upon by the solar magnetic field ten thousand times stronger than by the solar gravitational field." -- Immanuel Velikovsky, cosmologist, 1952

"All planets revolve in approximately one plane. They revolve in a plane perpendicular to the lines of force of the sun’s magnetic field." -- Immanuel Velikovsky, cosmologist, 1946

"If an atom is built as a microcosmical model of a solar system, elements arriving from interatomic space, also travelling from one atom to another must be in existence. Contacts between elements, increase in numbers of electrons, polarities, change of orbits, all must take place. Change of orbits and emitting of energy at these moments were supposed by Bohr." -- Immanuel Velikovsky, cosmologist, November 1942

"An atom differs from the solar system by the fact that it is not gravitation that makes the electrons go round the nucleus, but electricity." -- Bertrand Russell, physicist/philosopher, 1924

"What we call mass would seem to be nothing but an appearance, and all inertia to be of electromagnetic origin." -- Henri Poincaré, physicist, 1908

"...the great truth, accidentally revealed and experimentally confirmed, is fully recognized, that this planet, with all its appalling immensity, is to electric currents virtually no more than a small metal ball...." -- Nikola Tesla, physicist, 1904

"Impossible as it seemed, this planet, despite its vast extent, behaved like a conductor of limited dimensions." -- Nikola Tesla, physicist, 1900

"[The] phenomena of electrical discharge are exceedingly important, and when they are better understood they will probably throw great light on the nature of electricity as well as on the nature of gases and of the medium pervading space." -- James C. Maxwell, physicist, 1873

"The long and constant persuasion that all the forces of nature are mutually dependent, having one common origin, or rather being different manifestations of one fundamental power, has often made me think on the possibility of establishing, by experiment, a connection between gravity and electricity …no terms could exaggerate the value of the relation they would establish.'' -- Michael Faraday, physicist, 1865

Anaconda said...

@ Jeffery Keown:
"I have a question. If not gravity, then what explanation for curvature of space and the simple fact that I'm being held in my chair by *something*"

I agree with OilIsMastery's answer to the first part, as far as it goes, but from my perspective further explanation is helpful.

Einstein's General Relativity theory, which hypothesizes the curvature of space, explains gravity using geometrical inferences, rather than physical forces exerted by matter. So in Einstein's view space has to be curved for matter to exert gravity.

But if matter exerts gravity directly on other objects by some internal force (a force inherent in matter) then one doesn't require space curvature.

Another way to put it: General Relativity describes gravity in unphysical geometric terms and doesn’t explain the component physical forces that cause it.

But to get to the second-half of your question, why are all of us held in our chairs?

And here is where OilIsMastery and I might differ.

My position is that there is a force of gravity that we all know from our daily experiences as you suggest.

And it is real. But the current understanding of gravity is flawed.

Gravity is not the result of a spacetime continuum, but as I suggested above, on inherent properties of matter itself.

If you are interested in an expansion of this idea, I suggest this link as an interesting dicussion of gravity and the difficulties with the current understanding:

22 August 2008
Electric Gravity in an Electric Universe(holoscience)

The article is not meant to be exhaustive, but rather to stimulate thought and present a hypothesis and perspective outside the currently accepted paradigm.

Raptor Lewis said...

If gravity does not exist, then what is keeping us from flying off the face of the planet? If it's one of those "Theories of Motion," then How come we can't notice the Earth rotating? Is it psychological like a lot of things seem to be?

BF said...

When controversy was still tolerated over Einstein’s theories, Sir Oliver Lodge, a noted Fellow of the Royal Society, wrote in Nature on Feb 17, 1921:

“..what is really wanted for a truly Natural Philosophy is a supplement to Newtonian mechanics, expressed in terms of the medium which he suspected and sought after but could not attain, and introducing the additional facts, chiefly electrical—especially the fact of variable inertia—discovered since his time…

If we could understand the structure of the particle, in terms of the medium of which it is composed, and if we knew the structure of the rest of the medium also, so as to account for the potential stress at every point—that would be a splendid step, beyond anything accomplished yet.”[8]

This is precisely the Electric Universe view. Natural Philosophy has withered in its confrontation with the modern fashion of mathematical metaphysics and computer games. Most of the ‘discoveries’ now are merely computer generated ‘virtual reality’ — black holes, dark matter, dark energy, etc. The computer models are constructed upon a shadowy kernel of ignorance. We do not understand gravity!

Einstein in his special theory of relativity postulated there was no medium, called the ‘aether.’ But Maxwell’s theory of electromagnetism requires it. And Sir Oliver Lodge saw the aether as crucial to our understanding. So Einstein, at a stroke, removed any possibility that he, or his followers, would find a link between electromagnetism and gravity. It served the egos of his followers to consecrate Einstein’s ideas and treat dissent as blasphemy. “Sometimes a concept is baffling not because it is profound but because it's wrong.”[9,10]

Decades later, Paul R. Heyl wrote in Scientific Monthly, May 1954:

“The more we study gravitation, the more there grows upon us the feeling that there is something peculiarly fundamental about this phenomenon to a degree that is unequalled among other natural phenomena. Its independence of the factors that affect other phenomena and its dependence only upon mass and distance suggest that its roots avoid things superficial and go down deep into the unseen, to the very essence of matter and space.” —Gravitation: Still A Mystery.

This sentiment has been echoed down to the present but few are listening. The problem has been worsened by the particle physicists who indulge in their own virtual reality — inventing “virtual particles” to transmit forces. If they “could understand the structure of the particle, in terms of the medium of which it is composed” and put flesh on the metaphysical bones of quantum theory we should be much further advanced. Sir Oliver Lodge deserves to be heard once more:

“..it may be that when the structure of an electron is understood, we shall see that an ‘even-powered’ stress in the surrounding aether is necessarily involved. What I do feel instinctively is that this is the direction for discovery, and what is needed is something internal and intrinsic, and that all attempts to explain gravitation as due to the action of some external agency, whether flying particles or impinging waves, are doomed to failure; for all these speculations regard the atom as a foreign substance -- a sort of ‘grit’ in the aether -- driven hither and thither by forces alien to itself. When, some day, we understand the real relation between matter and aether, I venture to predict that we shall perceive something more satisfying than that.”[11]