Alan,
This wikipedia quote has an additional sentence.
"The anomaly may be due to the rotation of the Earth. This rotation induces an azimuthally symmetric gravitational field."
If you would consider that the gravity field is EM, and has a helical field structure, with Earth's particular gravitational angular phase position, a host of odd spacecraft anomalies might be explained.
Frank,
I too struggled with the established non-rational definitions of Constants [but they had to start somewhere and they served their purpose]
I too was tempted to re-define 'natural units' like permittivity and permeability etc. but felt that would best be done through consultation with all the stakeholders once Tetryonics was understood [there are numerous areas that need re-dressing names, units etc. in addition to the geometry of Energy].
The constants became much easier to understand once I realised their underlying geometry. [super-positioned Energy-momenta in fields of differing strengths etc] see attached.
Communications is an area that can quickly utilise Longitudinal waves - why wait 40 minutes to send and receive signals it Mars or anywhere else - just establish a L wave, maintain it and transfer the information as a modulation of its bi-directional linear momentum [two-way almost instantaneous communication paths].
And this of course explains why there are no 'radio' signals being received by SETI at present - ET doesn't use slow transverse waves to communicate.
As always, the first step in overcoming a problem is to recognise that there is one and then offering a sound concise alternative that provides answers while agreeing with the known observational data.
But as you know having the answer and being recognised as having the answer are two entirely different things [and require dedication to the task]Attachment #1: 1_Figure_16.04__Coulombs_Constant_800x600.jpgAttachment #2: Figure_40.15__Coupling_Constants_800x600.jpg
Alan,
Frank is close here but I'd like to point out that there is a real convergent gravitational force created by all Matter, as well as a divergent interactive force created by the EM field of any Matter in motion.
EM mass & Matter must be clearly and rigorously defined (as I do throughout Tetryonics) as radiant energies and Tetrahedral standing waves respectively if a quantum theory of gravity is to be developed that can account for the motions of space craft etc. as you seek to do.
Both the divergent and convergent forces result in the nett force we observe as gravitation.
It is the quantum mechanics of Energy momenta that provide all the macroscopic forces we know of, and there is much more at work than only the gravitation of Matter on the cosmological scale, hence why terms like Dark Matter & Dark Energy have become popular.
Frank,
I believe that the rotation of the earth is important because the exact location of the closest approach of a flyby is relevant. The exotic matter distribution within the earth is irregular due it's existence being due to exotic matter comets impacting from supernovae events. It's all speculative, yes, but also reassuringly consistent. This is why the data from Wikipedia is inconclusive. I believe that a spacecraft crossing the equator at a shallow angle and low speed will give the greatest energy increase. This because it spends the greatest amount of time in earth's 'equatorial exotic band of influence'. The results don't quite reflect this due to irregularities within the innermost core as well as exotic matter comets embedded within the crust, but will be confirmed in the future with more data such as Juno imo.
We think similarly with regard to your helical field structure, but I detail this with imagery of a self creating universe [P.S. which author spoke about SCUs? I can't find it now!] given in my last FQXi competition entry Reality Was Born Analog But Will Digital Die?
Abraham,
I don't mean to be rude, but my thinking is very back-to-basics and fundamental. I'm putting myself in the shoes of Newton as if he'd thought of an additional force to explain the flyby anomaly *before* reaching a conclusion on planetary motion. The combination of explaining the ice age data as well as the flyby amomalies as well as the galaxy rotation curves would have convinced him of additional *anisotropic* matter interaction on planetary scales, I'm sure. This is in addition to his ideas on ordinary matter interaction. Why not have this 'exotic matter' at the centre of planets and stars? Why does it have to be in a hypothetical'halo'?? (Ans: because science has already made the assumption of isotropy and equivalence for *all* matter, therefore it *has* to be in a halo)
You're on the right track but you don't have to create new exotic Matter to explain the accelerations. As you point out if Newton had been given the data he would have pointed out F=ma [so any acceleration of mass/Matter must be the result of an additional force - other than what he had already modelled]
In fact that is what happened with Mercury, and Einstein then came along with GR and corrected for the force giving GR 8piG as opposed to Newtonian 4PiG. ie twice the acceleration for EM masses that come close to a gravitational body than what was expected by Newtonian mechanics.
GR reduces to Newtonian gravity far away from the bodies - where the 'curvature' is weaker. But GR is based on SR and any Physicist will tell you Gravity is the only force acting between planetary bodies so what causes the additional 2pi of G-force close to Planets etc?
Back to what GR was based on.....SR.....
'when to impossible is removed - what remains however improbable must be true'
All Matter not only creates a convergent [gravitational] force but also possesses interactive [divergent] forces - Black-body radiation is well established in physics and these two forces apply to all Matter [as defined in Tetryonics].
Also of note is that Tetryonics gives us the geometry for these 'missing' fields and shows how it applies to all material bodies in the universe regardless of scale. ie it explains Mercury's perihelion, the bending of Light, galaxy rotation curves, and many other phenomena current using Dark Matter as an explanation.
And the force it creates is strongest in the equatorial region of a gravitational body [defined wrt to its magnetic axis of course] just as you propose.
So why do we struggle to explain this acceleration?
Gravity to date has been mathematically modelled on the observations of the motion of large scale Matter. As the observations get better the theory must be 'adjusted' in an attempt to explain these tiny inconsistencies but I believe I am the first to present a theory from first quantum principles that coherently explains the processes at work and agrees with current observations without the need for DM halos etc.
I am half-way through my final review of my QG illustrations and then it will be released for all to comment on.
Abraham, Alan,
On a close approach to earth, or any large solar body, it is no longer a point source. There are gravity influence maps that show irregularities in the force of gravity due to material density changes. Do any of the studies of a flyby anomaly examine the flyby path in relationship to these known variations in the force of gravity?
Many papers that are attempting to describe some spacecraft anomaly do not identify all the parameters about the spacecraft or the spacecraft/object relative dynamics.
One of the parameters that should be identified is whether the spacecraft is or is not spin stabilized, and if spin stabilized, the angular direction of the spin and its angular rate. What is this spin direction relative to the objects rotation? Secondly, on a close encounter, is the spacecraft going in the same direction of the objects rotation or opposite to it? And as Alan pointed out, what angle did the spacecraft pass by the object relative to the objects equator? This also has implications on the force of gravity, as it will be influenced if the object has an equatorial bulge.
Can I assume a flyby anomaly study accounts for the position of any nearby object(s), such as a moon?
Ah POINT particles, the bane of modern physics.
Resulting from the mathematical modelling of force vectors of all kinds back to their origin without providing an detailed material explanation of what created the forces in the first place.
It is given us spherical [4pi] quantum particles and other great wonders like Black holes and Singularities - Feynman best summed up the problems arising from this approach to physics in his lectures on electron QED.
Frank, you are right to point out that the distribution of Matter [made from charged Energy geometries] in an object under investigation is important and should always be modelled as accurately as possible in order to provide a full account of all the forces present and acting on (and between) material bodies in motion [irrespective of their scale] see attached.
As all Forces are mediated by Photons in 2D planar EM fields and Matter is a 3D charged geometry [never a point] the distribution of charges in any object in motion is extremely important (at the quantum scale upwards) if we want to give a full account of the influence of all interactive forces on any material body in motion - I believe that the true geometry of the electron was the source of inspiration for Tesla invention of the rotating synchronous converter.
Many of the parameters you mention must be modelled if a full account of physical dynamics on any scale is to be developed - otherwise any theory we develop to explain finer and subtler inconstancies in gravitation etc will have to be corrected again as more refined measurements are made [as we have historically done].
And that is what excites me about Tetryonics - it provides a quantum basis for ALL forces and particles and dictates a rigid geometry for the mathematical modelling of physical geometries and interactions that no other theory can provide.Attachment #1: Figure_72.06__Singularities_800x600.jpgAttachment #2: Figure_40.08__Einsteins_Error_of_perception_800x600.jpg
Frank and Abraham,
You've both made some very good points that I've found useful, so thank you. My jigsaw puzzle methodology has drawn me to the exotic matter hypothesis, so I intend to stay with it due to the innumerable mini-clues as to the final picture of reality. Maybe you two are both right and I'm wrong. The possiblity of exotic matter comets accessible in the earth's crust is too much to dismiss imo though. The world economy would be instantly revived. Maybe the 'philosopher's stone' of the bible is in fact exotic matter? Maybe there's more of them located at sites of Gravity & Magnetic Hills throughout the world? Worth a dedicated look imo.
Alan,
There is never only one path to scientific discovery and that is what makes it exciting. Keep working on your ideas and if you need another person to bounce ideas off (or to offer their theory's point of view on a problem you have) feel free to get in touch
The exchange of ideas is an important foundation to the development of scientific theory.
And every idea [no matter how off-beat] has the potential to spark a revolution in how we perceive the Universe and our place in it [even equilateral energy].
I hope the attached will help you view the quantum field geometry of the forces (as dictated by Tetryonic theory) that I described previously in my correspondence on your fly-by modelling.Attachment #1: Figure_65.04__Graviational_Field_800x600.jpgAttachment #2: Figure_69.13__The_Perihellion_of_Mercury_800x600.jpg
ahaha insert the Riemann zeta functions ahahah don't forget the fourier series and also make the good settings and substitutions.....ANSWER finite groups for the serie of uniqueness and at ALL SCALES IN 3D.
pi is relevant indeed....now make a beautiful sphere and play with it :)
a tetryon and a spheron and an electron waits near a phonon, do you think that they turn ?
3D for the respect of all universal proportions !
You means this geometry?
It contains all the functions [including Euler's identity, Bells distribution, Fourier etc]
Which you can in turn express mathematically.
You may prefer spheres but I prefer the equilateral geometry
[as I can make all the known fields & particles out of ETs]
But each to their own......Attachment #1: Figure_80.15__Real_Numbers_800x600.jpgAttachment #2: 1_Figure_26.05__Eulers_Formula_800x600.jpg
A Neutron walks into a Bar ans orders a Drink...'How much for the drink it asks?" ...for you NO CHARGE replies the barkeep.
[in truth neutron geometries are made of 18 positive & 18 negative fascia with a net charge of 0]
Thank you Abraham, I might take you up on that offer. I'd like you to consider the ice age data as being rather spikey swift changes in global air tempaeratures in a 100ky cycle as well as quasi-millennial cycles. See attached. Your extra force from ordinary matter doesn't fit as well with the ice age data discovery imo. The 5 Milankovitch problems are solved so that it is shown that the inclination cycle is the most likely driver. My model suggests that the shape of the global air temperature curve is steeper than would be expected with your extra quantum energy with density hypothesis. My model proposes Jupiter's irregular matter equatorial band of influence creates additionl ocean and atmospheric tides when the earth crosses in a 100kyr cycle. Jupiter's irregular matter to Earth's irregular matter interaction is estimated to at least double the current earth tidal ocean energy. My band is much narrower and steeper than your more bell-shaped curve. The evidence is in the ice age data graph attached imo. Controversial, I know.
Another reason for these mega dense matter comets is their impact craters left behind which don't fit the regular comet impact energy. I propose that the Africa Rift valley and lakes was one such mighty impact collision event. Only exotic matter could create the Madagascan bulge which was carved into an island. I wouldn't be surprised if the Congo's world no1 copper and cobalt deposits as well as precious metals are due to this impact. The entire nuclear fusion model of the Sun's interior and "we're all made of star stuff" is most likely complete baloney! What do you say to that possiblity?!Attachment #1: IceAge_data_svg.png
Frank,
You're right about the antenna for either design being able to receiver each type of wave.
As I see it the longitudinal wave would act as a carrier signal like we already do, you could encode information as frequency variations on top of this carrier signal [as we already do in AM] of use the LW own momenta as information[by varying the voltage that produced it - a LW version of FM].
Either way, if we were to filter out the information superimposed on the LW carrier frequency we would measure it has a couple of different features to a typical AM carrier signal.
The measured carrier wave would be a longitudinal wave and its momenta (at the receiver) would be varying in a way that contains information. This signal variation would be a fluctuation in the Voltage per second [E=hv]rather than a Frequency per second variation[E=hf] as is normally employed in radio communications.
In short it would be a Longitudinal variation that decodes into intelligible information that you would be looking to discriminate for [ie Voltage fluctuations]
All that is needed for such a system to work (and transmit information of vast distances instantly) would be a source of constant LWs - may I suggest our own SUN. It has been doing that since its birth and its LW should have reached a few billion light years out by now. [perhaps SETI has been looking in the wrong direction all this time - ET uses stars to communicate with each other]Attachment #1: Figure_79.06__FTL_Communications_800x600.jpgAttachment #2: Figure_79.09__Interstellar_communication_800x600.jpg
Alan,
I see where your coming from - but here's my two-bobs worth.
All EM radiation is subject to the inverse square law.
The distance from the SUN to the Earth is 1AU (or 150M KM on average)
The distance from the EARTH to JUPITER is 4-6Au [778M km)
Making EM influences from Jupiter many orders of magnitude weaker that that received from the SUN.
The SUN is s giant arc furnace and the dominant source of Energy for the entire solar system and it is its fluctuations that I say drive your graphed variations of Temp & CO2 levels in the Earth's environment.
Re FUSION [and the WE'RE STAR STUFF claims] I agree complete baloney!
Stars convert Matter into Energy not by fusion but by 'collapsing' the Matter in their cores, turning it into radiant energies. Tetryonics dictates processes from the quantum level up - Forces, Constants, Matter geometries, Chemical compounds, DNA etc etc - and shows that the Proton-Proton chains energy model is wrong. [scientists know this as well that's why the coulombic barrier presents such a problem for them - and why their fusion reactors don't work)
Matter to Energy collapse is 100% efficient [as opposed to
Abraham,
I'm delighted that we agree on the baloney of "star stuff". I also agree on the solar collapsing of ordinary matter into something very different. It should also be remembered that the mechanism of supernovae is a complete mystery to modern science. My hypothesis is that gravitational radiation from this collapsed matter *isn't* subject to the inverse square law simple because it isn't emitting isotropically, but is concentrated on the plane of rotation of the star. Distance isn't as big an issue as with ordinary matter.
It took me around 6 months with deep discussion with Andre from Holland to appreciate the fallacies of modern ice age data interpretation. The evidence for warm waters regularly pushing into the Arctic basin is published in scientific reports. This can only be achieved by an substantial increase in global tidal energy imo. Milankovitch cycles, or sunlight only forcing models, have one significant problem which my hypothesis solves and yours doesn't unfortunately, namely, *the unsplit peak problem*.
[quote]The unsplit peak problem refers to the fact that eccentricity has cleanly resolved variations at both the 95 and 125ka periods. A sufficiently long, well-dated record of climate change should be able to resolve both frequencies,[15] but some researchers interpret climate records of the last million years as showing only a single spectral peak at 100ka periodicity. [end quote]
The evidence is extremely clear imo.
Alan,
This is what I like ... something to make me learn new things, think about them and see how it all fits together.
I must confess to my ignorance to the finer details of this matter [Milankovitch cycles etc] as to date I have been consumed with getting Tetryonics out of my head onto paper so it can be shared but the topic does raise some interest with me.
As with all theories the devil is in the detail and accordingly I would love to develop a 3D computer simulation of the solar system dynamics at play here along with an appropriate climate model of the Earth and its responses but alas I only have a desktop computer at present.
I would however point out that Tetryonics clearly shows that collapsed standing-wave Matter-energies form radiant EM energies - which have Electric & Magnetic components to their divergent energies and as such are indeed subject to the inverse square laws (with the E field being equatorial and in alignment with the solar ecliptic). In fact the E field does all the interacting with the planets and the B field causes perturbations in orbital mechanics closer into the SUN [as noted by Le Verrier and corrected for in GR]
As the SUN is a charged body moving through space it is subject to variations due to its interactions with its surrounding environment [as evidenced with its CME, sunspots cycles etc.] - modelling the causal field dynamics in order to be able to develop a predictive model is another matter [we can't even to a 5 day weather forecast].
I can obviously offer advice as to what Tetryonics dictates from the quantum level to the cosmological scale regarding EM interactions etc. but I am a long way off developing a fully fledged hypothesis on all the interactions at work.
But it does intrigue me as part of my work on my next eBook [Tetryonic Cosmology]
I should also add as a footnote that all EM fields follow the Biot-Savart law [see attached].
ie from any radiative 'point' source
E fields follow inverse square law &
B fields follow inverse cubed law
and that is why B fields produce fine perturbations close to the radiating bodies while E fields are a longer range force [with their distinct Tetryonic EM field geometries affecting their regions of influence as well].
Another fun fact often overlooked by students [or not taught at all]Attachment #1: Figure_04.28__BiotSavart_800x600.jpg
Abraham,
We think very similarly when you say "This is what I like ... something to make me learn new things, think about them and see how it all fits together." and "As with all theories the devil is in the detail and accordingly I would love to develop a 3D computer simulation of the solar system dynamics at play here along with an appropriate climate model of the Earth and its responses but alas I only have a desktop computer at present."
Yes, I totally agree on the necessity of a detailed simulation model of the solar sytem and the climate. As I've mentioned before in my own discussion area, I think we should start with the correct modelling of the creation of the moon. Not a simple task.
Good luck with your new book and Tetryonics.
