neuvophysics.com    neuvophysics@Gmail.com

 

 

 

NASA PROVES RELATIVITY?

Note: Please excuse the non capitalization of the names of bodies.

·         PLANETARY ORBITAL STABILITY MECHANICS

·         THE G-THEORIZED CAUSE OF APSIDAL

PRECESSION OBSERVED IN PLANETARY ORBITS (following)

 

Foreword

Recently NASA declared that it had proved Einstein   '   s theory of general relativity by the observational interpretations from Gravity probe B. This is not the case because there is another more radical theory which does not indulge in the metaphysical faux science of causation by mathematics rather by a mechanically virulent, phenomenologically legal scalar model.

 

 

The following opinion piece should be valuable prerequisite reading--

 

A CRITICAL INTERPRETIVE ANALYSIS OF THE 'RXTE' PROBE RESULTS

 

With special reference to the results -If you are an analytical scientists- from the Rossi X-ray timing explorer (RXTE) satellite. I would like to make the following reasonable objections.

I/ Background scintillation affects already exist in space, which was measured by the RXTE as 50 counts of background compared with 360 counts per HEXTE (experiment) cluster. Even for this reason alone, one part in a few trillion of observed frame-dragging cannot be acceptable as a reasonable empirical observation being presented for proof.

For heaven's sake; with that insignificant measurement I'd want to first look at the atomic scalar (pixilated) resolution of the solid state x-ray scintillators, wouldn't you?

OK then: It turns out that the layer accuracies of the 'phoswitch scintillation detectors'   are only in the 80 percent range and the 'energy’ resolution is about 15 percent. So on that count it must be considered that the 'relevance temperature' of the data is dropping down near zero k. So statistically the experiment actually observed zip.

Also very problematical (when blatantly announcing such a dubious measurement as empirically derived evidence) is that the FWHM (Gaussian) 'c' is a whole one degree. Just how close   was  this black hole, may I ask?

Also problematic is the 8u/s time sampling. How many times was the sampling repeated? Is the derived result an average of positive and negative (bi or omnilateral) measurements, or the skewed result of an average of a number of unilateral measurements? Were these measurements random? Were the results subject to a selective Gaussian sample selection process? You should all know that such questions must be asked, because even apart from the above problems the answer to those questions makes a huge difference in the interpretation of the data. I'm not concluding that the results were fudged on purpose, but a result driven agenda is able to bring out bias in the best of us.

Even if the scientists came up with a repeatable result of, say a whole second of averaged unilateral frame drag, that would only prove Einstein to be in some manner correct in his frame dragging hypothesis which is an expected result in G-theory as well, which even if it is measurable*; because of the previous explanation of inertial force frame dragging by G-theory, it can no longer be logically extended to add any weight of evidence for G-relativity or geodesics per se.

*Refer to the  following Gravity Probe B analysis.

 

If there is any other possible reason for an effect then their is no evidence for proof for any single theorized mechanics. Except for black holes, G-theory does of course recognize the probability and indeed the necessity of some frame dragging hypothesis but this herein featured novel theory, even though somewhat imbroglio, creates a real problem for conventional wisdom, because even now I've shown that there could very well be another reason for the gravitational drag, quite apart from the space time warping geodesic metric. Such an alternative and substantive mechanical theory is further presented herein, but kudos to Einstein (Heaviside?) for even thinking of such a concept.

I might be really dumb, but may I ask? What possible connection has x-ray scintillation from an accretion disc got to do with gravity in the geodesic model in any case? However it may be of interest to note that quite paradoxically it does in the G-theory model! Mmm.

The obvious conclusion is that -apart from the indication of the actual existence of the x-ray scintillation noted- the data obtained is way inside both the statistical and measuring equipment range of error and is therefore invalid. Otherwise this would be akin to accepting the slight unilateral bias noticed in the Michelson Morley experiment as being actual evidence for an aether. Even De Sitter rejected observed doppler shifts in binary pulsars (which were only a small fraction of one percent) as being insufficient for the purpose of drawing empirical conclusions regarding the non constancy of 'c' from. Of course that decision was likely to have been agenda driven because he was a S-rel 'c' constantist. I'm not a true 'c' constantist but could any supposed supremacy of the geodesic frame-dragging conclusion over other theoretical profferings such as G-theory also be agenda driven? I wonder?

It seems that the current HEXTE experimenters are so desperate to show a result, and prove their 'physics god' Einstein right, that in this case they are willing to accept pico-pico-pico data as empirical evidence. Sometimes I must conclude that science is too often forced into an outcome driven position (corner) and the scientists are blinded to rational honesty for whatever reason the suspected agenda may elicit. Things like, Lot's of money and job security come to mind! So I cynically presume that, as with the other mentioned experiments, there remains a hint of suspicion which leans towards the probably unwitting but fraudulent nature of the conclusions so drawn.


 

How on earth the planets maintain their orbits over eons when they are colliding with the solar wind & what causes orbital apsidal precession. Note: This assumes that all else has remained the same. If gravity has undergone a change -for instance- then orbits will be assumed to have been different in the past. We don't need to get lost in those weeds.

 

ORBITAL STABILITY

Neither Newtonian, Keplerian nor the GTR geodesic, nor the virtual force attraction, nor the gravitomagnetism, nor the Brans Dicke, nor any other theories of gravity are able to solve this problem.

 Planets are colliding with solar wind particles by their orbital motion. The friction caused by such a phenomenon is just one of many systematic energy loss agencies that should slow the planets down with resulting orbital decay and they should no longer exist as satellites!

Now of course the first objection to be fired at me might be that the van Allen belts protect the earth from the solar wind. The logical answer to this is that the whole earth as well as the Van Allen belts must be evaluated as one systemic entity because they are connected by force fields. I will brook no argument on this because apart from that obvious logic; other planets don't have van Allen belts.

Your next objection may be: As well as solar wind then, G-theory itself has added another frictional component called 'space drag' which should make the problem even worse and by consequence my theory has less merit that the previous ones.

Think, think: That really makes it harder for the other theories and it is plainly obvious that orbital stability is the inescapable realty! Especially if you consider that the necessary conditions for the rise of life were required to exist for billions of years, otherwise of course you have a real problem with your evolution theory don't you? That objective fact predisposes us to predict the existence of another phenomenological happenstance that's screaming to be given the 'goldilocks' tag once again. But of course what that particular phenomenology is, should actually be able to be recognized if the mechanics provided by any of the theories being evaluated should be considered to be plausible and which theories are able to be validated or not by this very phenomenon.

No such mechanics are available for those first two historical- or those post Newtonian contemporary- gravitational models.

That is not the case for G-theory: One possible suggestion is that the solar wind and any further affect caused by photons and neutrinos is striking the earth -planet- at a vector relatable angle compared to the solar wind which is then pushing the planet out at the same time as it is slowing it down.

Therefore this would at first appear to be a specious argument for any and all the theories because in fact the earth would still exhibit a slowing of its orbital speed because the changing vector relationship with solar wind collisions etc. would be in the wrong direction to cause any maintenance of the orbit -rather, a slowing down- and an outward force should have resulted in the earth and planets having spun off into space long ago or conversely the planets would have slowed so much that the outwardly vectored force would soon become insufficient to prevent orbital decay.

So which ever way you look at it. If there is an affect that either speeds up or slows down the orbital rotation; either one of these is assured to fail as a controllable mechanics in a very short time because there is no know negative feedback loop in any of the historical gravitational models which can prevent them from toggling in either direction. Once toggled, there is only an expected acceleration of the orbital demise and no coming back. Also we must reason that photons and neutrinos would offer insignificant unilateral force on a body as large as the earth.

By reason of these problems we are constrained to search for another phenomenon occurring which is able to cause orbital stability and no matter how hard we look we are faced with the only explanation left: I.e. that the only agency still in contention for the necessary and extreme -100% stability- negative feedback loop is gravity itself.

So now the point positive for any imaginative scientist is that of a negative feedback loop caused by 'gravitational aberration' -by graviton transitional mechanics through a rotating sun and its coronal halo- This means that gravity emanating from the sun must be friction curved in a non linear relationship over distance -as a pinwheel with straight arms on the low gravity away side, and at right angles to the solar surface on the high graviton density inward bound side; all in vector summation-. This; even though the standardized relationship must still be by -modified- inverse square law under basic linear distance 'r' evaluation.

This is one half of the loop which needs the balance opposite to cause the stability. The one has inverse proportionality with the other and the whole phenomenon should be able to be modeled mathematically of course. Relativists will likely appeal to 'rotational frame dragging' as the phenomenology however their geodesic frame dragging is just the one half and is lacking in the required negative feedback support defined in this assertation. So general relativity is therefore disavowed by not offering a planetary orbital support mechanism. Therefore this dissertation is all in support of G-theory and I still stand firm on the choice of a substantive physical cause exhibited by the activity of real forces. By any empirical rationale; reality should trump pseudo forces and this therefore disallows metaphisicism.

This proposal is also not in anyway similar to relativistic gravi-magnetic proposals which were hoped to be discovered and supported by the Nordvelt effect. That has already been put in doubt by laser ranging experiments between the earth and the moon and G-theory predicts it will never happen without fudging; although unlike the gravity probe B experiment they don't have relativistic stellar reference frames to fiddle with in order to prove relativity by itself.

Note well that G-theory force frame dragging and pinwheel gravitation effects are not deemed to emanate from the center of a body such as the sun or its apacenter. They are due to light collisions of which a significant proportion occur away from the sun within the coronal halo or the 'energy tensor' itself and it will not be directly detectable as a type of Nordvelt affect but only by such results as orbital stability and the Allais effect.

The modern idea of scalar tensor gravity is just another non force tensor aberration put forward in an effort to save GTR. GTR should become less attractive with every predictable occurrence or effect that goes by the wayside. If you want to discover some real gravity aberration that you've all not recognized, please refer to supplement 1.

G-theory does therefore show Strong equivalence principle violation which is undetectable except for the Allais effect and the Newton (surprise surprise). In its general application on earth along with the weak equivalence principle in which there is still a very miniscule violation. This has been borne out in experiments with violation but only in the order of negative ten degrees of magnitude. That has been predicted by G-theory in the relevant section.   Note: This is in addition to the SEP violation noted on the Newtons errors tabs.

It now stands that in my arsenal I have made a theoretical conclusion from which I am able to derive plausible postulations.

1/ General apsidal precession is caused by the likelihood that the center of gravity of an orbitally relative other body is not the geometric center of the body rather it is an axially aligned point within each body which traces a small circle -notionally- at 0.707 of each body's radii: TBE.   Note: This is not a reference to a barycenter.   This has the affect of modifying the exponent in the gravitational inverse square law as Newton himself surmised. I.e---

F(r)=GMm/r2.0165

That was a little ridiculous. He should have left the exponent alone and modified the 'r' (better still 'd'): TBE.

Note: he actually proved it in the lunar case but he had no phenomenological reason to fall upon.

When we analyze the orbits of planets we note some differences to apsidal precession and especially in the case of mercury which will be addressed shortly. For this reason we need to search for other possible modificants to the planetary orbital relative gravitational center of the sun. These are proposed as follows.

2/  When photons traveling at the same velocity collide, then the vector angle of graviton emission is by perfect vector elastic collision law without eigenvector transformation. This occurs with an inverse square law relationship with distance all the way to the reference frame of the planet, or earth in our case. This adds some lesser force vector additional to the force being derived in the next item. This extra force bends the end result vector even further than otherwise expected. This phenomenon is important when it come to solving the Allais problem but it also applies to the force balance required for the negative feedback loop for orbit stability.

3/  The vector angle will be exactly half the collision vector angle and weighted in the vectored direction of photon travel. However there is another law which applies to photons traveling at dissimilar velocities but they would be vector sum zero with respect to any planet other than Mercury TBE.

3/ Further proposed phenomenology: When two photons of differing vectors traveling in the same general vector relative direction collide, then the vector of the graviton creation will be along the same eigenvector in the angularly vectored direction of the most energetic photon by inverse law relationship to the ratio of the difference in their energies. This should be in accordance with statistical inelastic scattering predictions.   Note: Inelastic to some degree because a particle is being scattered and energy is being lost as gravitons but with overall total conservation of energy.

This effect aids orbital stability by providing an additional affect to the gravitational aberration which is proportional to the solar light output with an affect which will be inversely proportional to the solar wind drag coefficient. I will call this gravitational parallax. This effect causes a change in the angle of attack of graviton backfill especially by gravitons formed as the light travels closer to the earth. In respect to the collision of photons traveling out from the sun.

This is because of the light delay time of several minutes which angles the actual light approach to the Earth surface. The graviton production at any point in the solar system is then seen as being vectorally angled outwards to a maximum of 90 degrees photon collision angle in direct power law proportion to the angle of any given collision, being limited over the 0degree  to 90degree  relationship having inverse proportionality with distance from the sun.   Note: Photons have zero collision statistics with protons or other particles whether charged or magnetic.

When the enormous quantity of such newly created gravitons pass through an orbiting planet they cause a gravitational force by GTDg which is in direct opposition to planetary drag. In other words this changes the angle of the solar gravity affect which is the force that counteracts the potential loss of angular orbital velocity.

This is because even though that gravity adjustment is counterintuitive it can be seen to be caused by the dragged angle of the graviton shadow -or push- which is now coming from a dragged vector angle but we can also regard that as a pull in the other vector adjusted forward direction because it is a reduction in the 'shadowing' effect and it then appears to be similar to geodesic frame dragging at this juncture.

However and applicable only to G-theory. There is a negative feedback loop caused in this manner: We understand that the centrifugal force always acts against the centripetal force of gravity and equalizes the forces at orbital altitude, that outward force is now acting in an outward but vector forward tilted manner which supports the orbit rotational angular velocity by a vector resultant acting up and away from the orbital tangent. Now the so called -and just explained differently- geodesic frame dragging has a similar but lesser affect which would not be sufficient to maintain orbits in all changeable conditions and this is mainly because this simplistic GTR geodesic model doesn't have a built in negative feedback phenomenology which will be soon introduced fully in support of G-theory.

Thus far: It is known that the measured frame dragging of earth is insufficient for the purpose whether by geodesics or G-theory because it is what it is! It requires the extra gravitational solar effects which have been herein described as the -also insufficient- gravitational aberration which is relatable to G-rel geodesic solar frame dragging but in addition to that, G-theory provides an  extra emr -photonic- stress tensor derived gravitational parallax adjustment which is impossible under the auspices of relativity.

Presenting this more simply: The main points of difference at this juncture are the fact that G-theory provides an un-described but minimally effective---

1/ planet rotational frame drag component as well as

2/ a solar apacenter shift -frame drag- aberration, and on top of that it also provides

3/ the extra gravity shadow parallax shift, that even while being much reduced over distance, its angular relationship becomes proportionally greater which effectively nullifies that force reduction and it provides a significant GS backfill in the reverse inward direction resulting in a further forward directional vector shift which in turn results in a greater orbital support mechanism when amplified by planetary spin. This is also important for understanding the G-theory explanation of the Allais effect which geodesics has no answer for as well. Right here we have two severe failings of the geodesic model. It's a croc!

This means that at around Neptune the deviation would be in the order of 0.09 of one percent of 90 degrees or 0.08 of a degree outwards and forwards*, while at mercury the deviation angling away in the forward rotational direction from the sun is a theoretical 9.8 percent of ninety degrees or about a whopping 8.8 degrees; ditto. The variation over the whole solar system is by inverse square law such that at around earth orbital radius the drag is being reduced by an orbital decay countering gravity deviation which is in the order of >0.2 of a degree counter drag angle. The modified inverse square law counters the solar wind drag encountered by inverse square law of solar wind density v distance from the sun.

I obviously left something out here for thesis readers to discover.   --- pi because averaged photon collision angles are proportional to the diameter of the sun.   Note: The normal formula from which 'g' is derived isn't exactly applicable to stellar bodies and Einstein's field equations are generally used. However, I'm not presenting any 'hard' gravitational formula yet; just a plausible mechanics for the phenomenology. Note also: S-rel considers light to be constant from the emission reference frame -all reference frames-. This doesn't prevent velocity invariant vector shifts from a moving emission surface in any case. I.e. the solar surface.

*In other words the forces make the planet act like it's in an orbit which is angled up and away from the actual orbit.

** ---technically, close to infinity.

ORBITAL STABILITY RESOLUTION IN A NUTSHELL

This in collusion with the slight solar rotation caused graviton transitional bending aberration -which cause the centripetal (inertial) force on the planet to become vectored in the direction of orbit by increasing the positional deviation of the solar gravitational center-, so happens to provide an almost perfect 'goldilocks' angle which introduces a modified gravitational centripetal force which partially negates the friction caused by the solar wind, space drag and 'inertial frame dragging'. All planets are able to keep their orbital integrity by the same phenomenology.   Note: The mechanics of the behavior of mercury is altered because of its proximity to the sun. Refer to the New G-less gravitational formula tab and you should find the reason for the Mercury problem.

The negative feedback occurs because solar radiation is itself dependant on gravity as explained herein. If the sun loses its brightness the virtual but mechanically effective solar center -which traces a small orbit matching locus around the true geometric solar center- moves back inwards towards the real center and the slight retrograde adjustment to the advanced angle of centripetal -inertial- force offsets the reduction in gravity that caused the solar attenuation and visa versa.   Note: This feedback must be just right because the solar wind will be proportionally reduced as well. This fine balance of forces could be modeled but it must be said that the 'build in' of such a finely tuned balance which is able to accurately maintain orbits is more than a 'goldilocks' phenomenon, it comes with a ponderously sobering realization that mightn't be lost on all.

 The pinwheel affect that also causes a slight affect on the effective solar center offers negative feedback for any change in incoming GD velocity as well. Both angles are covered, so to speak.

Of course if you add the energy loss realized by the friction of tidal movements caused by the moon's rotation around the earth then by any other theory the problem should become even more compounded. G-theory has now offered an explanation for one more head scratching 'goldilocks' phenomenon.   Note: Once again I dare to suggest that Gravity Probe-B DID NOT PROVE EINSTEIN CORRECT because there is now another viable option which is purely physical and explainable by scalar G-theory science! This is by concluding that some solar deviation of graviton generation by light emission and collision mechanics as well as by G-theory graviton path bending by transitioning through a rotating sun; -i.e. Force frame dragging-* provides a mechanism which is more plausible when the totality of G-theory is taken into consideration. In any case the results from the Gravity Probe B experiment WERE LESS THAN SCHIFF'   S PREDICTED VALUES -which should have been even more because of tidal friction- and that fits well with this G-theory phenomenology whereby there is an aberration counter force acting on a 0.2  degree  angle which already provides a portion of the drag counterforce. The rest of the counter force is applied by G-theory derived SOLAR GRAVITY PARALLAX FORCE FRAME PUSHING and this force would likely be proportional to the value of the measured frame drag component being subtracted from Schiff's predicted value for earth if the frame dragging should be considered to be proportional to mass and therefore a planet's orbit as well as its spin. Schiff's predictions are also flawed if they are based on Einstein's field equations, which show only conditional but insufficient levels of universal variance based on big G. Refer to the G-less gravity equation tab. Note also: Some nutshell huh? I haven't gone further with these calcs. It all looks good from rule of thumb!

*Geodesics only accounts for this portion of the phenomenon by its theorized 'frame dragging' which results in the Gravity Probe B measured affect not truly relating to predictions. This in itself lends strong support for G-theory.

 

Even the solar rotational relativistic geodesic frame dragging theory is not able to offer any solution to the other two featured problems that are therefore being summarily ignored by that theory. It only seeks to predict a slowing of the rotation of the earth. This is because in that theory the Einsteinian geodesic manifold is supposedly the singular provider of gravity and so the results of the experiment were unpredicted and surprising. The implication they also missed was: If the geodesic manifold is effectively distorted by frame dragging which is slowing the spin of the earth then -by the addition of solar force frame pushing- that would also necessarily provide a vector force resultant in support of the planetary orbital rotation which would HELP maintain the planet's orbit and spin. This is essentially what we observe. Note: The Earth-spin frame dragging is all we've got for the Earth moon relationship. There is evidence that the moon is drifting in its orbit which must be much younger than proposed.

But of course the problem for relativists is that they can show no -pushing- counterforce able to explain the lower than expected values that were measured and they must simply ignore the other three -or more- forces which are causing friction on both the earth's spin and orbit, especially when considering -as I suspect- that the measured geodesic frame dragging wasn't even enough to explain anything useful really. Hee hee!

As previously examined; the sun in effect is actually 'frame pushing' its gravity including the solar wind to some extent through the solar system with a pinwheel like affect for one other probably insignificant reason--- because of the contention by G-theory that graviton vectored production is not always a constant. Note:   The emission speed  'c'   and the slight motion relative decelerative affect of a massive quantity of photon collisions on the production of gravitons in a high energy system are two different phenomena and have been treated accordingly. However they have negatively proportional effects on orbit mechanics.   NB: In the above analysis I am referring to the angle of incident photons causing vector relative graviton emissions; not to any apparent positional observational relativity caused by the finite speed of direct light taking about eight minutes to reach the earth from the sun, which of course then places the sun in a an observationally incorrect position.

The two phenomena are completely unrelated. A far more massive gravitational pin wheel or similar affect is most notably exhibited to a far greater degree in the accretion discs of hypervelocity rotating black holes and to a lesser extent; galaxy centers. The GS spirals in one direction and the matter spirals into it in the other. Any frame dragging caused by graviton transitional path bending through a spinning sun is considered to be significant and it is important to note that the gravity shadow which is supporting the planetary orbits acts in the REVERSE direction to the graviton transitional pinwheel affect. I.e. The pinwheel bends in the direction of the solar spin which is in vector support of the orbits of the planets and the earth.

It is also very important to understand   that centripetal -inertial- force is actually acting vectorally against the aberration shifted solar gravity center in addition to the further apacenter shift caused by the -emr energy tensor- parallax force frame dragging gravitational pinwheel affect*. So the G-rel and G-theory predicted solar frame dragging effect is summed with solar light graviton production mechanics to cooperate in deriving a virtual solar gravity center which is always retrograde to the plane of the planetary orbit and which could theoretically be external to the sun**. I.e. the solar gravity center appears to be lagging from the center relative to the planet. It would normally be declared to act in a straight line from the center of the sun according to the laws of the conservation of angular momentum. This provides a forward vector resultant which not only helps counter solar wind drag but -in addition to another phenomenon- also conditionally causes orbital precession. Note: refer also to 'The Mercury problem'.

This is also the reason why the stellar matter in a black hole accretion disc spirals in and doesn't just follow a simple curved gravitational fall***. So it provides a slight forward vector resultant that reinforces the phenomenology just described. But because of this, resultant planetary orbits will exhibit a slightly greater diameter and perhaps a precessing elliptical orbit. -An elliptical orbit is likely to be caused by an elastic relationship with such a phenomenon. All this could be computer modeled.- This would probably mean that the sun itself is exhibiting motion around a varying barycenter caused by some other gravitational interaction. Perhaps it's Jupiter? Or it just might be something else more sinister?

NB With such a 'curving gravity through a rotating body' phenomenon there is no need for the postulation of dark matter to provide the extra gravitational pull thought necessary to hold galaxies together under the incorrect standard radial gravity postulation.

*Not to be confused by the locus being traced on a rotating object by a non perturbative point transiting at 3D right angles to the axial enter of rotation of the object. These graviton transitions are being factually -even if not significantly- bent by the rotation of the solar nucleons in vector sum analysis.  This also occurs with the earth but Gravity Probe B showed the insignificance of that particular frame dragging. However in relation to the sun: It does exist with significance and as such it is summative to the photon graviton parallax generation phenomena. The value of the aberration and parallax phenomena relative to the whole, can be directly related -as though measured- by the Gravity probe B spacecraft's measured deviation from the predicted result. From all of this we are forced to conclude that stars have a great deal of gravity being formed by the light in their vicinity which won't appear to emanate from the actual solar center.

The sheer innumerable quantity of stars pretty well irons out any possible wrinkles in GD and the speed of light in the current universe. From this it should be possible to calculate the gravity value of GD from the calculation of the gravity being created by the sun itself. Again this is almost an insignificant value but necessary to aid in countering the solar wind -and other- frictional drag in the method proposed.

**This provides another variable which could explain the anomalous non-concentricity of orbits without requiring an invisible planet! None of this theory violates the local conservation of 'stress energy' but it does distort the tensor. Refer to the mercury problem.

 

***N.B. Each planet has a different virtual solar gravity modificant to the standard deviated gravity center which accounts for non solar -cold body- precession which has angular proportionality to individual orbital 'r' which for reasons yet to be tabled seriously affects the orbit of Mercury.

 

In any case this will all only result in slight mass calculation errors for the mass of the sun because any postulation of curved and deviated solar gravity as bending the energy stress tensor* by distortion of the metric because vacuum modification (VM) of the gravitational tensor has never before been presented to my knowledge or ever before recognized as a possibility. I am possibly mistaken but the laws of local energy conservation are not however.

 

It may be of profound realization that such a 'goldilocks' orbital sustaining phenomenology is crucially dependant on the rotational velocity of our central star!

It must be understood that the gravitons don't maintain curved velocity once they transit the sun -and to a lesser extent its coronal regions- or a planet. The transitional phenomenology results in the angular GTDg vector shift during the transition through the sun and to a much lesser degree even the earth but even then it is sufficient to provide a mass proportional force frame gravity reduction affect because it causes a further but complex vectored tilt in the centripetal force which creates a forward acting accelerative vector result in the non inertial reference frame.

*This assumes no relationship with GTR geodesic theory whatsoever.

 

So rather than geodesic frame dragging; solar rotational 'inertial or force frame dragging' is a different phenomenon which is thought in G-theory to be fundamentally caused by a modified slight bending at 'y' through the solar mass of the combined electron-graviton perturbative force*. This having been said I would consider such a force to be weak but it is partially causative of the mechanics of 'force frame dragging' that I am proposing.

*This presents another variable and the solution becomes a five variable with a GD constant solution.

 

 

CONCLUSION BY ITERATION:

 

There are three main forces that are conditionally contributive to the support of planetary spin and/or orbit angular velocities.

1/ Light energy differential derived vector shifted gravity backfill of the sun -parallax-, which supports---

2/ Solar graviton transitional 'pinwheel' orbit-supporting gravity force -aberration-.

3/ Reactionary force in support of planetary orbit from the force frame drag -pinwheel- caused by the planetary spin. I.e. Solar wind drag friction attempts to slow the rotation and cause an orbital decay whilst at the same time the centripetal -inertial- force acting in a slight forward direction has the opposite affect while solar created graviton fill supports this which results in two or three effectively positive forces resulting in orbital stability.   Note: the moon is often sheltered from the full impact of these NFLs and its orbit is drifting outward. The common idea that the tides are affecting the orbit of the moon is not well thought out because the ocean is part of the Earth's gravitational system with respect to the Moon which sees an equal force -in the mean- emanating from Earth.

 

Furthermore, in G-theory light and gravity are intimately related and some of the previously noted solar graviton backfill will also be vector angled back towards the sun with a reverse 'pinwheel' like affect, which now counters the force caused by the normal GD transitioning gravitons by a covariant reverse force functor. The extremely small time differential realized in the relationship may allow for a very small and technically insignificant slowing of solar rotation.   Note: This must be conceptualized to be GS and NOT gravity backfill which would be considered to cause opposite affects.

Putting all this more simply*: Because the sun is spinning, light is emitted from the corona in a slight pinwheel like fashion. This causes photon-photon collisions that have an averaged GS backfill that affects the earth at an angle which is supportive of its orbit by applying a -subjectively evaluated- slight forward and inwardly vectored attractive force which counters the solar wind drag.   Note: actually pushing.  This results in the idea of anisotropic light emission which compares well with the noted cosmic ray anisotropy. Such anisotropy** creates a solar light emission barycenter -of sorts- which whilst it is not a single point it is always to the east of the solar geocenter for any given observer in the solar system.   Note: Such graviton creation from photon collisions is considered to be the phenomenology behind the otherwise magical ability of laser light to transfer a force with sufficient inertia to cause inertial confinement fusion in a deuterium pellet. This is the same phenomenology that causes fusion in stars. Get it? G-man strikes again.

The solar wind is also emitted under somewhat similar affects but it travels much slower than 'c' so the vectors of the solar wind and the solar light caused gravity are still considered as being in vectored opposition. Mainly because the solar photons are supporting gravity from an increasingly dragged angle all the way to the earth whilst the solar wind is not. Note: Refer to the section on the Allais effect.

Cosmologically speaking, any such frame dragging aberration caused by solar rotation would actually be next to negligible, whereas the frame drag caused by graviton transitional path bending caused by gravitons transiting through the accretion disc of a black hole or galaxy center would be seriously significant.

By way of some iteration here: Light parallax generation of gravitons would be predicted to result in very large GD -gravity- anomalies which would exist around extremely light energetic regions. This has given rise to the postulation of dark matter and dark energy. Such anomalous gravity would be attenuated by the time it reached the solar system even from our own 'milky way' -by reason of the graviton to light reabsorbtion mechanism previously proposed-which tends towards equilibrium according to the known laws of thermodynamics.

*It's not very simple at all. None of this is easily calculable by any geometric or geodesic manifold solution. There are many factors and vectors at work and the process may be difficult to computer model with any degree of success. However we know it all works because we're still here! If you wish to adhere to the idea that planetary orbits have been maintained for billions of years by magic or even as Newton thought by timely divine interventions; be my guest.

*Light speed anisotropy is a central tenet of G-theory and it supports many individual phenomenological proposals.

 

 

 

THE G-THEORIZED CAUSE OF APSIDAL PRECESSION OBSERVED IN PLANETARY ORBITS

 

Firstly there are some points to note:

1/ The aforementioned forward vector tilted -VTC- inertial force acting against the gravitational centripetal force -GCF- which causes a leading vector force resultant of GCF on the orbiting planet. Even if it is being negated over the complete orbit, it must be a variant force at the apoapsis and the periapsis.   Note: This is 'solar-force-fame-dragging' which constitutes counter orbital-forces acting at the orbital position of the earth -being caused by the solar gravity and light anisotropies theorized herein- which are many orders of magnitude less powerful than earth's rotational-force frame-dragging force but effective nevertheless.

2/ The VTC centripetal force is caused by the virtual effective gravitational center which in snapshot, is offset to the center of the sun because of the summed gravitational bending which is preeminently caused by the solar rotation and emr stress tensor force generation by the prior mechanics.

3/ The vector resultant orbital maintenance force is miniscule yet sufficient to cause the observed mild planetary perihelion precessions.

4/ The major force resultant occurs at the periapses.

The mechanics of the theorized precession is very simple:

During the orbital transition of the region approaching the periapsis the planet accelerates due to the conditionally greater and leading VTC centripetal force vector; it there being greater than the solar wind/space drag force. This effectively forces an orbital change which angles slightly inwards to a slightly lower orbit. This will of course cause the orbit to precess. The forces at work during the transition of the apoapsis region are insufficient to fully negate the precession because of the inverse square law of diminishing affect. Presto, we have an elliptical orbit with precession! The sun is also orbiting the galaxy center so it is proposed that planetary gyroscopic precession is the unrecognized cause of the orbital plane tilting and that until now inexplicable motion was given the term apsidal precession.

 

Note: No diagrams have been included in this assertation. It is for explanatory purposes only.

 

STOP PRESS: Someone recently won a Nobel Peace Prize for the proof of an expanding universe. G-theory could have told him that; but proof?

I guess he hasn't taken the leap to the relativistic drivel that I was referring to in the 'talking points' on page two. That sort of thing goes to show the depths of 'straw grasping' that scientists and their elitist 'wanna know all's' have fallen to. I have no problems with an expanding or even accelerating universe (which G-theory proposes with a reason) or with the infiniteness of infinity but to take that to mean time warping by an accelerating manifold and that being the cause of gravity is a step too far.

In such a case objects would be forced to follow the time warp and be unable to resist such an intransigent status. Yet we can hold things in place in a gravitational field. Or is the field in place and the object still moving? Mmm!!

When it comes to an expanding universe; I must ask from what point is the universe deemed to be expanding? If it's from all points as some suggest; then that must be considered to be absurd, surely*? If it's from one central point. Where is the central point? If the central point can be shown, then that creates more problems regarding gravity and an expanding universe than it solves. Even more profound would be the discovery that the Earth really is at the center of the universe!

*Because if it is expanding from all points then we have a zero sum game!

 

How are S-rel and geodesics able to be united in this new theory? They can't! So science is likely to just keep digging itself deeper into the relativistic hole of the fantastical! ARRRRRRGH!! If you are simply reading the 'back of the book' at this point, you definitely need to read the whole thesis before you reach any conclusions based on such hypotheses. Kudos to Brian Schmidt's for proving what all historical 'red shift noticer's' expected.

I'm sorry, but this proof of an accelerative expanding universe may have been given specious ammunition by the modernist academy of the fantastica, so I thought such a mind game needed to be addressed after all.

In fact the Nobel Prize wasn't awarded for any actual proof. It was given because the Laureate-acist's were able to concur with the rationality of the deduction based on scientific logical evaluation of assumptive but reasonable data. This makes Professor Schmidt, Riess and Perlmutter champions of the new empire of reason.

However reason can only ever be based on 'what they knew and when they knew it' in a world of ever growing knowledge--- and I have herein presented other possible mechanics of supernovae and also another possible reason for the observed red shift in distant galaxies.

According to De Sitter's et-al's Doppler shift experiments with binary pulsars, such a massive frequency shift shouldn't be observable at all, and on top of that; white dwarf supernova constancy as a light source is very assumptive to say the least. But it is noteworthy to consider that those particular laureates were actually thinking outside the box. Or were they?

 

 

neuvophysics.com   neuvophysics@Gmail.com