Jump to content

Welcome To The Netweather Forum!

Sign In or Register for full access to the community - including the regional forums.

Photo

Roger Smith's Unified Gravitation Theory


This topic has been archived. This means that you cannot reply to this topic.
39 replies to this topic

#1 Roger J Smith

Roger J Smith
  • Members
  • 4,790 posts

Posted 17 February 2011 - 11:31

Mass-dependent gravitation -- unified force theory -- everything changes (except gravitation)

Introduction

When Isaac Newton discovered gravitation in the 17th century, he worked out the value of a gravitational constant, G, which defined the strength of the earth's gravitational field as observed by the motion of the Moon in its orbit.

That "constant" had a known value based on any recognized value of the earth's mass, since the product (GxM) was known from the values of GM/R available from any set of experiments measuring gravitational acceleration. Since this is an elementary foundation of modern physics, I will note in passing that the conventional mass of the earth, namely 6.0 x 10^27 gm, is accepted along with the density of 5.4 ... so this theory is about the cosmology of the rest of the universe and relationships of gravitation to the much stronger electro-magnetic force which apparently binds a single electron to a single proton (in a hydrogen atom) at much higher rates of force than gravitation at least as far as we observe it in the earth-moon system. The electro-magnetic force is on the order of 2.3 x 10^39 times as strong as gravitation. But the author noted that distance for distance in larger atoms, the binding force began to drop off when compared between atoms of increasing mass and radius of electron shells, until it was only about 10^38 times as strong as gravitation for complex and large atoms like uranium-238. The situation there suggests that perhaps the electro-magnetic force obeys some unarticulated principle in which the one unified "electro-gravitational" force slowly drops off with increasing mass.

The author then investigated the concept that this slow decline in the value of G' (the revised value of G to make it mass-dependent) would continue through the range of masses encountered in the human-scale physical world and the cosmological world. What might that mean for cosmology?

In general, the key point to remember here is that for every other object in the solar system, galaxy and universe, the mass of objects has been estimated by assuming that G is constant, and observing the pull that objects exert on other objects that orbit them. If G is constant, then these planetary or stellar objects will have known masses based on that constant G, when the different rates of observed gravitational pull are considered. Since the mass of orbiting satellites (or planets) does not matter in this calculation (it is based simply on GM'/R where M' is the mass of the planet or star at the centre of orbital radius), it was rapidly calculated that for example Jupiter was exerting 318 times the gravitational pull of the earth on its moons, Saturn 95 times as great, etc, so that each planet's mass could be estimated from the earth's assumed mass. Similarly, the Sun has a theoretical mass about 0.33 million times that of the earth. And in conventional cosmology, the mass of these objects when compared to their volumes relative to the earth would give an idea of their density.

The new theory of mass-dependent gravitation requires instead that G'M' be equal to the currently accepted product GM' which means that if G' is different from G, then M' for each object must be revised to keep the product constant.

This means in general that objects thought to be heavier than the earth (not denser) must be heavier still, while objects thought to be lighter than the earth must be lighter still. And that changes everything we think we know about the solar system, the galaxy, and the universe. As you will see in the detailed discussions that follow, we may have blown everything in cosmology except for Venus, the earth and the asteroids. In the case of the asteroids, they exert very little pull on anything so we assume they are snowballs, ice balls or loose agglomerations of stones and dust. This may still be the case. However, prepare to have your mind entirely blown away by what everything else actually is ... and then ask yourself how we could prove this (or disprove it).

Further proof of the gradual reduction in scale of the unified force in larger atoms

The single hydrogen atom is very tightly bound together compared to the earth-moon system. If the earth were a proton and the Moon were an electron, then the Moon would have to whiz around the earth every few seconds to exhibit the same gravitational pull as the proton on the electron. But larger atoms have slightly weaker binding forces on their more numerous satellite electrons. Their nuclei weigh more in relative terms than hydrogen, so even if their electrons behaved exactly the same, the scale of the force would be weaker. However, the electrons are also slower in rotating around their orbits per unit distance, so it can be seen that by the time you get to the mid-range atoms like iron, the value of G' has dropped from 10^27 as with hydrogen, to 10^26. Out towards uranium, it drops further below 10^25. (at the mass of the earth, G is 6.67x10^-8..).

Consult the reference below for the relative ionization energies of the elements in the periodic table.

http://en.wikipedia....of_the_elements

Let's take a fairly straight-forward example. The energy to strip an electron from hydrogen is roughly equal to that required for oxygen. Now the oxygen atom has a mass (in most isotopes) 16 times that of hydrogen, but the electron to be captured is four times as far from the centre as it sits in ring 2 (there are minor variations in geometry which will, if this theory becomes generally accepted, become the field for detailed fine-tuning of the theory on the atomic scale, for now we are just concerned with a general indication of how the unified force is dropping off with increased mass.) So, getting back to the example, hydrogen is evidently requiring four times the unified force energy for escape, since its electron requires four times as much of a jolt to move it per unit of distance. Now if the geometry of the atoms is such that scales are also increasing slightly with greater mass and complexity, then our estimate of four times the value of G' is lowered somewhat towards 3.5 (because if the oxygen atom is wider in each ring, the energy required should be a bit less, so hydrogen is therefore not looking quite as strong relative to oxygen in its scaled gravitational field).

Looking further down the table in the reference above, one notes that after element 10, the values all go down considerably, and this is of course due to the fact that the elements now have three (or more) rings of electrons, so that now we are expecting the energy to be about one-ninth times the mass. Since these elements are generally 20-40 times the mass of hydrogen, their gravitational energy should be perhaps 3-5 times that of hydrogen, but it is only when we get to chlorine (17 Cl 35) with its mass of 35 times that of hydrogen that we find a roughly equal energy (a bit lower actually) potential. So this makes chlorine about 22% as strong a source as hydrogen per unit mass. Going on to the atoms with four rings, krypton (this makes me homesick) has roughly equal binding energy at presumably 16 times the distance for about 80 times the mass, so that this element is pulling at about 20% the rate of hydrogen. Then going down into the fifth ring, we find that xenon with about 130 times the mass of hydrogen needs about 80% of the energy to remove an electron at 25 times the distance. This works out to a gravitational potential in the vicinity of 16%. By the time you get to the most massive elements you are looking at values below 10 per cent.

Note that for hydrogen, if the unified force is 2.3 x 10*39 times as strong as G at earth's mass, then G' for hydrogen has exponent 32.2 (earth has exponent -7.2 from 6.67 x 10*-8..) and note all units are in the old c.g.s. system using grams not kgs (the ratios would be the same).

What does this imply about the scale of G' which we have come to call the "electro-magnetic force" in this mass range? The diagram below illustrates what happens, and how it extends towards the cosmological range of masses.

Below, in figure 1, you will see the gradual drop-off for G' from the mass of hydrogen (1 atomic mass unit or 1.67 x 10"-24 gm). Mass is arranged logarithmically from left to right, and the scaled value of G' is represented in the horizontal scale, also in logarithmic form.

Fig. 1 -- Values of G' for selected atomic masses

G'..... MASS >> -24.5 .... -24.0 .... -23.5 .... -23.0 .... -22.5 .... -22.0 .... -21.5

32.2 -----------------------------------H---------------------------------------------------------------------

32.0 ----------------------------------------------He---------------------------------------------------------

31.8 ---------------------------------------------------------O-----------------------------------------------
31.7 -------------------------------------------------------------Cl------------------------------------------
31.6 ------------------------------------------------------------------------Kr-------------------------------

31.4 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

31.2 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Rn-----------------

31.0 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------U--------

G'..... MASS >> -24.5 .... -24.0 .... -23.5 .... -23.0 .... -22.5 .... -22.0 .... -21.5

If all the other elements were plotted on a graph together with these examples, as I have done in my research notes, the curve would be a little uneven but would generally fall at the same pace throughout. Now, before we leave the atomic realm, how about the extension of this graph to the left to smaller masses. These would include the sub-atomic particles, electrons, quarks, neutrinos etc. I have not done much work "over there" because this is not my area of expertise and there is nothing very obvious about the application of this theory other than perhaps to the strong and weak forces which must await the work of other, more qualified researchers in the future. I am more interested in the extension of this curve (line?) to the right towards the mass range of familiar objects and then planets and stars (and satellites, asteroids, everything in space).

Also before we leave this section, I should point out that the curve or line that you might wish to draw over these points would fall at a slower rate for every increment that you imagined might exist in the expansion of scale of atoms as they get more massive and crowded with electrons. If uranium were to be proven ten times as spacious per electron ring as hydrogen, then there would be no real drop off at all. So if the increase in radius is on the order of 2-3 times this curve or line would drop off less precipitously. But for now we will go with the equal radius approach.

Extending the Unified Force G' variable towards higher mass values

It is now relatively simple to visualize what happens as G' continues to drop off at about one exponent value every third mass exponent value, and possibly more like one every two after a while since the curve is apparently increasing in slope gradually. After traversing the 51.6 logarithmic units of mass between a hydrogen nucleus (the proton) and the earth, the value of G' (at that point G) has increased 39.2 exponents. So this can be sketched out in the graph below, figure 2.

Fig. 2 -- Generalized connection between atomic scale G' and earth mass value of G

G' ........MASS . -24 -20 -16 -12 -08 -04 -00 +04 +08 +12 +16 +20 +24 +28

32..................xx...............................................
30....................xxxx...........................................
28.........................x..........................................
26.............................x.......................................
24................................x.....................................
22....................................x..................................
20........................................x...............................
18............................................x............................
16................................................x........................
14....................................................x......................
12........................................................x..........
10..............................................................x........
08.................................................................x......
06.....................................................................x........
04.........................................................................x......
02............................................................................x.....
00................................................................................x.......
-2......................................................................................x..
-4...........................................................................................x.
-6.............................................................................................x.
-8..................................................................................................x.(G).

G' ........MASS . -24 -20 -16 -12 -08 -04 -00 +04 +08 +12 +16 +20 +24 +28

The reader will note that around mass exponent 5, the mass of a human adult roughly (100,000 gms or 100 kgs) the value of G' is about 10^8 which would suggest a rather powerful gravitational attraction held by ordinary sized objects in our everyday world. This, I would submit, is dispersed within the general field of the object that dominates the local gravitational environment (the earth in our case) but also within magnetism and other electical phenomena. In any case, this part of the theory has no particular relevance to cosmology, other than to suggest that perhaps all space objects are more massive than we thought in which case (let's say the earth had density 100) the value of G is lower and the values of G' for everyday objects would also be lower.

Now, before we move on to the real meat of this new theory, the revised cosmology, just take in the general slope of the values of G' through the range 24 to 28 and note that it is falling at a fairly steady pace now of about one exponent in G for every exponent in mass. What does that imply about the real nature of solar system objects, stars and galaxies?

more to follow ... please do not comment until a second post appears in a few minutes' time. thanks.

Edited by Roger J Smith, 17 February 2011 - 12:14 .

_______________________________________________________________

Visit my CET daily data thread to see average temperatures for each day of the year and daily CET record highs and lows can now be seen in this link too.

http://forum.netweat...lues-1772-2011/

Roger Smith is also "Peter O'Donnell" currently chief forecaster for Irish Weather Online. Visit us on Facebook or at our web-site:

http://irishweathero...e.wordpress.com


#2 Roger J Smith

Roger J Smith
  • Members
  • 4,790 posts

Posted 17 February 2011 - 11:52

Implications for cosmology

With variable gravitational values from steadily decreasing G' through the range of mass in the solar system and galaxy, and the universe, we find the following two general principles:

Objects believed to be lighter than the earth are in fact much lighter and therefore less dense than conventionally believed

Objects believed to be heavier than the earth are in fact much heavier and therefore more dense than conventionally believed

A graph will be supplied later, with time factors and not wanting to have comments in the main body of this theory exposition, I am just going to post the bare bones of the cosmology implications today (tonight pour moi) and take it up in more detail.

Prepare to be astounded as perhaps never before.

IMPLICATIONS --

Starting with objects lighter than earth, first of all Venus, the mass is close enough to earth's mass, and in any case there was no satellite in orbit to give a true estimate, that we can assume there is no change of any great significance. Venus may be 80% as massive as we thought.

Mars is supposedly 10% of the earth's mass and more than half its density. In the new theory, with a lower mass and higher G' in the range of 6-10 times as great, we are faced with a new Mars, one that has a density near or slightly below that of water. Well that makes sense, it eliminates the long-standing crazy (to me at least) theory that Mars once had a very dense atmosphere and rain clouds, floods and all sorts of other things that clearly are no longer needed to explain the water-carved canyons. These are simply the results of asteroid impacts. Ditto the poles, remnant surface water flows that froze.

The Moon and various other satellites could be quite a bit less massive than expected, in fact, the Moon's G' ratio is so much higher that one suspects it could be hollow, therefore explaining the phenomenon of shallow ringing moonquakes. Sure, the crust is rock with density 3-4, but inside (about 50 kms deep, I calculate) the Moon is hollow and that is because it used to be like Mars, a water sphere, but lost the water slowly over time through venting, perhaps not completely, and this explains remnant water on the surface of the Moon in a few tiny amounts here and there.

Mercury, supposedly as dense as the earth? No, it's perhaps 10% that dense and could be similar to the Moon, hollow within perhaps a 100 km thick crust. The reason for that water evaporating should be fairly obvious.

Now, as to heavier objects ... let's start with Uranus and Neptune, thought to be 14 and 17 times the mass of the earth. In fact, with this theory they would be more like 200 and 400 times the mass of the earth and therefore fairly dense objects, perhaps metallic right out to within 1,000-3,000 kms of the cloud tops. This explains their strong magnetic fields.

Saturn, an even larger object, is much more than 95 times as massive as earth, and more like 2500 times as massive. It would be quite a dense object indeed and its atmosphere is likely about 1,000 to 3,000 kms thick. Jupiter would be about as massive as we currently think the Sun is, and metallic within its oblate gaseous atmosphere.

In general, the metallic nature of the outer planets would account for their stability, permanent features like the GRS that still drift around somewhat like atmospheric features, and banding that remains quite steady. If these planets were really giant gas balls, do you not suppose they would oscillate more and show great instability at times?

On to the Sun ... here we have an object likely to be a million times or more as massive as we had first thought. This would make the Sun a very dense metallic object, no wonder it is highly magnetized, spinning slowly, and covered with electrons. The same goes for most other stars. So that makes the galaxies much more massive, the universe way more massive, and voila, no missing mass any more. By the way, the Scottish astronomer Wilson had this same theory when he first observed sunspots near the solar limb. Apparently (try not to laugh too much) sunspots are glimpses of the hot but not super super hot metallic solar surface cleaned out of electrons for the time being. No wonder they have strong magnetic fields and look dark.

Now, it is possible that the curve of G' through this range is shallower because perhaps it dropped off more from the atomic range then began to approach the G asymptote so to speak although still at an angle. That just changes the density of objects in this round-up, not the general principles.

Another very strong indicator is orbital radius of satellites. These, as I will attempt to show later in the discussion, conform to expanding squares like electron rings. It is even possible that on some mysterious scale that we cannot really fathom, the earth and Moon for example are not in the ratio 81:1 for mass but 1836:1 and that they form a giant hydrogen molecule. There are mass ratios in the outer solar system already that resemble the methane molecule on a large scale, check out the conventional masses of Jupiter, Saturn and (U + N) ... and how many electrons should CH4 have? About ten ... how many large moons are shared by these planets? About ten.

Hey hey hey. Something much, much different is going on in our solar system and galaxy and universe than we had previously imagined.

Over 2 u.

Remember the old solar system? It just died.

#3 La Bise

La Bise

    Lone Wanderer

  • Members
  • 563 posts

Posted 17 February 2011 - 12:29

:blink:




There will be fair winds and foul, days of sun and days of rain. But enjoy them all.

#4 johnholmes

johnholmes
  • Members
  • 30,843 posts

Posted 17 February 2011 - 12:33

:blink:






I know what you mean

Roger I wish I had half your mental ability in these matters

I no longer have a web page

please take care with sunbathing-it can give problems years down the line with skin cancer as I discovered


#5 Richie V

Richie V

    Look mummy, no face!

  • Members
  • 1,175 posts

Posted 17 February 2011 - 12:47

Two of the best posts in Netweather forum history. Gratis to you old chap, a BRILLIANT read :good:
Best regards
Ric

Edited by Chassisbot, 17 February 2011 - 12:48 .

Posted Image
www.barnsleyweather.com

Barnsleyweather currently under re-construction (badly out of date)
"Pippin, It's time to fly"

SACRA MEMBER 218

#6 Coast

Coast

    Rider on the storm

  • Members
  • 33,294 posts

Posted 17 February 2011 - 12:50

Roger I wish I had half your mental ability in these matters

and I wish I had 10% of that in all matters. I'm sure this is ground breaking, but my GCE physics was done a long time ago.....

SAAB Convertible

Posted Image

Now, you listen here:'e's not the Messiah,'e's a very naughty boy!
Views & opinions expressed in any of my posts are my own - but the voices made me do it


#7 Sparkicle

Sparkicle

    Occluded Brain

  • Members
  • 5,821 posts

Posted 17 February 2011 - 12:57

It seems others are onto the same idea, here. I don't know how 'good' it is, but I rather like the idea. Nice posts, Roger :)

Beware of geeks bearing gifs


#8 PersianPaladin

PersianPaladin
  • Members
  • 11,329 posts

Posted 17 February 2011 - 13:25

In the plasma cosmology model...there was an attempt by physicist Wal Thornhill to explain why G is not a constant:-

http://www.holoscien...rticle=89xdcmfs

I understand Wal Thornhill developed R.Sansbury's model concerning "electric" gravity:-

http://www.thunderbo...c.php?f=8&t=384

It's not entirely settled though, and personally - I'm not happy about Sansbury's work. However, if gravity is a secondary (and much weaker) force derived from the interaction of electromagnetic plasmas in a relative vaccum - then clearly we have more to learn about space plasma interactions.

Comets - Not What We Expected




What we don't know:-

http://sites.google....t-we-don-t-know

Edited by PersianPaladin, 17 February 2011 - 18:07 .


#9 ajpoolshark

ajpoolshark

    Born again Guitar Maestro

  • Forum Team
  • 7,146 posts

Posted 17 February 2011 - 13:38

It seems others are onto the same idea, here. I don't know how 'good' it is, but I rather like the idea. Nice posts, Roger :)

It appears the link leads to an article nearly 20 years old??......Thats before 'Dark Energy' reared it's ugly head and changed scientific thinking...

Back to Roger's post, certainly a fascinating read, and I'm always open to new theories in the realms of cosmology, (I've also been reading up on PP's 'Plasma' theory) but at the present juncture, I don't buy into it...I have especially found it hard to get around the idea of, and I qoute ....."Objects believed to be lighter than the earth are in fact much lighter and therefore less dense than conventionally believed

Objects believed to be heavier than the earth are in fact much heavier and therefore more dense than conventionally believed" and the cited examples.....Surely if Jupiter, for example, had in reality as much mass as we currently believe the sun to have, then it would simply collapse under it's own mass, commence nuclear fusion, and become a star itself...Saturn would also collapse under it's own mass, and become a brown dwarf, and if the sun has more than 8 times the current estimated mass, then it's demise is far more voilent, and will result in a supernova.....I'm obviously missing something here....

...edit, I was going to delete this post, but on second thoughts, would like to leave it, so if I haven't understood Roger's theory, then I can be critiqued, thus helping me understand more fully :)
RAF Lyneham, Wilts....500ft asl


Legal Disclaimer......The opinions of ajpoolshark are not necessarily his own, it's sometimes the voices in his head

A New & Emerging forum for all things Sport related, well worth a look! http://www.thesports...forum/index.php

My YouTube Channel Here

#10 Radiating Dendrite

Radiating Dendrite

    Winter Slave

  • Members
  • 2,159 posts

Posted 17 February 2011 - 13:43

Interesting.

I will not pretend to understand all of it. One question though, you say that the outer planets (Jupiter to Neptune) would be giant metal balls essentially. I thought that probes had detected the gases as being present? Additionally, would such a theory have implications for the notion that Jupiter was potentially a failed star?

#11 Iceberg

Iceberg
  • Members
  • 5,861 posts

Posted 17 February 2011 - 13:51

um....I think the attraction of mass on an atomic and sub-atomic level are not based upon the same forces as that for the molecular and large scales. Isn't this way various sub atomic particles have weird and wonderful behaviours such as the ability to exist in different locations at the same time i.e it can get from a to c without going through b. something that largers mass masses can't do.

North Dorset, in the hilly bit surround by 600-800ft hills.

Also at twitter https://twitter.com/IcebergShares

 


#12 Iceberg

Iceberg
  • Members
  • 5,861 posts

Posted 17 February 2011 - 14:02

Sorry just looked up to refresh my mind on things and it's called the universal field theory, which combines with string theory(sheldons specialist area).

i.e you can't just view a force like gravity in isolation when comparing the very tiny and the very big as their are four fundamental forces only one being gravity.
With Nuclear and electromagnetic increases as you go through particles, molecules and sub-atomics.

North Dorset, in the hilly bit surround by 600-800ft hills.

Also at twitter https://twitter.com/IcebergShares

 


#13 Backtrack

Backtrack

    Kamehameha!

  • Members
  • 9,495 posts

Posted 17 February 2011 - 14:09

Was this copied and pasted from Stephen Hawking's blog?

You have the brain of a scientist, go and work for NASA.
Winter 2012/2013

Snow lying: January: 18th (5-6cm, blowing snow) 19th (3-4cm level) 20th (3-4cm level, slight top up) 21st (5-6cm, proper snow). 25th Jan - (5-6 inches) 26th Jan (a load of slush 3-5cm).
Snow falling: January 18th,19th,20th,21st, 23rd, 25th.
Min temp: -2.1C
Max temp: 13C.

http://convergence-zone.blogspot.com/

12z GEFS suite is very strong on blocking to our N and NE, with an equally strong (if not stronger) signature for block to retrogress towards Greenland in the extended frames as the pv is transferred towards Siberia (which has been a consistent signal now for a few days).

Get set. It's coming.


Runcorn, Cheshire.

#14 La Bise

La Bise

    Lone Wanderer

  • Members
  • 563 posts

Posted 17 February 2011 - 14:47

The bit about the sun being made of metal is...interesting. I'd like to see Hawking face if he were to read this mind... :whistling:


There will be fair winds and foul, days of sun and days of rain. But enjoy them all.

#15 in the vale

in the vale
  • Members
  • 273 posts

Posted 17 February 2011 - 21:22

 Forgive me Roger for maybe being dense (pun intended), but is not mass likely to be relative rather than absolute? i.e. is mass not a measurable constant, but only a measure of your relative positions/density. Is that not why the search for the Higgs is perhaps only ever likely to reveal yet another layer in the onion of the Standard Model? IM(incredibly humble)O, the answer to "what gives mass" lies in the relation between very small (as yet undiscovered) things, rather than in an independently observable thing like a new 17th elementary particle. Gawd, I hope I don't come across like I know my onions here, because I don't.  

Edited by in the vale, 17 February 2011 - 21:23 .


#16 Roger J Smith

Roger J Smith
  • Members
  • 4,790 posts

Posted 17 February 2011 - 21:26

I have to confess, this theory was first developed in the 1980s during my earlier weather research, about the time where I found that the lunar parts of the model needed to be augmented by field sectors. The main "trigger" for thinking along these lines was the nagging doubt in my mind about Mars once having a dense atmosphere and rainfall. A planet 1.4 to 1.7 times our distance from the Sun with 10% of our gravitational pull supporting that kind of atmosphere just seemed plain wrong to me -- and so I just had the concept, what if Mars was just a big ball of ice or liquid water or slush, covered in rock? Then it would have to be a lot less massive than we thought. But we know what the value of G'M' would be because of its two orbiting moonlets. So that would have to mean G' for Mars was greater than G here on the earth. So that got me to thinking about the Moon which I realized was progressively less massive than Mars, so its G' would have to be more separated from G. And that would imply a hollow Moon. It wasn't long (ten minutes) before I started thinking about more massive objects and the reverse paradigm, then that sort of eureka moment, what about atoms and that much stronger force I vaguely remembered from high school physics (I studied organic chemistry and relativity at university in my haphazard route to climatology, but my physics and astronomy have had to rest on home study past what you would call O levels).

By the way, on the I.Q. or science education questions, just your garden variety high-aptitude person in the same range as everyone else reading most threads on net-weather, I slogged my way through special relativity and barely passed some organic chemistry classes that have done me absolutely no good since, and I am a keen amateur astronomer familiar with conventional astronomy but not claiming tremendous expertise in cosmology 2011 style, perhaps more like 2020 style. Perhaps an asteroid will crash into Mars or the Moon some day and do my validation study in real time. The Moon being hollow should be a fairly easy thing for us to prove, as should Jupiter's metallic core being closer to cloud-top levels, or Mars having large amounts of water in some form close to the surface. The Sun not being a nuclear furnace after all might have really transforming implications, one of which would be, the Hertzsprung-Russell diagram may need to be given a major rethink (as in stars don't transform from one type to another through exhaustion of nuclear fuel, they just go on attracting electrons until one day something causes the process to change and -- boom, or go dark, or turn into a Jupiter.)

Shortly after contemplating the above, I got into the detailed study of atoms, binding energy and electron rings, etc, and my notes on that have been sitting around for 23 years to the point where my recent re-interest in the theory needed almost a re-boot from scratch of the study since I was looking at graphs and numbers that were not quite top-of-mind familiar. Apparently instead of the table I linked above, I had tables of binding energy in electron volts, worked out the same set of numbers, and came to the same conclusions. I also have some rather obscure looking curves that go through the sub-atomic mass range between electrons and protons, and some notes about how neutrons either don't exist (so that atomic masses are smaller) or don't have gravitation. Probably all this has to do with the question of quarks which goes totally over my head (I never studied quarks, don't understand what the hell they are and given my other workloads, don't really have space left for them). No doubt they help to integrate those two other forces "weak and strong" into the whole system. Let's assume that everything is related but that for the sake of the cosmology arguments, it doesn't really matter if there are independent strong and weak forces.

Anyway, I rather rushed my posts last night to get out ahead of the commentary. Thanks for all of it. Yes, if this theory is true, all of modern science is going to have a major egg-on-face moment, seeing as how everything "out there" is much, much different than we thought.

A few points in response to comments. Keep in mind that this theory does not change gravitational pull as we understand it, the product G'M' is equal to the assumed values of GM for each object, so they are not under different gravitational forces at their surfaces or necessarily within solid interiors.

What did not get into the first draft above is this key observation: the slope of the relation between log G' and log M' would be -0.76 if linear, but looks more like -0.5 in the atomic range. This could be improved to -0.76 by assuming either the large atoms have rings that progress at ratios less than 1,4,9,16,25,36,49 as per classical theory, or, if mass in their nuclei are greater (more neutrons), or if we need to consider some complexity of interactions of multiple electrons nearby.

In any case, the theory works out best in the solar system if the slope of the relation is actually a long slowly decreasing (in slope) curve that has slope about -0.5 in the solar system range. The slope cannot be any value less than -1.0 (a steeper negative slope) because that would result in G'M' lines through conventional M on the G -7.2 line (earth's G) never intersecting the G'M' curve. And a slope of -0.76 creates too much deflation and inflation of mass for pretty explanations. So check this out, everything here is reduced to the nearest 0.5 on an exponent grid, so at this coarse level, G is -7 ... and earth mass is 28.0 ... although the graph has finer steps for mass than for G' so it allows a bit of leeway for mass positions. First of all, review the position of the planets and our Moon along the "G axis" or G' = -7. Then review the slope -0.76 represented by letters A through the graph. This would give a linear connection to the atomic range. Then review points near slope -0.5 that have letter symbols with an explanation below the graph (these letters represent "nice" explanations of the transformed M' values). I call this curve the nice curve and -0.76 the nasty curve. If the curve were -0.9 it would be super-nasty.

G' ..M >> . 26.0 . 26.5 . 27.0 . 27.5 . 28.0 . 28.5 . 29.0 . 29.5 . 30.0 . 30.5 . 31.0 . 31.5 . 32.0 . 32.5 . 33.0
v
v
-5........A.......................................................................................................
...DD.................A................................................................................................
-6..........CC...................A........................................................................................
...........................BB...............A................................................................................
-7........Mo......Me........Ma............V..E......................U.N.....S......J..............................................Sun
...............................................................A...................................................................
-8......................................................................A........................FF...GG................................
..................................................................................A......................GG.........HH......................
-9..........................................................................................A.......................................KK.......
......................................................................................................A..............................................................LL
-10..................................................................................................................A.......................................................................MM

Explanation of the "nice curve" data points:

DD would be Moon at 1/1836 of earth's mass.
CC is hollow Mercury density 0.6.
BB is watery Mars density 1.3.
not shown is a data point for Venus just slightly "northwest" of V on the graph
E is earth, on any postulated curve (or we are really in trouble)
FF is Uranus density 6
GG (two plots) surround actual position for Neptune density 6
HH is Saturn density 25
KK is Jupiter density 50
LL is a visual aid for the "nice curve" but would represent Alpha Centauri density 100
MM is Sun density 200

Now, the nice curve may actually have less slope than shown here. What's shown here is a line with slope about -0.35, but perhaps the actual values are along a curve with slope -0.4 to the left of mass 28 and -0.3 or even -0.2 in the stellar zone. Perhaps the curve starts to flatten towards an asymptote of G' -11 for galaxy-mass objects. This would imply that galaxies are 1800 times as massive as we believe. If all the stars in them are 100-1000 times as massive this would imply a few extra stars, large unseen planetary objects, etc, but not really up to the current level of so-called missing mass (which is no longer needed to explain anything).

Why is a galaxy 1800 times as massive in this hypothesis? Because in conventional astronomy, a galaxy is supposedly a collection of 10^11 stars with average mass perhaps 10^34 grams, so a total mass in the vicinity of 10^45. The GM product for that given G at -7.2 would be about 10^37.8. But if G' is -11, then M' must be 48.8, which is about 1800 times 45 (taking logarithms into account). Some value between -10.5 and -11.5 may prove to be the final value, beyond which the universe does not deal ... so ...

What does this say about the Big Bang theory? I really don't know. But it whispers of a more stable universe somehow, if stars are not expanding and transforming. Perhaps they transform by aggregating their unfortunate satellites.

Anyway, from my perspective, very confident assertions about what happened in the first five seconds of some event 13 billion years ago must remain in the realm of debatable speculation. I am not even that certain that long time scales are guaranteed, while not a literal creationist, I do like the concepts of intelligent design since apparently a lot of thought went into the creation of this universe, and one has to wonder, who did that and when?

There may be clues hidden in this theory. And by the way, if many large objects like the Moon are hollow, who's to say what's hidden within them? Or whom?

This is interesting in philosophical rather than physical terms ... the cube mentioned in Revelations 21 as being the "holy city, the heavenly Jerusalem" is a cube with sides of approximately 1500 to 2000 kms (from comparison with known values of cubits). Now this could be an allegory for an unfolding geometric two-dimensional construct on the earth, or it could be an allegory or even a real description for an object that would fit neatly inside the Moon.

Other places that need to have a rethink -- Ganymede, Callisto, Titan, Triton, Io, all the medium sized moons, large asteroids. Pluto was not mentioned yet, but it would fit into the theory as being a giant snowball with density 0.15, something that collected a lot of dust and is sort of like what we call a slushie over here.

Perhaps Ceres and Vesta are like that, while certain other asteroids are loose rock and empty space agglomerations with some ice. There are quasi-solid structures for them but they may have masses even lower than .01 what we now think they are. Since we know what comets are like from investigation rather than gravitation, this basically tends to unite the spectrum of asteroids, comets and dust clouds somewhat more easily than current ideas where asteroids are thought to have density values of 2-5 in most cases (there is even one out there with a supposed density of 30, probably that one is a big chunk of an outer planet with density 5-7).

Anyway, thought everyone might like to mull this over and if NASA announces that Mars is made of water or somebody fell through the lunar crust and found themselves in heaven, it wouldn't come as too big a surprise.

#17 stewfox

stewfox
  • Members
  • 3,861 posts

Posted 17 February 2011 - 21:59

So how would this tie in with the big bang theory ?

You have your hidden mass ?

Wouldn't the universe have already started to contract, all the evidence suggests its still expanding, we can stop looking for dark matter.

Or does the light and heavy cancel each other out ?

#18 La Bise

La Bise

    Lone Wanderer

  • Members
  • 563 posts

Posted 18 February 2011 - 00:45

I'm sorry Roger but this comes straight to my mind after that latest batch of revelations...

Denzil Dexter speaks


The moon is made of cheese and the stars are the souls of the dead anyhow, everybody knows that...:lol:


There will be fair winds and foul, days of sun and days of rain. But enjoy them all.

#19 Roger J Smith

Roger J Smith
  • Members
  • 4,790 posts

Posted 18 February 2011 - 03:01

I know this is a very obscure theory, except for the results it suggests being more common sense than conventional physics. If we had started with this right after Newton, perhaps it would have prompted a different evolution of cosmology altogether.

The concept that I think I need to explain a little more clearly than so far, is what I call "constant m-g" or the invariance of the product GM for any object, once calculated from observations of its gravitational pull on orbiting satellites (planets).

This principle is basically GM = G'M'

such that if you postulate a different mass independent of the constant-G paradigm, then you are required to adjust G to G' to preserve the product of GM.

Example with Mars (simplified) would be along these lines.

Mars is 0.06 the mass of earth (approx). You wish to reduce that in a thought experiment to 0.02 so as to visualize Mars as being about as dense as liquid water. Then you must increase G by the factor of 3, since you've reduced mass to one-third. That means G is no longer 6.67 x 10^-8 but 2 x 10^-7

But if you require this diagonal line (slope -1.0) of all valid G'M' products to lie on the linear slope -0.76 that connects earth to the hydrogen atom, then the diagonal will have to keep moving up to the left on the graph until it hits that sloping line. Where would that occur?

Remember here that G is at exponent value -7.2 ... Okay if earth is at 27.8 and Mars at 26.5 on the mass scale, then a line for equal G'M' through Mars' position on the graph (26.5, -7.2) would run through (25.5, -6.2) and (24.5, -5.2) while the sloped "linear variable gravitation" hits (26.5, -6.2) and (25.5, -5.4) approx, then (24.5, -4.7). You'll see that the Mars G'M' diagonal would not intersect this linear postulated slope until around mass 23, which would make its density .001 -- mainly gas and given at least a 40 km crust, not plausible or feasible. So we know the curve in reality must slope less than -0.76 in this vicinity.

However, here's the key point, since we now postulate that gravitation gradually strengthens for smaller mass objects per unit mass, the less dense version of Mars has the same gravitational pull on its moons and visitors etc as we now believe. That does not change.

Now here's a somewhat different concept -- whether we take conventional or revised mass-variable gravitation, the strength at surface of the spheroid remains fairly dependent on the function of profile area (size of object) divided by albedo.

Let's briefly examine that. Earth can be given a "profile area" of 1 based on its radius of 6,400 kms. Earth's albedo is about .35 on average. Mars is a darker object half the radius of earth, therefore one-quarter the area profile (size of the disk) with albedo closer to .15 ... now compare, for earth (1 x .35) = .35 and for Mars (0.25 x 0.17) = 0.043. The ratio of .35 to .043 is about the same as the GM ratios for earth and Mars. (GM ratios are mass ratios in conventional cosmology). For Jupiter, a brighter object than earth in terms of albedo, we have (130 x.7) or 91 which is about 270 times that of the earth (Jupiter is 318 earth mass units). For Saturn, we find (90 x .45) or 40.25 which would be about 110 times earth (should be 95). For Mercury, about .12 x .1 or .01, whereas the mass ratio is about the same. For Uranus and Neptune, if we took their albedos at 0.35 similar to earth, then their mass ratios would require disks 3.8 and 4.1 times as big as earth -- the actual values are not far from those. The actual albedos are a bit higher and so we would expect the disks to be slightly smaller than the quoted values there.

What this suggests, whether we like conventional or revised gravitation, is that attraction to a body depends on how much of the background sky it blocks times how efficient it is at repelling particles aimed at it.

A perfect reflector (1.0) would be 10 times as strong as another similar object with similar mass and a dark reflective albedo of 0.1.

What process does that suggest?

It actually suggests a counter-intuitive process. You would think that all other things being equal, objects would fall in towards a central point more easily if they didn't have to get past more obstacles in the form of reflected particles and photons. But it seems to work that way. The Sun would have a surface area factor of about 20,000 vs the earth, and its GM ratio is 300,000. That makes the albedo of the Sun 15 ... in this system ... and so I call this concept "grav-albedo" to compare it to normal albedo (the albedo of the Sun is a rather difficult thing to estimate, it is radiating great amounts of energy and particles so it is way higher than 1.0 ... but for that matter, Jupiter radiates to some extent as well, which may be why it fell short of grav-albedo by about 20 or 30 per cent. Its grav-albedo works out to 0.9 or so.

Whether this concept could get us any closer to understanding what makes gravitation work, remains to be seen, but I find the general alignment of the planetary cases intruiguing.

Venus, whose mass we need to estimate more from theory since there are no moons, would have equal mass to earth at 80% the surface area of disk, if its albedo were 1.25 that of earth (and it is actually higher than that at 0.7). It is therefore possible that Venus is more massive than we formerly thought.

Possibly this concept works on the basis of higher energy levels in the flow of particles in the vicinity of the more reflective and especially the radiating sources of gravitational pull.

Since a black hole has albedo close to zero by definition, perhaps this is why we do not actually experience a lot of objects being pulled into them. Also they are not necessarily very large.

Just to review, the concept here is that GM and/or G'M' (equal products for any given object) varies with radius squared times albedo.

-------------------------------

Examination of atomic model of solar system

We're not quite done yet.

I mentioned earlier that the electron radius model could apply in astronomical scales.

Here is the best fit that I could find between successive squares and the orbital radii of the planets:

PLANET ... orbital radius AU ... corresponding square of .... gives ratio of

Mercury ....... .38 ................ 9(3) ....................... .042
Venus ......... .72 ................16(4) ....................... .045
Earth ......... 1.0 ................25 (5) ...................... .040
Mars .......... 1.52 ...............36 (6) ...................... .042
Vesta ......... 2.36 ...............49 (7) ...................... .048
Ceres ......... 2.77 ...............64 (8.) ...................... .042
Cybele group ... 3.5 ...............81 (9) ...................... .043
see below ...... 4.2 ..............100 (10) ..................... .042
Jupiter ........ 5.2 ..............121 (11) ..................... .043
Saturn ......... 9.6 ..............225 (15) ..................... .043
Uranus ........ 19.1 ..............484 (22) ..................... .04
Neptune ....... 30.2 ..............729 (27) ..................... .042

beyond that, too many squares to make any calculations non-random.

but these line up rather well, group "10" at 4.2 a.u. is just a few minor asteroids in a zone cleared out by Jupiter's massive force, and between S and U would be Chiron near position 19.

So, what's at positions 1 and 2. These would be at .042 AU and .17 AU, quite close to the Sun (whose outer plasma would be around .01 AU). Clearly nothing survives around ring one, but ring two marks the closest approach of various asteroids on eccentric orbits. We should note that in the asteroid belt, there are various signs of "sub-shells" given that between rings 6, 7, 8, and 9 as defined here, we find sub-groups around 2.1, 2.5, and 3.0 AU. These are also known as the resonant groups separated by "Kirkwood gaps."

Some time later I will post similar reports on atomic radii concepts for the large Jupiter and Saturn systems.

The Sun's "primary radius" then (n = 1) is 0.042 AU, or roughly 6 x 10^11 cm. The scale of the "sun atom" to the "uranium atom" is about 10^20 times as large. We'll see what ratio Jupiter and Saturn produce.

Edited by Roger J Smith, 18 February 2011 - 03:02 .


#20 Roger J Smith

Roger J Smith
  • Members
  • 4,790 posts

Posted 18 February 2011 - 06:10

Best fit for Jupiter's satellite system viewed as electron shell radii

Moving on to the second largest solar system object's impressive family of satellites, we first look at the four large "Galilean satellites" Io, Europa, Ganymede, and Callisto, which by the way are locked into resonant orbits such that J-I (Io), J-II (Europa) and J-III (Ganymede) never reach similar alignments in triples, but only in three sets of doubles. They are close to being in a 1:2:4 ratio of periods but the precise ratios are 31:61:121. That is to say, 61 times Ganymede's (synodic) period (7.166d) equals 123 times Europa's period (3.554 d) and 243 times Io's period (1.77d). (61, 41x3, 81x3)

These periods all fit into a complex 437.15 day cycle (earth day, that is).

However, this interesting factoid has no further importance (as far as I know) in our discussion. Let's check the orbital radii of the four main Jovian moons (Jovian = of Jupiter, by Jove). Added to the list, J-V (Amalthea) discovered later and closer to Jupiter. Radius in thousands of km or 10^8 cm.

Satellite ... orbital radius ... square ... ratio

Amalthea (V) . 181 .......... 2 (4) ....... 45.25
Io (I) ...... 422 ........... 3 (9) ...... 46.89
Europa (II) . 671 ........... 4 (16) ...... 41.94
Ganymede (III) 1070 ......... 5 (25) ...... 42.8
Callisto (IV) 1883 .......... 6 (36) ...... 52.3
or Cal (IV) ...................7 (49) ..... 38.43

J-VI ....... 11480 ........... 26 (256) .... 44.84

and there are numerous other moonlets in rings from 25 to 50.

These are excluded for the same reasons given for the outer solar system, too likely to overlap narrow bands.

What have we here then?

The primary radius (n = 1) appears to be 42,000 kms. The larger moons occupy rings 2, 3, 4, 5 and then Callisto is between 6 and 7. Is this a sign of an unstable orbit? It is also quite irregularly linked to the resonances described above (period 16.75 days).

What is located at 42,000 km from the centre of Jupiter? Well, the radius of Jupiter is between 65 and 72 thousand km due to severe equatorial oblateness (Jupiter spins every 9h 42m). That would place 42 thousand km inside the gaseous atmosphere perhaps somewhere near the actual solid surface in our revised cosmology.

Comparing with the Sun, n=1 is 4.2 x 10^9 cm whereas the Sun's primary radius was calculated to be 6 x 10^11 cm. The ratio for Jupiter to Sun is therefore about 1 to 140.

What sort of "atom" is Jupiter in conceptual terms? We have noted that earth's mass represents roughly hydrogen on the planetary scale if our Moon is one electron in those terms. These four large moons are all roughly similar in mass to the Moon (although Europa about half and Ganymede twice as much). But with four orbital rings filled and dwarf Amalthea in ring 2, what we may have (taking the atmosphere and rings as one Europa satellite unit) is something like a mid-range atom with a mass number around 40-50. The electron rings correspond to 1,0,2,1,4,3 units or a multiple (the first number here is arbitrary). If we set this at 8,0,10,6,18,14 then we have an element of about 56 atomic mass units. Looking through that part of the periodic table, we might speculate that Jupiter is a giant scale model for barium.

Note that electron mass analogues are gradually changing with size of these systems. Amalthea and the very small outer moonlets fit into this paradigm as sub-atomic or unknowns.

These are all very tentative illustrations, the main thing here is that the large-scale structure of the system resembles to some extent the atomic model.

Finally (for now) what about Saturn's various mid-sized moons and its one larger moon Titan? This model comes close to an atomic radius model but is complex around rings 3-4.

Satellites .... Orbits .... Squares .... Ratios
_________________________________________________

inner core? .... 33 ....... 1 (1) ...... 33
gas surface ..... 66 ........ 1.4 (2) ... 33
rings ......... 132 ......... 2 (4) .... 33 (these are all approximate from model)
Mimas ......... 186 ......... 3 (9).... 20.7 (this is shell 3a)
Enceladus ..... 238 ......... 3 (9).... 26.4 (this is shell 3b)
Tethys ........ 294 ......... 3 (9).... 33.1 (this is shell 3c)
Dione ......... 377 ......... 4 (16).... 23.6 (this is shell 4a)
Rhea .......... 527 ......... 4 (16).... 32.9 (this is shell 4b)
Titan ........ 1222 ......... 6 (36).... 33.9
Hyperion ..... 1481 ......... 7 (49).... 30.6
Iapetus ...... 3561 ......... 10 (100) . 35.6
Phoebe ...... 12952 ......... 20 (400) . 32.4

The organizing n=1 value here is 33,000 km or about 78% that of Jupiter, very close to the size ratio of Jupiter and Saturn themselves.

This is an object with one dominant electron ring analogue, ring 6. Unless ring 1 contributes a lot more than the small moons, this ring is more than half the total mass of the orbiting material.

At first glance, this system is less similar to an atom than Jupiter's system.