Roger Smith's Unified Gravitation Theory

[PersianPaladin]

Roger....I suggest you have a look at my "Rethinking mainstream cosmology thread".

In my humble opinion - gravity does not have the primary role in the universe.

[Roger J Smith]

Thanks, PP, will have a look some time this weekend.

Here's a brief summary of why I favour my revised theory over conventional from the Occam's razor point of view as well as clearing up some disputed points.

** unifies two similar forces postulated to be different

** accounts for missing mass of universe

** gives plausible revisions of cosmology

** eliminates dubious "Mars rainfall cycle" needed in conventional theory

** close fit to logical extension of orbital radius

** not inconsistent with magnetism in mass range between atomic and astronomical

** does not change known reality of gravitation (since G'M' = GM)

** testable in solar system (Mars water, Moon Mercury hollow seem easiest tests)

** shows new relationships of various solar system objects

** better explains very stable spheroid nature of postulated gas giants, Sun

** combines with grav-albedo concept to give actual physical basis for gravitation (quantitative changes in 3-d environment, this part needs further work)

** sounds crazy at first, always a sign of a breakthrough

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

meanwhile, I am thinking about any possible thought experiments that could investigate the concept of mass-dependent gravitation further. (proof or disproof paradigms welcome)

One would be along the lines of adding mass to the earth, from known masses with higher values of G than the earth. What happens as a result (in reality this is constantly happening as earth's mass swells from net accumulation of incoming particles minus radiation and losses to space).

Here's a rough first draft of that scenario. Imagine that a space mission captures a small asteroid and somehow brings this back to the earth's surface intact. Its mass is one millionth that of the earth according to conventional cosmology and one billionth according to revised. Its gravitational field in space was G according to conventional and 1,000 G according to revised.

Conventional is elementary.

G x (Mass of earth plus asteroid) = GMe + GMa

no new gravitational force or energy is created by the fusion of two fields.

Revised looks like this.

G' x (Mass of earth plus asteroid) = GMe + G'Ma' = GMe + GMa

therefore revised theory implies with lower G' the expanded earth must have more mass now than accounted for in conventional theory. This can be explained by principle that grav albedo is normally lower for smaller masses, meaning that earth's new albedo is slightly lower, therefore the earth reflects fewer particles, therefore it accumulates more mass. This process has a diminishing forward time lapse as the new mass is incorporated more evenly into the non-surface portions of the earth (in other words, decomposition over time or burial over time in new material accumulating).

Thus we can begin to account for seeming paradoxes in the theory. Attempted fusions of gravitational fields that become unstable will destroy the objects around which the fields are located. In other words, if the process of merging the two fields is too unstable in its time-sensitive evolution, the process will end with a redistribution (explosive most likely, or collapsing to a point). Here again this explains the two things we see happening in the universe that contradict general "stability" -- explosions and contractions to a small area or point.

[frogesque]

Extra-ordinary claims require extra-ordinary proof.

You have not adressed Cassini/Hygens Saturn/Titatan and a SPRING propultion system that acted entirely as predited from Newtonian mechanics.

[Roger J Smith]

I've addressed it by saying that in the revised relationship of mass and gravitation, for solar system cases, the existing conventional mass times constant G will equal revised mass times mass-dependent G, so that gravitational fields will remain the same. The only places where they would not remain the same would be where we have no estimates for mass based on constant-G and the observed motion of satellites in orbit around objects.

So for example unexpectedly strong gravitational attraction might be observed very close to denser asteroids that actually had the mass expected from conventional theory. But nobody has any data from the close vicinity of said objects.

[Snowyowl9]

Fascinating stuff.

Have you ever wondered how fast we are travelling through space.

34km per sec around the sun.

269km per sec around the milkyway.

121km per sec closer to the andromeda galaxy.

And the local group incl us of course have moved 965km per sec away from the virgo cluster of galaxies.

Or travelling to the great abstractor.

We are travelling 18.6million miles per day.

So about 1050 years it would be 1 light year.

Edited February 21, 2011 by Snowyowl9

[frogesque]

I've addressed it by saying that in the revised relationship of mass and gravitation, for solar system cases, the existing conventional mass times constant G will equal revised mass times mass-dependent G, so that gravitational fields will remain the same. The only places where they would not remain the same would be where we have no estimates for mass based on constant-G and the observed motion of satellites in orbit around objects.

So for example unexpectedly strong gravitational attraction might be observed very close to denser asteroids that actually had the mass expected from conventional theory. But nobody has any data from the close vicinity of said objects.

So what your really saying seems to be that where we have data you can conveniently ignore it (there is a probe on it's way to the planetoid/KBO Pluto and there have been a number of very close encounters with comets including a couple of direct hits). However you imagine that because we have not visited other systems then they might somehow vary from those we have.

As I have said extra-ordinary claims require extra-ordinary proof. The onus is on you to provide that proof and thereby disprove the whole of conventional and relative cosmology. So far all we have had is conjecture based on little more than a cobbled numerology. Not one piece of real data or one shred of real evidence.

I'm not saying that there are is no possibility of a better therory of everything than we have at present but you HAVE to be able to explain within your 'therory' all present known data and phenomena and some besides.

[Roger J Smith]

No, I'm not saying the above at all, I am saying that values of GM in conventional gravitation equal values of G'M' in revised gravitation so that you can't use the lack of error in calculations based on GM to say that G'M' is therefore wrong. The only test cases involve determination of actual mass within the equal postulates GM and G'M' thus giving either conventional or revised values for G (G').

The exact mass of some small comet or asteroid was never known precisely from any observations and therefore any slight deviations off course by a nearby space probe, however slight, would go into the revision of GM for that body and would not affect the actual G'M' values which in my view would "really" fit the equations. But these values might be quite slight, the ratio of Sun's gravitational attraction to a 10-km asteroid's gravitational attraction at a distance of 10,000 km from said asteroid, is greater than 10 to 1. In conventional gravitation, for an asteroid at 4 x 10^13 cm from the Sun (2.67 A.U.) with mass 2 x 10^-23 gm (10^-10 solar masses), the comparable gravitational forces at much closer 10^8 cm (1,000 km) would be

G times (2 x 10^23) / (10^16) = 2 x 10^7 for the asteroid and

G times (2 x 10^33) / (1.6 x 10^27) = 1.2 x 10^6 for the Sun

so that at this very small distance, the asteroid would finally have about 16 times the pull of the Sun on the nearby spacecraft (Jupiter or Mars might also have significant pull depending on orbital locations).

Now, if the flight engineers detected a weaker pull from the asteroid by a factor of ten, they might intuit that the mass was 0.1 times what they had assumed, giving a different composition. In my theory, this would equate to a G'M' product ten times lower than expected, which could allow for much less mass (around .01) exerting its stronger G' force to give a result 0.1 times expected (by the flight engineers, my original estimate would not have been known to them in their planning, presumably).

Actually, my revised theory would warn that small objects might have more pull than we expect as our probes come close to them, because if we have their masses estimated correctly from theory, the G'M' values will be considerably greater. So it could be expected that some very small objects might exert more pull than expected, but always in some complex multi-object gravitational field where the larger players were constrained to known values of G'M' (GM).

There might be applications of this argument to proof.

[nad]

Modified Newtonian dynamics:

MOND

[Methuselah]

Roger....I suggest you have a look at my "Rethinking mainstream cosmology thread".

In my humble opinion - gravity does not have the primary role in the universe.

What IYHO does then, PP...In your own words, please?

[PersianPaladin]

What IYHO does then, PP...In your own words, please?

Electromagnetic plasma.

[frogesque]

Rodger, Re post #32:

While it may be fun to stand conventional cosmology on its head, to do so without proof or evidence is merely conjecture.

Great for science fiction but when you propose a new theory you have to state all the shortcomings of the existing accepted explanations (yes there are some) and, with meticulous proof show how your theory explains all known phenomena as described by current theory and observation as well as encompassing any deviations that don't fit the current theory.

Cassini/Hygens is a case in point. The mass(as determined on Earth) of Hygens was spring propelled (by earth callibrated springs) into its final trajectory toward Titan, it carried NO fuel and was not rocket propelled so there was NO room for error manouvers. If there was any deviation in the value for local G'(and by implication M') then Huygens would have taken a different path. If we belive the photographs (and I do) then Hygens soft landed on Titan. It neither missed nor did it crash land in an unexpected place. From this I conclude that your G' and M' values are equal in all respects to accepted values of G and M - at least for the Saturn/Titan/Cassini/Huygens complex.

However, it's not for me to defend conventional science (I'm neither clever enough nor educated enough!) You have proposed a new theory, it's up to you to provide irrefutable proof - I assure you I will then accept it ... until of course the next guy comes along with an even better all encompassing construct. :lol:

Edit: sorted the more obvious sps!

Edited February 24, 2011 by frogesque

[Methuselah]

Electromagnetic plasma.

But can you explain that?

How does 'electromagnetic plasma' explain the CMB radiation and how it is equivalent to a Black Body spectrum to better than one part in 100,000?

Is electromagnetic plasma any different from the usual totally opaque mixture of ionized particles?

[A.J]

Modified Newtonian dynamics:

MOND

Yep, the idea of MOND seems to be gathering momentum as these updates show

Link for the Layperson

Link for the Braniac

[PersianPaladin]

But can you explain that?

How does 'electromagnetic plasma' explain the CMB radiation and how it is equivalent to a Black Body spectrum to better than one part in 100,000?

Is electromagnetic plasma any different from the usual totally opaque mixture of ionized particles?

Regarding plasma in space...you should go to the "rethinking mainstream cosmology" thread and watch the NASA Goddard presentation by Dr. Scott. Regarding the CMB; plasma cosmology is not the only model that challenges the "big bang" theory (example http://www.physorg.c...s199591806.html). Also, some string-theory proponents argue for a steady-state model of the universe and say that the CMB radiation is not neccessarily evidence of a "big bang".

Plasma cosmology critique of BB-CMB here:-

http://www.thunderbo...15spacetemp.htm

http://www.thunderbo...bangscience.htm

Edited March 2, 2011 by PersianPaladin

[Methuselah]

Regarding plasma in space...you should go to the "rethinking mainstream cosmology" thread and watch the NASA Goddard presentation by Dr. Scott. Regarding the CMB; plasma cosmology is not the only model that challenges the "big bang" theory (example http://www.physorg.c...s199591806.html). Also, some string-theory proponents argue for a steady-state model of the universe and say that the CMB radiation is not neccessarily evidence of a "big bang".

Plasma cosmology critique of BB-CMB here:-

http://www.thunderbo...15spacetemp.htm

http://www.thunderbo...bangscience.htm

Thanks for that, PP...Cosmology, as a subject, does indeed to be in a state of flux just now. (It always is?)

One main problem with any new theory is, IMO, that, in addition to it explaining old observations at least as well as all the other competing theories, it must also make new predictions and explanations to a standard never previously reached...

I'd seriously doubt that even M theory will prove the 'last word'. That's not because I pretend comprehension, just that some things seem to go on forever???