• THE G-THEORIZED CAUSE OF APSIDAL------------------------------186




Problem: 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.





The solar/planetary gravitational system is far more complex than we could imagine. The childlike and simplistic idea of a point source gravitational heliocenter has been only mildly corrected by almost equally puerile explanations based on dark age physics which at least contain the idea of a Solar-planet relative barycenter.

The reference frame for observation is as normal with reference to the polar star being at the top and the view is down.

Conjugative principle: With respect to all theories--- the orbit of small bodies relative to a massive body is able to be considered to be viable irrespective of any proposed gravitational barycenter changes (within reason).

This means that the assumed gravitational center being notionally considered to be at the observed solar position and not the true position is irrelevant for any determinations regarding the speed of gravity. Therefore other determinants are required as typically found herein.





Neither Newtonian, Keplerian nor the GR geodesic, nor the virtual force attraction, nor the Brans Dicke, nor any other theories of gravity are able to offer a solution to the first problem.

The problem revolves around planetary orbital stability over time. The problem was so grievous to Newton that he declared that there must be periods of divine intervention.

Problem to be solved: Planets are colliding with -among other things- solar wind particles against 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! We can't even get a satellite to orbit earth for very long yet Earth and the planets are supposed to have been out there for at least four billion years.

Now of course your 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.

No the speeds being assessed have essentially zero effect. Think, think: It is plainly obvious that orbital stability is the inescapable realty! Especially when 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? However I can't even imagine -and science shows the impossibility of- even thousand of years of orbit stability!

 That objective fact of actual stability 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 be able to be understood if the mechanics provided by any theories being evaluated are considered to be plausible and such theories are able to be validated or not by being able to offer a solution to this very phenomenon.

No such mechanics are available from the first two historical or post Newtonian contemporary gravitational models. Therefore they are unable to be validated.

One possible suggestion unrelated to those theories or mine is that the solar wind and any affect caused by light and neutrinos is striking the earth -planet- at a vector relatable angle which is pushing the planet out at the same time as it is slowing it down. However this would be a specious argument for all 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 depending on the way you look at it. There is no mechanism here able to provide stability in variable conditions of affecting forces.

So either one of these outcomes is assured in a very short time and what is required is a negative feedback mechanism to counteract such changes and provide stability. There is no known negative feedback mechanisms in any of the historical gravitational models which can prevent orbital decay from toggling in either direction. Once toggled, there is only an expected acceleration of the orbital demise and no coming back. Also -with regard to the previous lone supposition- we must reason that photons and neutrinos would offer insignificant unilateral force on a body as large as the earth. Gravity is the only known force capable of affecting the earth with enough efficacy to counter such collisions and frictions.

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

The point positive for any imaginative scientist is that of '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 -corona modified- inverse square law under basic linear distance 'r' evaluation.

This should be able to be modeled mathematically of course, and relativists will likely appeal to 'rotational frame dragging' as the phenomenology however their geodesic frame dragging has already been shown to be less than expected by the Gravity Probe B and G-rel theory is also lacking in the required balancing affect of an inversely proportional negative feedback support similar to that being defined in this assertation.  General relativity is then disallowed as a planetary orbital support mechanism. Therefore this orbital stability mechanism stands in strong support of G-theory and I still hold 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 metaphisicisms.

Such a theory as this is 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 be shown to be viable without fudging; although that might prove difficult because unlike the gravity probe B experiment they don't have relativistic stellar reference frames to fiddle with in order to prove relativity by itself!

G-theory force frame dragging and light pinwheel gravitation effects do not emanate from the center of a body such as the sun. They are in the main due to light collisions of which a significant proportion occur away from the sun within the 'energy tensor' itself and because of that it will not be directly detectable as a type of Nordvelt affect but only by such results as orbital stability and the ability for the phenomenology to also be able to explain the baffling Allais effect which is usually found under the carpet along with a growing pile of problems.

The idea of such scalar tensor gravity being described in that theory is just another non force-force tensor aberration being put forward in an effort to save GR. GR should really 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. In its general application on earth along with the weak equivalence principle there is still a violation and also a very miniscule violation of the latter. This WEP violation has been borne out in experiments with violation but only found to be in the order of negative ten points of magnitude. That slight degree of violation has actually been predicted by G-theory in the relevant section. Note: This is altitude related and in addition to the SEP violation noted on the 'Newtons kgF enigma' tab at

It now stands that in my arsenal I have made a theoretical conclusion from which I am able to derive plausible postulations as shots across the bow of the current paradigm.

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 around 0.0165/2 of the body's radius of orbit: TBE. Note: This is  gravitometric affect and is not a reference to a barycenter as it is a further modificant.  This has the affect of modifying the exponent in the gravitational inverse square law in the solar case as Newton himself surmised. I.e.---


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 cause to offer.

When we analyze the orbits of planets we note some differences in apsidal precessions and especially in the case of mercury which will be addressed shortly. For this reason we need to search for other possible and specifically relatable 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 which is 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 affect problem.

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 energies but they would be expected to be vector sum zero with respect to any planet other than Mercury. This is described as follows.

3/ Further possible phenomenology: The pinwheel vector summed emission direction of photons from the mantle are weighted in the highly energetic cosmic, x-ray and uv range whilst the majority of the photon creation in the observable to infrared energy grouping occurs in the corona/photosphere which is not subject to the solar light emission pinwheel effect because of generalized solar wind particle friction. This would be amplified in the general direction of the orbital plane because of the higher speed of the equatorial regions of the mantle relative to the polar regions.

 In any case we now have high energy vector angled photons colliding with lower energy radial vector photons. So in the outgoing sense we have an overall collision of photons weighted at a slight forward leaning angle going away.

Phenomenology: When two photons of differing vectors traveling in the same general vector relative direction collide, then the vector of any consequential 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 1: Inelastic to some degree because a particle is being scattered and energy is being lost as gravitons and other particles but with overall total conservation of energy.

Note 2: This vector colliding phenomenon will not even itself out because this is an overall  energy losing system so the vector resultant will be weighted in favor of the most energetic particles. Other energy loss particles have no action in this phenomenon but they leave as energy having done work by the negative. Clear as mud? Their missing force vector angles the result.

This phenomenon also aids orbital stability by providing an additional affect to the gravitational aberration. I will call this gravitational parallax. This effect causes a change in the angle of attack of graviton backfill as the light travels closer to the earth. In respect to the collision of photons traveling out from the sun; this graviton production is 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. Note: Photons have zero collision statistics with protons or other particles whether charged or magnetic.

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

This is because -even though such a gravity adjustment might appear 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 regard it 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 because 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 tilted forward manner which supports the orbital angular velocity by a vector resultant acting up and away from the orbital tangent.

Now prior to the introduction of this new force we note that geodesic frame dragging predicts a similar but noticeably slightly lesser affect as g-theory does which would not be sufficient to maintain orbits in all changeable conditions and this is mainly because the geodesic model doesn't have a built in negative feedback phenomenology which I have just touched upon and which will be soon introduced in support of G-theory.

It is known that the measured frame dragging of earth or sun is insufficient for the purpose whether produced by geodesics or G-theory because it is what it is! Any fully potent mechanics first of all requires the extra gravitational solar effects which have been herein described, which is physically relatable to the -also insufficient- gravitational pseudo-force aberration which is theorized as G-rel geodesic solar frame dragging but in addition to that force, G-theory alone provides an  extra emr -photonic- stress tensor derived gravitational parallax adjustment which is impossibility under the auspices of relativity.

Presenting this negative feedback force more simply: The main points of difference at this juncture are the fact that G-theory provides an as-described but minimally effective planet rotational frame drag component which is amplified by a solar apacenter shift -frame drag- aberration, and on top of that it also provides what relativity can't; and that is the negative feedback extra gravity shadow parallax shift, that even while being much reduced over distance, its angular relationship becomes proportionally greater over distance. So one factor is proportional and the other inversely proportional and there is the negative feedback.

This effectively nullifies any gravitational force reduction caused by any change in the orbital r by any slowing down or speeding up by -in the case of a slowdown being the reverse mechanics of a speed increase- providing a more 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 and this effect is therefore inversely proportional to orbital drift. Note: This also becomes important for understanding the G-theory explanation of the Allais effect which geodesics has no answer for. Right here we have two severe failings of the relativistic geodesic model.

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 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 neatly counters the solar wind drag encountered which acts by -also but not similarly modified- inverse square law of solar wind density v distance from the sun.

The modification is pi related 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 inertial reference frames. This doesn't prevent velocity invariant vector shifts from a accelerating emission surface. I.e. the solar surface.  So light velocity shifts of photons relative to near field gravity aberrations near the corona may also be a phenomenon which is able to produce changed eigenvectors of graviton emissions. This is a subject I haven't broached but it is there if there is any doubt about the changes able to be considered by the theory as presented. Do we have to be able to calculate every possible tensor? It's just not feasible to do that so we need to consider whether this is a viable phenomenology and that's all.

*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.





This  latter negative feedback phenomenon in collusion with the slight solar rotation caused graviton transitional bending aberration etc -which first causes 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-, must so happen 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 only with the inclusion of the further mechanics. Note: The mechanics of the behavior of mercury is altered because of it's 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 and photons travelling all the way to earth are emitting gravitons. 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.

Also if the sun loses its brightness it also  loses solar wind friction at the planet in question and the angular gravitational adjustment being produced by the travelling light is also being reduced to compensate by the same changed conditions. 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 gravitational pinwheel affect that also causes a slight alteration to 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 would be 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.

*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. It appears that with relativistic experiments a miss is as good as a hit!

In light of the fact that some planets have retrograde and even right angled spins relative to the others should be the most obvious proof that -planet spin caused geodesic frame dragging- is a non starter in regards to any relativistic solution being able to be offered for orbital stability.

Also 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 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 to the relativists. The implication they also missed was; if the geodesic manifold is effectively distorted by frame dragging which is supposedly even 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 at least HELP maintain the planet's orbit and spin. This is essentially what we observe in the G-theory explanation but with greater effect than relativity can possibly predict.

So 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- actually existing 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. 

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 light vectored graviton production is not always a constant. So around Mercury the affects of the very close coronal light emitting region results in vectored light production densities from that solar region being highly dense in comparison to the relatively distant higher energy photon production region of the mantle. Once far enough away the distance comparisons become less meaningful. 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. 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 places the sun in a an observationally incorrect position.

The two phenomena are completely unrelated. A far more massive light-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 insignificant but 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 -only in G-theory- 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 orbits 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. Gravity 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 bending of gravity 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 why the matter in a black hole accretion disc spirals in and just doesn't follow a simple curved gravitational fall***. So by way of some iteration; this phenomenon 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 and this is examined elsewhere. All this could be computer modeled.- This precession 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?

With such a nodal '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 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 its frame dragging which does however exist but the moon still has a problem TBE.

However in relation to the sun: It does exist and 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 to 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 stellar center.

The sheer innumerable quantity of stars pretty well irons out any possible wrinkles in GD and the speed of light. 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. The 'n' body problem is difficult to predict.


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- is not probable because vacuum modification of the gravitational tensor has never before been presented -to my knowledge- or ever before recognized as a possibility. I am possibly mistaken in this but the laws of local energy conservation are not however.


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

In a nutshell: 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 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 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.





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 anisotropic light energy emission which isn't comparative to the noted cosmic ray anisotropy which is speed anisotropy. Such energy (color) anisotropy helps create  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 or force the particles right out of atoms. This is the same phenomenology that catalyzes 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 along their eight minute journey to the earth whilst the solar wind is not producing any gravity adjustments at all. 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 -in vector analysis- through a 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 can give an answer 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; be my guest.







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 is 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 energy 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 of 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. The force existing 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 planetary gyroscopic precession is the unrecognized cause of the orbital plane tilting and that -until now inexplicable- motion was given the term apsidal precession.