Gravitational shadowing effect

EBTX,

I have been involved in theoretical, as well as physical, testing of gravity for 50 years. While I think my work provides some interesting thought provoking predictions and conclusions it has not achieved any formal and hard evidence for its support.

You may find more information by going to topic "Gravity Test" on this MSB, under General Information.

Also you may learn more about the concept from my site where I have a photo album of a custom Cavendish setup that was used. (There are 4 pages to the album. groups.msn.com/McCoinUniKEFTheory/home.htm

Before elaborating on the test concept and its anticipated method for showing "Pushing" vs other forms of gravity let me simply state that the greatest support for the concept of UniKEF (which is a "Pushing" form of gravity) is a long list of "Prori Predictions" of what a UniKEF type of gravity means in general terms for the universe.

That is I have predicted as much as 40 years in advance of such findings that: (The listed "Priori's" here are ones that have become confirmed)

1 - Heat would be produced in the cores of massive bodies. In 1964 NASA actually detected a heat flow to earth's surface correlated to gravitational intensity at that location - They still don't know why.

2 - That we would find that we appear to be at the center of the universe. Red Shift has been shown to mean just that.

3 - The universe would not only be expanding but would have an accelerating expansion. That is now the evidence.

4 - Objects would be found that appear to be older than the universe itself. Some claims of this have been made.

5 - Objects could be found that have a velocity that is FTL. Over 150 have been found.

6 - Distance is not a fixed quantity. That is it is 4.3 ly to Alpha C but only for a photon traveling at v = c and that for a bowling ball it would be less. The current data coming from deep space craft are starting to show this very affect.

These are a few of the predictions I made in 1954 that have over the decades been shown to be correct. They are logical conclusions of the UniKEF "Pushing" gravity view. While none of this proves anything it is normally a fair test of a concept if it can make "Priori Predictions". UniKEF has made numereous "Priori's" and hence I feel deserves greater consideration that it is receiving even though it is not a formalized theory supported by mathematics.

The tests done last year were based on indirect measurement of gravity accleration of a symmetrical mass which has a symmetrical void through its center. It was indirect in that we didn't measure force but timed the motion of a test mass from fixed distances from a detector mass. this was due to the extremely small signal we were seeking to find.

That is the center of mass is the same for any vewing angle of the object but by rotating the object and measuring gravity with the void (port) open or closed to the detector mass would produce a difference in gravity by virtue of flux streaming through the port even though the parameters for F = G*m1*m2/r^2 hadn't changed.

In addition to that test a "Remote Port Plug" was designed which could be lowered into the gravity path which effectively replaced the missing mass in the test mass and by placing it in the line of gravity would restore the apparent homogeniety of the mass such that no viewing differential would occur,proving that gravity was a flowing energy and not a local phenomena.

The tests were sucessful from my view point but only statistically and very marginal. That is we were attempting to measure what has calculated out to be a difference of 60 trillionths of a pound difference in gravity and outside enfluences seemed to over power the tests.

Statistically every series if tests we made showed the desired affect but the data was several times smaller that background noise and just not of a quality to present as proof.

One indirect finding further supported the UniKEF view of gravity but is difficult to describe. We found that our device was tracking the sun and moon positions; which accounted for most of the day to day and time of day differential in how the system performed. It turned out that those tital affects were as much as one million times bigger than the signal we were trying to measure.

We also found that the device would see the test operator when he entered the room and we had to specifically approach the device orthogonal to the line of the gravity test and limit time duration in the area to not destroy the test series.

The reason the tracking of the sun and moon further supported UniKEF had to do with the fact that our beam device while balanced had one leg 1/4 inch shorter than the other and it was the shorter leg that would latch onto and track those solar bodies.

It is far to difficult to explain here why that happens and why it supports a UniKEF view but it does and it took several weeks to figure that out. Your proposed test caught my eye since the affect is precisely the one our mis manufactured balance beam caused. So let me say that we have done your test (although we didn't intend to) and it did show a difference in gravity.



Knowing to believe only half of what you hear is a sign of intelligence. Knowing which half to believe can make you a genius.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by EBTX</i>
<br />Would it not be possible to construct a Cavendish type, torsion apparatus to test the "pushing gravity" theory? One would measure the force emanating from a long metal bar when it was in line with the detector and at 90 degrees to the detector. The difference between the two measures would be predicted by standard gravitational theory and pushing gravity ... but those predictions should be at odds with one another making a fair test. Have such tests been made already?<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

There is, of course, no difference at all between PG and Newton for ordinary gravitational force because both are independent of shape.

Gravitational shielding in PG could make a difference in principle. But PG shows the estimated size of the shielding coefficient. We are just at the threshold of possible seeing the shielding effect for objects as big as the Earth. Because the strength of the effect scales with size, we have no hope for detecting something from a laboratory-sized body a million times smaller than the Earth. -|Tom|-

Tom,

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><b>There is, of course, no difference at all between PG and Newton for ordinary gravitational force because both are independent of shape.

Gravitational shielding in PG could make a difference in principle. But PG shows the estimated size of the shielding coefficient. We are just at the threshold of possible seeing the shielding effect for objects as big as the Earth. Because the strength of the effect scales with size, we have no hope for detecting something from a laboratory-sized body a million times smaller than the Earth. -|Tom|-</b><hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

Yes, you are correct and thanks for pointing that out. After a long post about what we have done, etc, I did not make it clear that what we measured (and we did measure the affect) simply still did not prove what I wanted to prove. That is what we measured could still be explained by Newton.

Our error was looking at F = Gmm/r^2 as a limit of Newton's description of gravity; which it is not. For something not homogeneous more indepth Newton calculations provides the same result that we measured.

But we still had fun.[]

Let me emphasize the point of my post however and that is Newton does not cause the predictions made from a UniKEF view and the "Priori Predictions" that it produced. So that to me is the outstanding differential evidence as to which may be correct.


Knowing to believe only half of what you hear is a sign of intelligence. Knowing which half to believe can make you a genius.

Mac,

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">2 - That we would find that we appear to be at the center of the universe. Red Shift has been shown to mean just that.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

Could it be that we are mistaken; that is, we are not at the center, but that it looks that way due to the matter in our galaxy?

Also, there is a small problem here: If I assume the universe is unbounded, it does not have a center. Quite a predicament.

"If QM concludes Nature is absurd, SR's statement is that Nature is a complete moron."

Jan,

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><b>Could it be that we are mistaken; that is, we are not at the center, but that it looks that way due to the matter in our galaxy?</b><hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

ANS: We can make a very definite "Maybe Yes", "Maybe No" answer to that one.[]

It depends on your view and if it is correct or not. The Red Shift to one group means there was a Big Bang and everything is moving apart radially from that point. The problem is Red Shift puts us where the Big Bang origin should have been. But that is based on viewing Red Shift as being soley velocity generated.

Another point of view is that Red Shift" is a "Tired Light" syndrome and is based on distance. That view would put any observer in the center of his observed universe. That does not mean however that he is in the center of creation. His universe is a finite bubble within an undefined creation at large which will move as he moves keeping him in the center of whatever comes within the spatial volume of the bubble.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><b>Also, there is a small problem here: If I assume the universe is unbounded, it does not have a center. Quite a predicament.</b><hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

From the above views being bounded or unbounded would alter the view of being in the center. I personally believe not only Red Shift but time/space suffer a simular dissapation and that creates an actual finite boundry to our universe within the larger creation which is undefined.




Knowing to believe only half of what you hear is a sign of intelligence. Knowing which half to believe can make you a genius.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">There is, of course, no difference at all between PG and Newton for ordinary gravitational force because both are independent of shape.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
I see what you mean here. With any orientation, the probability of being pushed amounts to about the same thing ... one way from greater area presented ... and from the other, by greater length.

One other question:

When a common object at the earth's surface passes directly between the earth and moon, should not its weight differ from an identical mass on the opposite side of the earth since it is then shielded both by the earth on its bottom and the moon from its top while the one on the other side of the earth is shielded from just one side?

I mean here if an object is shielded equally in all directions, would it not then be weightless? And then, would not an object being between the earth and moon partake (to some measurable degree) of that weightlessness?