Investigator Magazine. Sept 1995

THE TRUTH ABOUT GRAVITY: UNMASKING THE MYSTERY!

Frank P. Russo - Written: December 25, 1990 (Happy Birthday Sir Newton!)

P.O. Box 90 Campbelltown 5074 South Australia

Einstein postulated that gravitational fields represented a curvature in space-time by matter, and this led to the hypothesis that a light beam passing a massive body would bend towards the massive body 1. His 1905 special relativity had halved any prediction which Newtonian concepts would give by halving the mass of a photon 2 from ( 2E / c2 ) to ( E / c2 ) and then his general theory doubled his prediction so as to approximate a Newtonian estimate. To me this comes close to scientific fraud!

After all, even in special relativity, what had Einstein contributed? Very little...Lorentz, Fitzgerald and others had virtually done all the work; all that Einstein offered, was a "label" or "package" for conveying the ideas. Anyway, his general theory of relativity was hailed as a great "success" after assumed verification in 1919, and the accolades and fanfares never seemed to stop...in fact they have gone on to become post-humus!

However, this is all doublethink and the Nobel Prize was won due to serendipity (if not due to fraud!). A straight line does not equate into a curved line nor does a curved line equate into a straight line - einsteinian logic? Borrowed from Orwell retroactively?

In rewriting and demystifying gravity, I decided to set up an experimental model of the universe within a closed system. So as to facilitate things and eliminate the use of a computer, I chose the old Greek concept of Democritus that all atoms are essentially the same: in other words, I chose a simplistic universe where all the atoms are identical in inertial mass.

The next step was a major quantum leap in thinking, and that was to recognize that no direction was privileged, in other words, there is no up or down but everything must be considered as the average of an up and a down because every direction is both an up and a down.

Now to the uninitiated, this appears to be similar to Einstein's concept that where there are two objects at relative motion, no-one can know who's the one doing most of the moving. However, Einstein's proposition falls apart whereas mine does not! : Obviously, the one with the engines on, will know how much motion his ship is contributing and regardless of that, the ship's computers would be able to work out a true relativistic motion, by mapping their trajectory against their relativistic composite background (I take great pains to point out that the word relativistic has a different sense to its einsteinian homonym where science fiction principles apply).

Getting back to the theme, there is no up and there is no down, so let us draw a simplistic linear aggregation of "Democritus atoms". Down the middle of the page and we will consider them on the left as going down, and on the right as going up. Of course, as a chain is started, the inertial masses add whether you are going up or down because remember if there is no up or down, there can be no concept of a centre.

NET FORCE ON EACH ATOM

GRADIENT

NET OVERALL FORCES

GRADIENT

NET FORCE

+1

0

+9

+9

+9

+1

-1

+7

+8

-1

+1

-2

+5

+7

-1

+1

-3

+3

+6

-1

+1

-4

+1

+5

-1

+1

-5

-1

+4

-1

+1

-6

-3

+3

-1

+1

-7

-5

+2

-1

+1

-8

-7

+1

-1

-9

-9

-9

0

-1

This diagrammatic representation is consistent with the principles of Newton's 3rd Law of motion regarding the action equalling the reaction. Can you see a gravitational field emerging? Can you see that it is stronger the further out you go? This means that zero force is required to maintain a body either "up" or "down" at the centre, and more gravitational force is progressively required to hold it "up" (or "down") the further out you go. This in turn, using Newton's 3rd law 3 would translate into saying that the further out you go from a gravitational centre, the heavier your gravitational mass has become; i.e. the gravitational centre has become a depression in gravitational mass. This means that as a baby blackbird falls out of its nest, it is getting constantly gravitationally lighter and that is why it is falling into the "gravitational force depression".

In view of the foregoing, it is clear that my null hypothesis was correct: there is no such thing as a space-time, but on the other hand, there is a space-gravitational mass continuum which is circular in practice, (but the surface of a sphere which circumscribes the central body in actual fact), around each regular body. It logically follows that as a planet moves a bit closer to the sun whilst orbiting it, its gravitational mass would actually decrease; as a result, in order to preserve its angular momentum, the orbital velocity would increase to compensate for the decrease in gravitational mass. This to the best of my recollection, is the first optimal explanation for Kepler's 2nd law known as the law of areas: stating that the line joining a planet to the sun sweeps out equal areas in equal amount of time 4.

Getting back to my experimental model, it is not very hard to see the linear aggregation collapsing and becoming spherical as it grows, thus acquiring some sort of rotation. Out of all this of course, the "clockwork universe" has been reborn with God as The Great Watchmaker. Imagine! Orbits that are circular! (If you were to equalise the effect of the law of momentum conservation).

Of course, before my concepts are accepted, we have a great need for devil's advocates and being one myself, I would have to point out that in practise, gravity decreases as you go out in space whereas mine increases...is there an inconsistency? No! Because objects will fall towards a gravitational centre or "force depression", at a rate that is proportional to the rate at which the gravitational force holding the objects "up" is decreasing! Obviously, out in space, the force would be decreasing very slowly as an object drops towards the "depression", hence one would measure gravity by current standards as being very weak: this is obviously due to the aggregation of matter with very low inertial mass.

Naturally, where a vacuum is involved the situation is more elusive as there is no gradation of decrease, but rather the forces from below the vacuum reach up to form a continuum with the forces above the vacuum (relative to a gravitational centre or depression). Of course, once you accept the existence of aether, there are none of these difficulties at all! And no easily obtainable vacuum.

The first casualties of my herewith promulgated concepts are the fatuous black holes as well as the "elusive" gravity waves, which scientists are so eagerly pursuing - the money would be much better spent chasing other "rainbows". At the centre of a star, gravity would be zero, but of course, there would be the inertial masses of the atoms equilaterally pressing down, but as most stars are made of hydrogen, this is not of a "black hole" nature but purely of a "fusion" consequence. Furthermore, the current view of gravity waves moving at a finite speed of "c" is very coarse indeed, for as the waves move to get there, the object has moved which in turn means that an inappropriate force would be applied!

After having spent 3 years to unravel Einsteinian relativity, it took me only about 15 minutes to conceive this new gravity and to thus bring to a close the Einsteinian Era and thereby introducing a new universe: i.e. the moon is very heavy where it is, because it is being held up by a very large gravity force, hence it falls into the gravity - forced depression formed by the earth...as it does so, it becomes gravitationally lighter which in turn means that its orbital speed increases due to the law of angular momentum conservation (I do not think that a simple radius manipulation is enough!)...this in turn takes it further away from the earth again...meanwhile the gravitational mass of the moon resultantly increases which tends to slow the moon down...(notice: this process is active whereas the manipulation of the radius is passive!) - the result: the moon continues in orbit around the earth.

May this new universe herald a new age ruled by scientists rather than politicians: who else knows best about the ozone, the forests and the oceans...perhaps science Nobel prize winners would be regarded as Melchizedekians, Doctors of Science as Aaronics and Masters and Bachelor of Science as Acolytes. If this new order is instituted, Harmageddon is sure to follow!


References:

1. Albert Einstein, "Experimental Confirmation", RELATIVITY THE SPECIAL AND THE GENERAL THEORY, 1983 pg 127.

2. Douglas C. Giancoli, "Astrophysics and Cosmology", PHYSICS FOR SCIENTISTS & ENGINEERS WITH MODERN PHYSICS, 2nd Ed. 1998, pg 1050.

3. George D. Freier, "Force", UNIVERSITY PHYSICS EXPERIMENT & THEORY, 1965, pg 36.

4. Stanley P. Whyatt, "Speed in Orbit: Kepler's 2nd Law", PRINCIPLES OF ASTRONOMY, 3rd Ed. 1977, pg 55.

BACK TO ARTICLES: www.frankrusso.net/articles.html 

 

This page is copyright Frank P Russo 1999-2003