The Allais effect

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by Jeremy</i>
<br />Please forgive me for using a conceptual argument rather than a mathematical one.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">Okay, but it needs to be made quantitative before it can be considered viable. You would also need an explanation for how to make the atmospheric effect go away, because the overhead air mass really does change near solar eclipses (as measured by barometers) by an amount that must produce a measureable effect.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Imagine for the moment that gravity is a powered phenomena coming from the body itself and is broadcast like spherical sound waves. The bodies absorb some of the energy of these waves and add mass to themselves while they also convert some of their mass into gravity waves.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">First, let's straighten out some clashing terminology. The term "gravity waves" refers to an atmospheric effect caused by gravity, and is therefore not used in gravitation or relativity. And the "gravitational waves" of relativity have nothing to do with gravitational force. They are more like very-long-wavelength electromagnetic waves in the aether. (A relativist would say electromagnetic waves are waves in the "space-time medium".)

But you want to have gravitational force be some kind of wave phenomenon, despite the fact that no wave property has ever been detected, or even theorized, for gravitational force. Okay, let's say that is possible as a pure hypothetical. We'll call these "Jeremy waves" to distinguish them from the other two unrelated types of waves.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">When the Moon is between the Earth and Sun a larger portion of the solid angle around it is filled with strong sources of [Jeremy] waves. This increased influx of power raises the gravity of the Moon slightly which counters the gravity of the Earth below and in turn causes the slight reduction seen during the eclipse.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">This geometry is a bit vague to me. If all these bodies are emitting Jeremy waves all the time, why does it matter whether they are lined up or not? The Jeremy waves received by the Moon from both Earth and Sun would appear to be the same as at any other time in its orbit.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">as the Moon approaches the limb the gravity waves from the Sun are refracted by the Moon<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">Refraction is a wave phenomenon, and occurs when waves pass from a medium with one density into a medium with a different density, such as from water to air. So to make this work, you need to specify a medium for Jeremy waves, and a reason for that medium to change density. Remember, the Moon has no atmosphere.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">As the Moon moves in the refraction effect diminishes and the increased gravity of the Moon takes over.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">I understand the meaning of the words, but the argument appears to be of the "hand-waving" type. I don't immediately see how to make it reproduce the observations qualitatively or quantitatively.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">It would be very informative if we could have a gravimeter stationed on the Moon so that we could take measurements of what the Moon is doing during all this.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">Someday, we will do that experiment. But if eclipses cause the Earth's gravity to decrease, why should they cause the Moon's gravity to increase? And if it did increase, why wouldn't that change the Moon's orbital acceleration, even if only for the duration of the eclipse? Such changes in orbital acceleration, even though temporary, would permanently change the Moon's orbit because there is no restoring force to undo those changes in acceleration after the eclipse ends.

Although this message is obviously critical of your specific model, I do like to encourage trying out new ideas and innovative solutions to problems. But the good theoretician should always be his/her own harshest critic. You must be equally imaginative in trying to shoot down your own models, so the occasional one that survives this process will already be "battle-hardened". The process also teaches you about bias, and how easy it is for model-makers to become so enamored with their creations that they focus only on the parts that work and excuse every fault. So if you are not careful, you may end up with a "mainstream model" instead of one that represents nature. [}] -|Tom|-

Jermey, The idea that mass is added to a body due to gravity force being absorbed is interesting. It seems to me the gravity force is not absorbed but is used up in acceleration. This detail is ignored by everybody and you are the first person I have seen that sees this detail at all. But, there must be others out there-somewhere.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">First, let's straighten out some clashing terminology. The term "gravity waves" refers to an atmospheric effect caused by gravity, and is therefore not used in gravitation or relativity. And the "gravitational waves" of relativity have nothing to do with gravitational force. They are more like very-long-wavelength electromagnetic waves in the aether. (A relativist would say electromagnetic waves are waves in the "space-time medium".)
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">Well my terminology may not be precise but I did say "oscillating waves in Aether". I thought this made it clear I was positing an aetheric medium of some kind."

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">But you want to have gravitational force be some kind of wave phenomenon, despite the fact that no wave property has ever been detected, or even theorized, for gravitational force.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">Never theorized? What about T.J.J. See's Wave Theory? I know it is ignored now but need I remind you that LaSage gravitation is even older and you are reviving that? Perhaps the Wave Theory can yet survive with fresh eyes looking back on it.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Okay, let's say that is possible as a pure hypothetical. We'll call these "Jeremy waves" to distinguish them from the other two unrelated types of waves.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">No need for Jeremy Waves, as explained Aether waves should be acceptable.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">This geometry is a bit vague to me. If all these bodies are emitting Jeremy waves all the time, why does it matter whether they are lined up or not? The Jeremy waves received by the Moon from both Earth and Sun would appear to be the same as at any other time in its orbit.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">As you state it now I have to agree on further thought that the relative changes in solid angle between the bodies around the orbit are too small to make much difference. However, when the Moon is on the line between the Sun and Earth this is the only position in which it would absorb some of the gravity power that would normally go directly to Earth. One might say that the gravity power would be re-emitted from the Moon and the Earth would receive the power anyway but I was thinking in terms of the absorption/emission not being 100%. This would provide the internal heat of the planetary bodies.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Refraction is a wave phenomenon, and occurs when waves pass from a medium with one density into a medium with a different density, such as from water to air. So to make this work, you need to specify a medium for Jeremy waves, and a reason for that medium to change density. Remember, the Moon has no atmosphere.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">Here again I was thinking in terms of Aether waves and the density of Aether would indeed increase towards the given body.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">But if eclipses cause the Earth's gravity to decrease, why should they cause the Moon's gravity to increase? And if it did increase, why wouldn't that change the Moon's orbital acceleration, even if only for the duration of the eclipse? Such changes in orbital acceleration, even though temporary, would permanently change the Moon's orbit because there is no restoring force to undo those changes in acceleration after the eclipse ends.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">I am still not clear on your orbital argument. Wouldn't angular momentum equalize out? As the Moon decreases the attraction between it and the Earth the orbit would speed up, but wouldn't it also have to slow down again as the attractive force increased again as the Moon swung around past the opposite limb of the Sun?

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Although this message is obviously critical of your specific model, I do like to encourage trying out new ideas and innovative solutions to problems. But the good theoretician should always be his/her own harshest critic. You must be equally imaginative in trying to shoot down your own models, so the occasional one that survives this process will already be "battle-hardened". The process also teaches you about bias, and how easy it is for model-makers to become so enamored with their creations that they focus only on the parts that work and excuse every fault. So if you are not careful, you may end up with a "mainstream model" instead of one that represents nature.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">The precise reason I posted the question was to get it "knocked down", if I can't get it past the conceptual stage I don't want to be like some of the other posters spending months and years on something that just plain won't work. I don't mind the criticism one bit so long as it is courteous, which you have consistently been despite a great deal of rudeness from some people.

Perhaps you could help me out here by giving me a summary of the main hurdles a wave theory of gravity must account for to become viable. I have tried to track down historical information on this issue but haven't been very productive so far. About the only thing I have found is See's Wave Theory but haven't found anything explaining what is wrong with it.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by Jim</i>
<br />Jermey, The idea that mass is added to a body due to gravity force being absorbed is interesting. It seems to me the gravity force is not absorbed but is used up in acceleration. This detail is ignored by everybody and you are the first person I have seen that sees this detail at all. But, there must be others out there-somewhere.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

In positing a wave model one must have a source of power to drive the waves, in my mind the only reasonable source is part of the mass of the body converting to aether waves. In turn, to have things keep running the body must also absorb some of the waves to keep from shrinking out of existence. I don't quite get what you mean by the force being used in acceleration.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by Jeremy</i>
<br />What about T.J.J. See's Wave Theory?<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">You have hit upon a hole in my astronomical knowledge. When I had the chance to learn all about See's theory while I was at the U.S. Naval Observatory, I was still a young astronomer and intimidated by his reputation as a "whacko". By the time my attitude changed, I never found the occasion or the incentive to go back and read any of his works.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">I am still not clear on your orbital argument. Wouldn't angular momentum equalize out? As the Moon decreases the attraction between it and the Earth the orbit would speed up, but wouldn't it also have to slow down again as the attractive force increased again as the Moon swung around past the opposite limb of the Sun?<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">Think of the Moon as falling toward Earth due to the mutual attraction of Moon and Earth. If part of the falling is absent, even if only for 2-3 hours, the Moon will find itself farther away from Earth than it otherwise would have been. Nothing makes up for that diminished falling period after the eclipse ends and normal falling resumes.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Perhaps you could help me out here by giving me a summary of the main hurdles a wave theory of gravity must account for to become viable.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">Reasons why the graviton medium and the light-carrying medium cannot be one and the same:<ul><li>gravity behaves like particles, light behaves like waves</li><li>the wave speed is always close to the speed of the particles comprising the medium, but experiments set a lower limit to graviton speed of 20 billion times the speed of light</li><li>gravitons interact, light waves do not</li><li>gravity penetrates all matter, light doesn’t</li></ul>This appears to take away one of the main incentives for trying to use a wave theory for gravity, because one cannot use the aether (elysium) as the medium for force, but only for secondary effects such as light-bending. A completely separate medium from aether is needed for gravitational force.

Here is my comprehensive list of wave properties:<ul><li>Wavelength</li><li>frequency</li><li>intensity</li><li>amplitude</li><li>refraction</li><li>diffraction</li><li>coherence</li><li>interference</li><li>polarization</li><li>absence of mutual collisions</li><li>radiation pressure</li><li>transverse/longitudinal vibration</li><li>sameness of properties for each discrete wave</li><li>propagation speed unaffected by speed of source</li><li>wavefronts always perpendicular to direction of propagation</li><li>medium entities oscillate in place instead of propagating with wave.</li></ul>Properties unique to particles include:<ul><li>the ability to collide with another of its own kind</li><li>the lack of need for a transmitting medium</li></ul>You can use these lists to decide whether you want a wave theory or a particle theory, and why. It should be evident that particles emitted in pulses can be periodic, but possess both of the properties unique to particles and no properties specific to waves. So they should not be thought of as waves, but simply as pulses of particles.

So consider your motivations, and decide whether nature is best described by particles, waves, or pulses. The justification for your theory is then the list of reasons for your choice. -|Tom|-

Tom, See's theory comprises about 6 volumes. I have xeroxed the first two volumes. About two years ago in Sky & Telescope an astronomer refered to See as a 'crackpot'. I have always wondered why there is such kneejerk insulting of the man. His books would benefit by modern printing as it is typewritten with handwritten equations. I can somewhat understand his characterization as he was given to too much underlining and capital letters to emphasize his points. Unfortunately I think his presentation perhaps unfairly undermined his arguments. I would be very interested to know what you thought of him at the time. Any anecdotes? Who was telling you he was a whacko?