gravity noise and gravity shielding

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by LNeumann</i>
<br />Do you mean that existence of gravity noise and gravity shielding effect disproves Einstein’s General Relativity Theory?<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">You need to read <i>Pushing Gravity</i> and/or our "Gravity" CD to get up to date. The limits on gravitational shielding are much too small for the effect to show up in gravimeters. And your "gravity noise" is most likely changes in gravitational forces, which are happening all the time because nearby masses (such as us) are always moving.

GR as a mathematical theory is already "proved" and is beyond dispute. However, there are already two different physical interpretations, and may in the future be more. And just as Eeistein did not disprove Newton, but simply improved Newton's theory, so too there is always room for improvement to GR.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Can be GRT modified to include gravity noise and gravity shielding (gravity interaction attenuation by third mass between two interacting masses)?<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">Any theory can be modified in almost any way imaginable with ad hoc patches. But why would anyone without a personal stake in a theory wish to do this?

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Can be measured results explained by any known alternative gravity theory?<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">Your interpretation of your results is in conflict with many other results, and therefore lacks credibility unless you address these conflicts and have a plausible explanation for them.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Do you know anybody, who wants to independently repeat the measurement?<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">The results must be peer reviewed and published in a journal of record before busy physicists will spend time even reading them, much less replicating them. If you need assistance preparing your research paper on this for peer review, we have a Professional Manuscript Review Service to assist such efforts. See metaresearch.org/publications/PMRS/PMRS.asp for costs and details. -|Tom|-

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by tvanflandern</i>
The limits on gravitational shielding are much too small for the effect to show up in gravimeters. And your "gravity noise" is most likely changes in gravitational forces, which are happening all the time because nearby masses (such as us) are always moving.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

Thanks Tom
I do not understand. I measured the effect (value is in range 0.5mm/s2 in horizontal plain). The effect can be explained by shielding. Where is an error? My pendulums do not know any theory. They give results independent on any theory. The problem should be only in results interpretation. I did not find any other better interpretation.

The measured noise amplitude and frequency range I can not explain by moving of masses. I made the analysis - see Appendix C -Anthropogenic impacts. Comparable gravity change can be caused by moving about 200m diameter sphere made from Earth mantel material very close to the measurement point. How can you prove hypothetical movement of that size mass in a few minutes to explain measured results? Do you know such noisy movement correlated with Sun radiation? I did not see any great mass moving close to any measurement locality []
Measurements were made in horizontal plane. Two pendulums in the same place but in different altitudes (15m difference) give other results - see appendix A - Space dependency. I can not accept explanation by mass moving. Sorry.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">GR as a mathematical theory is already "proved" and is beyond dispute. However, there are already two different physical interpretations, and may in the future be more. And just as Eeistein did not disprove Newton, but simply improved Newton's theory, so too there is always room for improvement to GR.

Any theory can be modified in almost any way imaginable with ad hoc patches. But why would anyone without a personal stake in a theory wish to do this?
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

My question was about physical meaning of GR. I know many mathematical theories with no or very universal physical meaning. Mathematics is totally different area from physic for me. Mathematical apparatus should be used for physical laws approximation good or totally wrong way.

Was geocentric theory modified or replaced by heliocentric one? How do you understand modifying? Can be one theory modified to give opposite results to previous theory?

My understanding is: New physical theory must be improving of experimentally proved previous theory but can be in conflict in any experimentally unproved theory. Only experiment can select physical theory from theoretical hypothesis.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Your interpretation of your results is in conflict with many other results, and therefore lacks credibility unless you address these conflicts and have a plausible explanation for them.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

Do you know any real conflict? Please describe it in more detail. Or do you know other explanation of the facts? Which explanation can be more valuable? Is different explanation equivalent to conflict with other result?

I am sorry. I only try to interpret measured results. I can not change the results to be easier and more credibly interpreted.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">If you need assistance preparing your research paper on this for peer review, we have a Professional Manuscript Review Service to assist such efforts.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

Thank you. I am working on the publication. The full size of the description (paper + 3 appendixes) and costs exceeds my budget.

I know two ways. First publish and risk refusing with argument - independent measuring is missing. First find independent measuring with risk of negligible interest. Which should be more effective?

Libor

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by LNeumann</i>
<br />I measured the effect (value is in range 0.5mm/s2 in horizontal plain). The effect can be explained by shielding.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">How is it that others set a limit to any gravitational shielding effect at 3x10^-9 mm/s^2 (= 0.000 000 003 mm/s^2), but you find an effect at 0.5 mm/s^2? How is it that the world of physicists has been experimenting and looking for any such effect for the last century, and failed to see it? Does the effect hide from others and only show up for you?

The book <i>Pushing Gravity</i> has a history of such attempts and explains how the experimental limit I mentioned was set. You need to be up-to-date on history and experiments, or you will look naive. You will also be unable to give citations to the relevant work of others.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Where is an error?<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">That is for you to determine, not an outsider. Once you realize that gravitational shielding cannot be the correct explanation based on far more sensitive experiments, you will start to focus your mind on other explanations. And you will think of ways to test the hypotheses you come up with.

A credible experiment must have controls so that no other influences are possible, and so that experimenter bias cannot influence the outcome either.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">I can not accept explanation by mass moving. Sorry.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">It is up to you to find an explanation that does not contradict other accepted experimental results. The guesses of others unfamiliar with your experiment count for nothing.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">I know two ways. First publish and risk refusing with argument - independent measuring is missing. First find independent measuring with risk of negligible interest. Which should be more effective?<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">You propose an experiment that seemingly contradicts other more sensitive experiments. And you offer a non-credible, almost magical explanation for your results. Perhaps you have a relative with deep pockets who will fund an independent experiment. But I cannot imagine any interest within the field of physics, given that hundreds of fantastic experiments and theories are proposed every month, and almost all of them are worthless for advancing the frontiers of physics. That is why peer review exists.

Moreover, "independent" replication means just that, and is not something you can be involved in. At this point, you need to concentrate on acquiring more knowledge (background and experience) in the areas you wish to influence.

But whatever you decide, I wish you good luck. -|Tom|-

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by tvanflandern</i>
<br />How is it that others set a limit to any gravitational shielding effect at 3x10^-9 mm/s^2 (= 0.000 000 003 mm/s^2), but you find an effect at 0.5 mm/s^2? How is it that the world of physicists has been experimenting and looking for any such effect for the last century, and failed to see it? Does the effect hide from others and only show up for you?<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
Good question Tom. I asked similar question many times. I can not speak on behalf of others. I can explain only my story and my meaning.
I can find following reasons:
1- Technology barrier. The measurement needs computers. It needs long term automatic measurement and analyzing great amount of data. My analyses are based on more than 10 million of measured samples. The computers with usable parameters are easy accessible only a few years.
2- Mental barrier. Known theories blocks human mind. Why to test theoretically impossible situation? Why to place measuring device in places with greater influence of possible external effects?
3- Time barrier. The measurement must be running long time. Simple experiment needs weeks. You have to publish to be successful. Why to waste time with long time measurement with practically no chance to be publish?
4- Happenstance. I wanted to tune measurement software in “wrong“ locality. I wanted only to save my time for tuning.

It is long story in my case.
I was not looking for any gravity shielding effect based on any theory. The first idea was test if any external time dependent field can start earthquake and if the field of any origin exists on the Earth surface. I only analyzed what is known and what is unknown and unproved by experiments. The result of my analysis was decision to build measurement device and start measuring and theoretical estimation of measurement sensitivity of the device I should use for measuring hypothetical earthquake cause. The analysis was not based on any theory. It was based on hypothetical effect value range estimation.

I was surprised by measured data. I expected different results. My first measurement was under terrain level. The measurement above terrain level was selected from other (technical) reason. My mind was restricted by known theories. I collected great amount of data and made many experiments. I analyzed data many times. I made many hypotheses. One of them was shielding effect. I verified the hypothesis several times by different methods and the shielding hypothesis was successful. It was surprising for me too. The shielding hypothesis gives best agreement with measured data (together with time integral hypothesis).
Maybe the difference was, that I made a decision to measure something that seems to be nonsense with respect with known theory and known other results explanation. I have the possibility to risk this unusual way. I did not believe in unreliably proved theories. Human brain is not very reliable tool (including my).
Now I know more (or I think I know more). But how explain the results? Are used terms the best ones? The measured shielding effect is another than theoretical one. It works only for dynamic gravity component. It is caused probably by clouds or by relatively thin material. The estimated building material (concrete) shielding penetration depth (measured displacements interaction is 1/2 of original value) is about 0.3-0.8m.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">It is up to you to find an explanation that does not contradict other accepted experimental results. The guesses of others unfamiliar with your experiment count for nothing.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">What my explanation contradicts other experimental results? I tested my hypothesis to experimental results I know. I do not know any contradiction with measured results. I know only contradiction with other explanation of measured results. Do you know any contradiction with measured results? Do you know any measurement made in similar circumstances?
Can missing or wrong explanation of measured results disprove measured results? Is it better to have measured results without any hypothesis or try to find some more general hypothesis with risk of future improving or disproving?

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">You propose an experiment that seemingly contradicts other more sensitive experiments. And you offer a non-credible, almost magical explanation for your results<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">I feel it very sensitive question. My measurement is really less sensitive than other ones. But conditions are very different. With respect of my explanation the experiments are not in contradiction. With respect of frequently used theories and physical abstractions they are in contradiction. My explanations are the best hypothesis I find with respect of measured data.
I can not use more expected explanation with no correspondence with measured data. How to solve the problem?

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Perhaps you have a relative with deep pockets who will fund an independent experiment.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">The experiment replication is not very expensive. I think it could be replicated as university student project. The prize should be less than $150 plus PC.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Moreover, "independent" replication means just that, and is not something you can be involved in.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">I do not want to be involved in other experiments. I am trying to inspire somebody to try it. As you note, it should be risky to believe, that the measurement have sense.

Libor