1. The Pound-Rebka Harvard gravitational redshift experiment can be shown to approximate the Hubble Constant for distant cosmic light redshift, if gravity-G 'constant' is at about 10X-6 range, or about 5 orders of magnitude greater than measured on Earth. This was done independent of any other algorithmic derivations, simply a deduction based on experimental results.

2. The Cosmic Microwave Background radiation, at 2.725 Kelvin, approximates gravity-G in the 10X-6 range, if using the Boltzmann constant to work out energy equivalent, per the Axiomatic Equation.

3. MOND approximation for deep space may be some 5 orders of magnitude greater than same approximation, per the Pioneer Anomaly vis-a-vis Axiomatic Equation, within our solar system.

4. Mercury's precession, though explained with Einstein's General Relativity theory of gravity, lends itself to a much simpler explanation, using the Sun's angular momentum transfer to Mercury's perihelion orbit. Complexity need not be a factor.

5. Planetary interior energy may result in micro-black hole at planet's center, which then manifests in various ways: a) as an approximate 'inner core' boundary, if using the Schwarzchild equation; b) as a variable planetary spin at perihelion/aphelion positions; or c) as accelerated atmospheric winds on a planet's surface, especially evident on the gas giants, and perhaps planetary spin. (See more on Jaszz Spin ratios)

6. The state of gas giants and their moons.

---

quote:

Perplexing problems
It's an elegant idea and if correct, could solve some of the most perplexing problems in physics. It endows the elusive Higgs particle, which is believed to be responsible for giving every other known particle its mass, with just the right mass of its own to keep the whole edifice of particle physics from crumbling around us. Without SUSY, the Higgs mass is heavily influenced by the quantum behaviour of the vacuum.
As it interacts with the vacuum's virtual particles, its mass skyrockets, growing so large that the standard model breaks down. SUSY saves the day – for every virtual interaction that drives up the Higgs mass, there is a svirtual interaction that drives it back down.

...(see diagram above)...

Fifth force
Lane prefers an alternative theory. With physicist Estia Eichten of Batavia, Illinois, Lane showed that particles could come by their masses without a Higgs boson if there is a fifth force in addition to the four we know about: technicolour. It is similar to the strong force, which binds quarks together, but operates at much higher energies. "There's already a precedent for it in nature," Lane says, adding that it could also provide a new candidate for dark matter.
The LHC will be able to put the theory to the test. Just as quarks pair up to form mesons, techniquarks pair up to form technimesons with masses ranging from 250 GeV to 700 GeV – well within the LHC's reach. If technimesons exist, the LHC should find them within the next few years.

---

---

quote:

NewScientist: "For decades, theorists have calculated that dark matter could be gravitationally captured by planets and stars. Dark matter surrounds galaxies in so-called halos, and dark matter particles, feeling the force of gravity, orbit their galaxy's centre of mass.
"When these orbiting dark matter particles pass through objects, such as planets, they occasionally slam into atoms, losing energy and speed. If they lose enough energy after one or more collisions, they could become trapped by the planet's gravity, ultimately settling in its core. There, they are likely to hit other trapped dark matter particles and annihilate."

---

---

quote:

6. New Cosmology – Third Revolution in Physics
Dirac’s themes were the unity and beauty of Nature. He identified three revolutions in modern physics – Relativity, Quantum Mechanics and Cosmology. In his opinion: “The new cosmology will probably turn out to be philosophically even more revolutionary than relativity or the quantum theory, perhaps looking forward to the current bonanza in cosmology, where precise observations on some of the most distant objects in the universe are shedding light on the nature of reality, on the nature of matter and on the most advanced quantum theories”. In 1937, P. Dirac proposed: the Large Number Hypothesis and the Hypothesis of the variable gravitational “constant”; and later added the notion of continuous creation of Matter in the World. The developed Hypersphere WUM follows these ideas, albeit introducing a different mechanism of matter creation.

---

---

quote:

The atmosphere of Pluto was known to extend more than 60 miles (about 100 kilometers) above the surface, the researchers said, but the new findings raise that height to more than 1,860 miles (3,000 km) — equivalent to a quarter of the distance out to Pluto's largest moon, Charon.

---

---

quote:

As the Earth orbits the sun, the strength of its gravity could vary because of interactions with an undiscovered force, nicknamed the "X-field".

---

1. In a variable-G environment where gravity 'constant' grows at the rate of 1G per 1 AU, it should register slightly greater at planet's aphelion, and slightly smaller at perihelion in its orbit around the Sun.

2. This (slightly) variable-G phenomenon should register in a Cavendish type gravity experiment; it should show these (very small) seasonal variations, where G will be slightly greater at aphelion and slightly smaller at perihelion.

3. As a phenomenon of variable planetary spin, this same variation should show up as slightly faster spin (shorter day) at aphelion (northern hemisphere summer), and slightly slower spin (longer day) at perihelion (northern winter).

4. As a 'seasonal-G' variable, these slight differences at perihelion and aphelion should be measurable consistently, and annually.

*Significant footnote: Upon further test of gyros positioned perpendicular to sphere axis, it was observed that spin globe one way 'forces' gyro stems out, while spinning counter forces them to retract in; this could be first real evidence of perpendicular (MOVED) force to lateral gyroscopic action. Assuming that, per earlier tests, gyro dynamics regardless of position are universal in the aggregate where whole apparatus acts as if it were precessing, this find may indicate that we are on right track, and gyro action shifts from lateral to vertical along gyro axis, with Earth plane g as reference base. Therefore, earlier reported 'wobble' now makes sense.

Ideally, the rotating cylinder would hold bands of electrically stimulated spinning fluids, which would 'kick' in the MOVED-G manner transferring acceleration along axis of cylinder spin with each pulse. Such pulses would be many per second, while motor cylinder is in continuous spin, thus transferring acceleration along motor axis continuously. It is our belief that same can be achieved with fast rotating plasma, which could allow thousands of 'pulses' per second, to effect a strong continuous transfer of acceleration along motor axis, which would make it a powerful machine of lift and directional, accelerative motion. The interrupted electrical charge returns kinetic motion to neutral after each pulse, while new charge kicks in new acceleration, continuously. If so, this can be a very powerful form of continuous accelerative locomotion useful not only 'under the hood', but also for airlift and space travel.

1. Gyroscopic spin captures Earth's gravity potential and redirects it into torque precession.

2. Precession is a conservation of angular momentum, so adding acceleration (gravity-more weight) adds angular momentum, hence faster precession.

3. Two counter rotating gyroscopes 'cancel' their angular momentum precession, but not for the whole body where mounted, which continues to precess as if gyros' angular momentum were not canceled.

4. If the counter-gyros are perpendicular to the whole body axis (motor), though no precession for the two counter-spin gyros, there is lateral precession exhibited for the whole apparatus, same as for independent gyro (though canceled), and perpendicular to the axis of whole body (counter-clockwise for clockwise spinning gyros).

5. When whole body motor is spun on its axis, the precessional motion is transferred along the axis of the whole, so it now captures 'zero point' gravity potential along the axis.

6. When added spin, acceleration force, is added to the whole, the action-reaction (Newtonian) sends the acceleration along the whole body axis, in either direction depending upon direction of spin.

7. By transferring acceleration (via gyroscopic spin) to the whole body spin, we have mimicked the 'added weight' scenario, so a momentary acceleration of motion registers along that axis, in either direction depending on direction of spin.

---

quote:

Barbour pressed on where Einstein had feared to tread, coming closer to Mach by dispensing not just with Newton's rigid grid but with the very concept of space-time. In general relativity, time is a dimension interwoven with the dimensions of space. In Barbour's universe, on the other hand, time is emergent: It is a measure of how space changes but not a fundamental component of it. (my italics)

---

---

quote:

"The only way to prove that dark matter does not exist is to show that all these data have been misinterpreted, for instance because the law of gravity we adopted — Albert Einstein's Theory of General Relativity — is wrong," Bertone said. "Despite much effort, no satisfactory theory of gravity exists today that can be reconciled with all observational data without assuming the existence of some forms of dark matter."

---

---

quote:

"It's also possible, with the same data, to show that dark energy is not a good theory for explaining what's going on - and in fact, general relativity itself is wrong."

---

---

quote:

The researchers can’t say much else about the objects right now because they have only limited observations of them. The “smoking gun” for a dark star would be a particular hiccup in the electromagnetic spectrum where light is absorbed by a particular isotope of helium only in dark stars, not in galaxies.

---

Photoelectric Effect (see June 3, 2004, AXIOMATIC CUT-OFF FREQUENCY FOR GRAVITY?):

By Ivan A. on Thursday, June 3, 2004 - 12:54 am:
AXIOMATIC CUT-OFF FREQUENCY FOR GRAVITY? 

Can there be a 'cut-off' frequency of light for gravity? This question occurred to me when I was considering using Em =1 as a way to figure momentum p: 

If we take m = 1, so that (m-g) = (1-g), and Em = 1, then per the Axiomatic: 

Em * c = (1-g)c^2 = E, we get: 

1 * c = (1-g)c^2 = E, which dividing it all by c: 

1 = mc = E/c. = p 

Now, if we take mass (m-g), where m = 1, in some approximation of 1/c, it becomes: 

(1-g) = ~1/c, per the Axiomatic: 

E = hc/l(mp) = (1-g)c^2, substituting (1-g) = 1/c, we get: 

E = (1/c)c^2 = hc/l(mp) = 3e8 Joules , so that now we can solve for l: 

3e8 m^2.kg.s^-2 = [(6.626e-34 m^2.kg.s^-1)(3e8 m.s-1)] / (l)(1.67e-27 kg/kg) 

where l = 3.97e-7 meters, when mass is (m-g) = 1/c. 

This value for lambda = 3.97e-7 meters, is also 397 nm, or 0.397 microns, or taken as hf =~3 eV as Quantum energy. In Hertz, it equals nearly 7.5^14 Hz, or visible light near orange violet. If our star could no longer put out light in this range or above (which for our star computes out per the Axiomatic as l = 1.3e-15 meters, or 10^23 Hz, above Gamma rays), our gravity would be very great, and our Sun would likely become a so-called neutron star. 

This may be the 'cut-off' lambda where light energy no longer modifies the space-vacuum energy, so that greater gravity results, the kind expected in deep intergalactic space. However, we cannot know this at present. Though this may be one possible explanation for the existence of so-called 'dark matter', which is how all atoms and molecules in that deep space are affected by the very great gravity there, we will not know until we can get there. 

How would this fit into the Photoelectric Effect, for example? If the cut-off gravity energy is at l = 397 nm, which is on the border of the visible light spectrum, orange violet in visible light, why does light of lower frequency than visible light, of longer than 700 nm, cease to eject electrons in a metal? Or is this only peculiar to our low inertia region, and it would take a much higher freqency to eject electrons in the high inertial regions of deep space? Perhaps there it will require 400 nm to have the same photoelectric cut-off effect? ... Don't know... something to ponder... If so, then deep space may be a very strange place indeed. 

* * * 
Further search revealed that the cut-off lambda for light in the photoelectric effect is approximately l = 0.6e-6 meters, which works out to be frequency of 0.5e15 cycles/second, Hertz, which is the range of orange (violet?) light (see entry: 2-22-02). If so, then the universe is 'violet', since that is where it begins to affect both electrons and gravity. In fact, the two may be related, since below that frequency, gravity is dominant even at the electron level. That level is where Em = 1 in the Axiomatic Equation. (edited 6-21-04) 

Ivan

By Ivan A. on Wednesday, March 30, 2005 - 11:57 pm:
DEEP SPACE GRAVITY? 

Taking an earlier post where I worked out the axiomatic 'cut off' wavelength at E = 3E+8 J, (per post above June 3, 2004), which approximates the orange violet range of light: 

3E+8 m^2.kg.s^-2 = [(6.626e-34 m^2.kg.s^-1)(3e8 m.s-1)] / l(1.67e-27 kg/kg) 

where l = 3.97e-7 meters, when mass is (m-g) = 1/c. 

Now, if E = 3E+8 J, what is the proton mass m_p = ? 

Assuming l is unknown, and m_p is unknown, then we get: 

3E+8 J = 19.878E-26 / l(m), so that 

l(m) = 6.626E-34, which means there must be some value of equivalence for where l and proton mass stabilize. This may be achieved if we retain the proton mass in Earth's region, (for computational purposes only), and then get the l for the 'cut off' E, which means l = 3.97e-7 meters, which itself approximates the 'cut off' wavelength in the photoelectric effect. 

If this should prove to be so, then it probably is the effective wavelength of deep space, meaning that because there are so many forms of energy in deep space, from dark galaxies made of hot gasses to ambient radiant energy from all the galaxies, deep space may have a more constant G than the deltaG experienced close to any star. 

A way to estimate it (intuitive, very rough guess) is to take the opposite tack, and to leave lambda same as we have it here, l = 1.32E-15 m, and then solve for proton mass: 

E = 3E+8 J = hc/ (1.32E-15)(mp), so that proton mass = 5.02E-19 kg, which means the proton mass gravitational 'constant' becomes g = 1.777E-30, 

and using the conversion equation for Newton's G: 

G^2 = gc^2 pi^2 

G^2 = (1.78E-30)(9E+16 J)(9.89) = 158.44E-14, which taking sqrt give us G = ~12.6E-7 N... (approx. ~1.3E-6 N..) 

So G_s = ~ 1.3E-6 Nm^2 kg^2, as the approximate 'cut off' equivalent of deep space gravity, where it begins to 'flatten out' as a constant. I would guess it more a constant there because of all the ambient radiant energy of galaxies combined with the ambient plasma energy in deep space, such as found in 'dark matter' galaxies. 

Ivan

---

quote:

The strength of gravitation is a variable, G(r), the locally measured value of which is Newton’s constant G₀. The cosmological value corresponding to the gb’s and the CBG is denoted by G_c. I have called the proposed mode of the gravitational action “pressure-induced gravitation” (PIG)... On a cosmological scale a(r) = a_c = H/c, G(r) = G_c ~ 10 G₀...

---

---

quote:

So far as the right-hand side of the equation (1) is concerned, the effect of letting G vary with time is indistinguishable from the letting the gravitational masses vary and keeping G constant... Here, however, we are led to admit the possibility of a variation in the effective mass of a body without mass going anywhere else or coming from anywhere else. In fact, it is not clear why Newton expressed his second law of motion in the form he did in terms of rate of change of momentum unless it was to cover just such a possibility. [The situation is reminiscent of that of relative mass in the mechanics of special relativity, but the similarity is not close.]

---

---

quote:

"The coupling of electricity and gravitation, which is the cause of the redshift and the exponential weakening of gravitation.... makes Newton’s law inapplicable on the cosmological scale... The gravitational parameter G changes from a constant to a physical variable which is constant only over the homogeneous distribution on the cosmological scale…"

---

---

quote:

Mistele’s analysis defies this expectation, providing a startling revelation: the influence of what we call dark matter extends far beyond previous estimates, , stretching at least a million light-years from the galactic center. Such a long-range effect may indicate that dark matter—as we understand it—might not exist at all. “This finding challenges existing models,” he said, “suggesting there exist either vastly extended dark matter halos or that we need to fundamentally reevaluate our understanding of gravitational theory.”

---

By Ivan A. on Friday, March 29, 2002 - 02:15 pm:
POSSIBLE PHILOSOPHICAL FOUNDATION FOR A 'THEORY OF EVERYTHING'?

(work in progress)

---

quote:

On reading Quantum physics, on a possible Theory of Everything; i.e., Paul Davies "The New Physics" (Cambridge Univ. 1989), and John Gribbin "The Search for Superstrings, Symmetry, and the Theory of Everything" (Little Brown 1998); I am struck by a common problem to which there seems to be no solution. Though best minds have studied this for over a century, from Faraday and Planck to Einstein and Fermi to Salam and Weinberg to Gell-Mann and Nambu and Wu and scores others, there is a lack of conceptual coordination, as expressed by the mathematics, of being able to relate the strong and weak forces, electromagnetic forces, and the weakest force of gravity, into a general theory. I suspect that it may be possible to re-coordinate the mathematical expressions where there is a 'basic common denominator' into which all functions have to fall, and from which all Quantum interactions of the higher levels would then find expression. Though mathematics is a language, one of how interactions relate, with its own grammar and structure, it is nevertheless only a language, much like ordinary spoken languages, and thus may lend itself to expressions of both truth and fiction. I will try to express below, in ordinary language, what I think can be translated into mathematical expressions, and from which I think we may find models that express reality closer to the truth than understood hitherto. And if so, then we may have found an expression, which can later be translated into mathematics, which may be the possible foundation for a Theory of Everything, not only as a theory tying together the forces of physical reality, but ultimately as the supranatural forces that tie together all living things that exist within it. We would know we had achieved this goal, perhaps albeit an unachievably lofty one, when we can translate the mathematical language into observable and measurable phenomena in the natural world.

(Note: You can find full original here
http://www.humancafe.com/discus/messages/1/49.html?SundayJuly720020130pm )

Much of physics, it appears to me, is fancy, as the Big Bang is a fanciful account imagined because of how the math works out; same as measuring the colorful eightfold path of interquark forces leads to mathematical expressions for which our minds are not equipped to imagine; to imagining photons as being both particles and waves. In this case, the fancy as deduced here is that there is a force that approximates a compressed universe into its singularity, which is so powerful that even photons cannot escape it, except at close quarter as within the atom. This is why I alluded to earlier to the Black Holes, because they are evidence of such a force. So, to give this 'unknown' force a name, one that has not been used in the colorful description of Quantum physics, and one which approximates the nature of this force, being gravitationally near infinitely powerful, I would give it the name of a gravity "infiniton". This is not to be compared to a 'graviton' which measures a very weak force, that of gravity, but rather the very strong force of the 'infiniton', which is inside the atom.

PHOTONS AND INFINITONS
Now, by default, because we do not know this force other than through its various manifestations as evidenced by how it interacts with photonic electromagnetic energy, we are then forced to treat it as an unknown, yet one of near infinite, or even infinite, properties. One can look at the universe's Black Holes for evidence of how these infinitons work, that they are able to absorb all light and matter into themselves, to go... where? The answer is Nowhere, for they simply reabsorb into what the Universe is made of, nothingness. On the other side of the polarity is what the universe radiates with, the electromagnetic energy of light, or photons, in all its spectrums from X-ray to infra-reds. Then, how these various energies interact with the infinitons is what manifests as created matter. These interactions are then measurable in Quantum physics, from which we can gain an understanding of how light interacts with the properties of the infiniton 'dark matter'. Thus, if so, then Quantum physics should become greatly simplified. On the other hand, the Big Bang would come into question because this theory would point that, over great distances of space, light is being gradually absorbed by the resulting 'dark force'. So in cosmic space, over those distances, light would red-shift with time, not because of space expanding, but because the dark matter left over from the interaction of photons and infinitons acts like a drag on it. In the same manner could be measured how photons knock out electrons from metals, or how the wave-particle nature of electromagnetic energy interacts at different levels of the nucleus to measure at what state is the energy within the atom, away from the all collapsing force of the infiniton. All these would be measurable evidence of the interaction between photons and infinitons. The rest would then be arithmetic, to design a periodic table of how various levels of energy between the photons and infinitons interact within the atom. And when this is done, we then are close to arriving at a Theory of Everything, because then we can incorporate gravity and dark matter into the equation.

GRAVITY AND DARK MATTER
How photon energy and infiniton energy interact explains the mechanics of atomic structures as they exist in our observable reality. However, the offsets between these two powerful opposing forces are not total, in that there is a leakage that then 'renormalizes' with what happens in the universe. That leakage, I suspect, is what is left over from the attractive force of the infiniton as it is modified into atomic existence by the electromagnetic forces of photons; the resulting byproduct force, which is a rather weak force, is Gravity. In the equation of TOE (still unwritten), the universal constant would then work out to be what is left over as gravity, as the force that then unites all of existence into a comprehensive whole everywhere throughout the cosmos. Gravity, as a left over force of infiniton attraction, is then spread out evenly to affect all objects, and even the photons themselves, over great distances. This is evidenced by successfully using 'gravitational lenses' in space astronomy, where the gravity of distant galaxies act as a lens on the light coming from behind those galaxies, and magnify it to be picked up by orbiting space telescopes. So photons and gravity do interact, but because this interaction is rather weak, it is observable only over very great distances, unlike the strong interactions between photons and infinitons within the atom, where they interact directly. Because this weak interaction is happening all over the existing cosmic space, it creates a kind of 'shadow' through which light must struggle, which we then think of as 'dark matter'. I do not think this dark matter actually exists, but it is only a manifestation of how light interacts with gravity over great distances. So, like gravity, dark matter is then a waste product of the photon-infiniton interaction, and is measurable only by how light interacts with it over great distances. Therefore, in the final equation of TOE, Gravity is only a left over constant from the subatomic interactions of photon electromagnetic energy and the very dark glue of infinitons as the near infinite common denominators of the universe, of nothingness.
...

By Ivan A. on Saturday, April 6, 2002 - 01:13 pm:
Possible TOE continued:

ALGORITHMS
Using the basic (0 x infinity) = 1 , model for TOE, let us apply known quantities to this general formula, and let us further assume that "m" is equivalent to "1", and that the photon "p" is set as a function of the speed of light, at "1/c2". The infiniton "I" is still unknown.

This would translate (0 x infinity) = 1 into the basic model [ p x I = m ].

Now, if we take photon energy to be set here at the "zero", and thus "1/c2" [or the inverse of the speed of light squared], and the "infinity" value set at "E", to represent the infiniton, which is as yet undefined, then we can easily see that this coincides with the famous E=mc2. Or, to put it differently: 1/c2 x E = m, which is how we structured the algorithm above.

Now, the "E" value is what needs to be determined to satisfy this equation, not as only an equation of "electromagnetic energy", which E=mc2 describes, but also as an equation that incorporates the gravity energies of G, the universal gravity constant, and of the still unknown "inifiniton" strong force. So this is where it stands thus far, to convert what is essentially a formula of energy-only into a formula that incorporates the Strong Force of nuclear gravity as the infiniton, or "I".

However, to satisfy the condition stated above that gravity, the G constant, is a left over product of the p x I interaction, then I would subtract it from the result of m. Therefore, I would restate the basic formula above as follows:

1/c2 x E = m-g

where "-g" takes the place of "G" since it is not a primary force but merely "left over" from the interaction within the atom (which is shown as negative because it is what is "missing" from the atom). Now, we could be further illustrated by showing that "E" within the equation is replaced with "mc2", so that we have [1/c2 x mc2 = m (-g)], which then (by bringing 1/c2 over to m) breaks down to mc2=mc2, which is =E.
... etc.

By Ivan A. on Thursday, April 25, 2002 - 06:17 pm:
TOE ALGORITHM, continued:

Please bear in mind that this is still a "work in progress", so all is subject to revision. However, having said that, there is an algorithm that seems to be emerging from our initial venture into this murky area of a "Theory of Everything".
....
So in ordinary language, we are interacting the photon, as represented by 1/c2, and the infiniton, as still undefined, to equal mass.

Now, if we substitute the value of E(?) with the high energy of mass and momentum in terms of electron volts, we get: pc = [E2-m2c4]1/2, where 'p' is the electron's momentum. (See math at: http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/quantum/debrog2.html#c2 ). This breaks down into pc ~ E, which at a velocity as a fraction of c becomes: v/c = pc/E, which as v=> c, pc => E. However, momentum 'p' can also be expressed as: p = E/c = h/w , (see referenced URL above), where 'w' is wavelength (I don't have the 'lambda' key), and 'h' is Planck's constant, which further becomes: E = c x h/w , or finally: E = ch/w.

So now we have a possible value for E(?) above. I'm not totally happy with this because it does not seem to fit into the mental image I have of the infiniton, but let's take it to the next step to see where it goes. So if we substitute the E value in 1/c2 x E(?) + g = m above, the we get: [1/c2 x ch/w] + g = m. This is then further simplified by multiplying out 'c' into:
h/cw + g = m.

---

[Inventor's Note: The invention is not yet effective as a useful propulsion source, as the transfer of pulse acceleration to spin is still too weak, but it illustrates the principle involved, that MOVED G tests show that electrical induced pulses of acceleration can be transferred to directional axis of whole apparatus as shown; this transfer of acceleration pulses 'kicks' the whole apparatus in either axial direction dependent on direction of spin, which is the main claim of this patent. IDA]*

*Addendum: Each band of electro-fluid of the spinning motor takes in 'gravity' in the form of 'inertial mass' (per Equivalence) to transfer the electric accelerative impulse into a directional 'kick', which then dissolves as a directional neutral force into the lateral spin of the fluid; this is what makes it work. Think of a swimmer with each stroke moving forward, or a bird's wings in flight, or a bee's; the principle of the inertial drive, MOVED-G motor is the same. What makes it different is the frequency required to generate sufficient directional trust; which in fluid may be in thousands of cycles per minute, or in plasma thousands per second, while a swimmer or bird may do only a few per minute, or insects a few beats per second. But in principle the directional motion is the same.

---

quote:

Interestingly, the hypothetical presence of dark matter could have another subtle effect on our planetary neighborhood. During measurements of spacecraft flybys of Earth, very slight anomalies in spacecraft speed have been detected. For example, NASA’s NEAR asteroid spacecraft used our planet for a gravitational speed assist in January 1998. During the flyby, in addition to the extra velocity the flyby provided, there was an additional mystery boost of 13 millimeters/second. This tiny boost, which has been spotted in other spacecraft flybys, is known as a “flyby anomaly,” and one of the contributing factors could be the gravity exerted on the spacecraft by an invisible halo of dark matter.

---

---

quote:

In 2009, Steve Adler of the Institute of Advanced Studies in Princeton, New Jersey, showed how dark matter bound by Earth's gravity could explain these anomalies.

---

---

quote:

As the Sun and the entire solar system orbit around the center of the Milky Way, they pass through a halo of dark matter thought to be present in our galaxy. This movement should generate a constant dark-matter “wind” on our planet, a stream of particles that dark-matter searches are hoping to capture. The Earth’s orbit around the Sun also causes an annual modulation of this wind, which could be used to recognize a genuine dark-matter signal in experiments. A new study in Physical Review Letters suggests the modulation could also be profoundly affected by a so-far neglected phenomenon: the distortion of the path of dark-matter particles due to the gravitational focusing of the Sun.

---

---

quote:

Have we found a message from the dawn of time? 'Major discovery' set for Monday could give scientists their first glimpse of the birth of the universe
• Announcement  set to be made on Monday is shrouded in secrecy
• Believed astronomers may have found proof of gravitational waves for the first time
• Minuscule ripples in the fabric of the universe carry energy across space
• Could give scientists their first glimpse of how the universe was born

---

---

quote:

Astronomers have found the first direct evidence of cosmic inflation, the theorized dramatic expansion of the universe that put the "bang" in the Big Bang 13.8 billion years ago, new research suggests.

If it holds up, the landmark discovery — which also confirms the existence of hypothesized ripples in space-time known as gravitational waves — would give researchers a much better understanding of the Big Bang and its immediate aftermath. ...
The brief and astonishing inflationary epoch transformed the infant universe from mere quantum fluctuations into something of macroscopic size, adherents of the theory say.

Beginning just 10 to the minus 35 seconds (roughly one trillionth of a trillionth of a trillionth of a second) after the universe's birth, the idea goes, space-time expanded incredibly rapidly, ballooning outward faster than the speed of light... (my italics)

---

---

quote:

Gravitational waves from inflation generate a faint but distinctive twisting pattern in the polarization of the cosmic microwave background, known as a "curl" or B-mode pattern. For the density fluctuations that generate most of the polarization of the CMB, this part of the primordial pattern is exactly zero.

---

---

quote:

Inflation was first proposed in the early 1980s to explain some aspects of Big Bang Theory that appeared to not quite add up, such as why deep space looks broadly the same on all sides of the sky. The contention was that a very rapid expansion early on could have smoothed out any unevenness.

But inflation came with a very specific prediction - that it would be associated with waves of gravitational energy, and that these ripples in the fabric of space would leave an indelible mark on the oldest light in the sky - the famous Cosmic Microwave Background.

The BICEP2 team says it has now identified that signal. Scientists call it B-mode polarisation. It is a characteristic twist in the directional properties of the CMB. Only the gravitational waves moving through the Universe in its inflationary phase could have produced such a marker. It is a true "smoking gun".

---

---

quote:

The important point here, given these three tests, is that Earth's g has been re-channeled via positioning of gyroscopic action to give us dynamic force in another direction than normal precession. This, of course, is what was sought for, though not totally satisfied in that the direction of vectors resulting from spin proved more complex than expected. Therefore, though 'something' happened, tests proved inconclusive. We know which way Earth's gravity is vectored… (Viz., If Earth's g enters the system, where does it come out?) What direction does the re-directed vector take in each of the three tests? More tests for this 'redirected' vectors effect are needed.

---

---

quote:

When two gyroscopes, spinning in same direction, are attached perpendicular to the axis of a larger sphere apparatus, pointing opposite so their precessional force cancels out, their precessional motion can be re-directed along the whole apparatus's axis, in either direction depending upon direction of spin, so a force results that moves the apparatus in such direction. This is the underlying principle of the Modified Vector Dynamics G-force motor, whereby Earth's gravity captured by gyroscopic action, what results in natural lateral precession, is now made perpendicular to the whole apparatus's natural precession.

---

---

quote:

Microwave thrusters without propellant is invented by Roger Shawyer in a British company that research on satellite thrusters (SPR Ltd), he has already started the theories analysis and prototyping. Roger Shawyer has designed a conical cavity resonator, similar to the transverse wave TE mode, with a quality factor of 50,000, rectangular waveguide radiates the microwave into the resonator, using a non-resistance test turntable, the practical results show thrust produce by the resonator with the microwave output power of 300W is 86.2mN, this measurement match the calculation.
...
The vibration of charge particles (where object is made from), near their equilibrium positions can be seen as charged oscillators, this oscillators can emit or absorb radiation energy of E=nhf, n is the quantum number, h is the Planck’s constant and f is the oscillators frequency. Light and electromagnetic waves also have properties of particles, are photons that travel at the speed C, each photon has energy of E=hf, f in here is the frequency of light or electromagnetic waves. According to relativity, E=mc2, the mass of photon is m=E/C2=hf/c2=h/c (lambda)[*]...(italics mine)

---

**Addendum: Each band of electro-fluid of the spinning motor takes in 'gravity' in the form of 'inertial mass' (per Equivalence) to transfer the electric accelerative impulse into a directional 'kick', which then dissolves as a directional neutral force into the lateral spin of the fluid; this is what makes it work. Think of a swimmer with each stroke moving forward, or a bird's wings in flight, or a bee's; the principle of the inertial drive, MOVED-G motor is the same. What makes it different is the frequency required to generate sufficient directional trust; which in fluid may be in thousands of cycles per minute, or in plasma thousands per second, while a swimmer or bird may do only a few per minute, or insects a few beats per second. But in principle the directional motion is the same.

We said above: “This is key to capturing the weak gravitational force that entered the system, what gave it a small directional vector force.” This captures best what MOVED-G motor does. In effect, if this motor were to be built commercially, it might be called “vectored-gravity-acceleration” drive, or VEGA Drive.

---

quote:

If a stationary box contains many particles, it weighs more in its rest frame, the faster the particles are moving. Any energy in the box (including the kinetic energy of the particles) adds to the mass, so that the relative motion of the particles contributes to the mass of the box. But if the box itself is moving (its center of mass is moving), there remains the question of whether the kinetic energy of the overall motion should be included in the mass of the system. The invariant mass is calculated excluding the kinetic energy of the system as a whole (calculated using the single velocity of the box, which is to say the velocity of the box's center of mass), while the relativistic mass is calculated including invariant mass PLUS the kinetic energy of the system which is calculated from the velocity of the center of mass.

---

Addendun: Note, this relativistic mass hypothesis may be falsifiable, to test for diminished 'inertial mass' in an accelerated gravity vehicle. Though not exactly as described above, where gravity acceleration is generated onboard, the same lower mass effect may be measured in any falling vehicle, such as in space reentry free fall. If aboard the reentry vehicle is a spinning disk, as Earth's gravity accelerates the vehicle (though our local G is very weak), there should be an observable effect: during reentry free fall, the disk's rate of spin should slow slightly (perhaps related to chronofield effect?). Of course, this would violate hard Equivalence Principle, as the inertial mass is lowered, while vehicle gravitationally accelerates. This could be an easy test to check if momentum stays internally constant while gravitational acceleration increases velocity, where mass is decreased, so spin is slowed; and none of it would be felt onboard.

---

quote:

The three-axis stabilised spacecraft can boost this if it switches off its power-hungry inertial measurement unit and spins itself up to maintain a steady orientation. However, it cannot do this and take images at the same time. (italics mine)
...
It is also hunting for rings. It is possible Pluto is surrounded by concentric circles of dusty, icy particles, and these would scatter sunlight in a way that might be easier to detect from "behind" the dwarf planet.

---

---

quote:

Further analysis of the data reveals that the pressure in Pluto's atmosphere more than doubled between 1988 and 2002. One might naively expect an overall collapse of the atmosphere: the gases should freeze onto the surface as the planet moves farther from the Sun and cools.
Reality is not so simple though, as a team of the Observatoire de Paris with several collaborators showed that Pluto's atmosphere is expanding, rather than contracting, a quite surprising results published in the 10 July 2003 issue of the journal Nature.: "Large changes in Pluto's atmosphere as revealed by recent stellar occultations", by Sicardy et al.

---

---

quote:

WASP-193b completes an orbit around its F9V-type host star every 6.25d. Its mass is 0.14 ± 0.03MJupiter (i.e. 2.6 MNeptune) and its radius is 1.46 ± 0.06 RJupiter, which translates into an ultra-low density of 0.060 ± 0.014 g cm-3 (Fig. 2).Its huge radius cannot be reproduced by standard models of irradiated gas giants [7], even when assuming a coreless structure.

---

*(It may also be a case of observational simultaneity, where the two coincident events, gravity detection being one phenomenon, while e.m. energy detection the other event in same sector, but both are not necessarily the same event.)

*Please note: If testing such variable Mars Planck's constant by using the Axiomatic equation yields a Mars proton mass that is higher by about 1.5 squared, as shown below, it may be a validation empirically of a variable Planck's 'constant' yet to be discovered.
Viz., shown numerically, per above:

Mars Proton-mass times deep-space G = Mars Planck's constant

3.86e-27*3.97e-7= 15.32e-34

Per Axiomatic E=hc/lambda*proton_m

For Mars values:
3.66e+16J= 15.32e-34*3e+8/ 1.32e-15*(? Prot_mass?)

4.83e+1 (?)= 45.96e-26

Mars (?)Prot_mass= 9.52e-27 Mars_kg (vs. 3.86e-27 Earth_kg)

If Proton mass measured on Mars proves the higher number, then original calculations of Proton mass for the planets could be recalculated in principle with 'local' higher G equivalence; higher G equals higher body density, which conversely translates into lower 'density' kilogram equivalence. Therefore, if so, per this methodology, using deep-space G constant offers a short cut to local kilogram equivalence for any planetary orbit, where G is a variable dependent upon distance from the Sun.

---

quote:

A possible mission extension would perform some measurements to confirm the general relativity theory. By flying through the saddle point where the Earth and Sun's gravity cancel out, the spacecraft might prove whether Einstein's theory still holds when gravitational accelerations are extremely small. If it does, it would test theoretical alternatives of general relativity, such as Modified Newtonian Dynamics (MOND) and TeVeS.[25] - Wiki

---

1) The first hint gravity, Newton's G=6.67e-11 m^3 kg^-1 s^2, may not be a 'universal constant' was discovered when developing the Axiomatic Equation (2003), which postulated that for variable Energy flux levels, as measured with distance from a hot star, it yields inversely proportional gravity-G at orbital 'constant' levels.

2) The variable gravity thesis was further developed in exploring how variable-G cum the Pioneer Anomaly (2006) fits in relation to distance from the Sun, at about (1/AU)^1/2, confirming the surprising find that variable-G may grow at the rate of 1 G per AU.

3) Further explorations yielded collaborative corollaries for variable gravity, listed in Countdown to Stangeness: that deep space interstellar gravity clocks at about 3.96e-7 G for cosmic light gravitationally redshifted at Hubble constant (2005), it is also at about 3.4e-6 G for CMB per Boltzmann constant (2009), and about 1.36e-6 G for 'cut-off' lambda of ~400 nm (see 3 June, 2004 post), supporting the variable-G hypothesis (and why per photoelectric effect Dark Matter appears non-baryonic).

4) It was discovered that a variable gravity had been postulated by Dirac (variable in time), and by Toivo Jaakkola (sum space gravity ~10G), in early speculations on the variable-G hypothesis.

5) It was later discovered that deep space gravity per MOND hypothesis, as well as a function of proton-mass and ambient-space hypothesis (2016) background gravity, that it clocks at about ~3.97e-7 G.

6) Another coincidental calculation, hypothetically, is that if interstellar space energy is figured at E=3e8 Joules (square root of c^2 mass-energy conversion, or space Energy before light c modifier, where E=c joules), then multiplying this by neutrino phemtometer lambda, 1.32e-15 m, gives us 3.96e-7 G, same as in proton-mass calculation above (per kg/kg). All of which again seem to support a variable gravity-G hypothesis.

---

quote:

For this purpose, one adds to an action of the Einstein–Hilbert type (but with variable G, so that G is brought within the integrand) two compensating terms [7] such that the action reduces to the York–Gibbons–Hawking [8, 9] form for fixed G and Λ, and takes the same functional form as the ADM action for general relativity.
...
CONCLUDING REMARKS
In the first part of our paper, we have extended the Hamiltonian analysis of spherically symmetric gravity [10, 16] to the case of variable Newton parameter and variable cosmolog- ical term, obtaining eventually the non-linear differential equation (3.1) for G(r), under the non-trivial assumption that Eq. (2.40) can be taken to hold. We have then shown that the treatment of Λc and G as dynamical variables, together with the fixed-point condition, gives encouraging chances of emulating the presence of dark matter in long-range gravitational interactions, at least at galactic scale.

---

---

quote:

According to MOND, then, Kuiper Belt objects are actually being pulled by the rest of our galaxy, rather than by an undiscovered planet. The researchers were surprised by their findings. The initial aim of their study was to "rule out" MOND as a possible explanation for Planet Nine. However, when they applied it to the problem, it seemed to solve the issue perfectly.

---

---

quote:

3^ The surface gravity is calculated directly from Newton's law of universal gravitation, which gives the formula
g = GM/r^2
where M is the mass of the object, r is its radius, and G is the gravitational constant.

---

---

quote:

Juno's measurements during the first few close passes also show that Jupiter's magnetic field is nearly two times stronger than scientists had predicted. And the probe's gravity data suggest that "there's a lot of strange, deep motions that possibly are going on inside of Jupiter," Bolton said.
"What Juno's results are showing us is that our ideas of giant planets maybe are a little bit oversimplified," he added. "They're more complex than we thought; the motions that are going on inside are more complicated. It's possible that they formed differently than [suggested by] our simple ideas."

---

---

quote:

It is early days in the mission still (it is likely to run for several years yet), but the first gravity sensing data is pointing to some weirdness in respect of Jupiter's centre. Theories had suggested it either had a relatively small rocky core or no core at all (one suggestion was that the planet's gases went all the way down to the centre in an ever more compressed state).
Scientists are now considering something in between - a diffuse core. "It really looks fuzzy," said Dr Bolton. "There may be a core there but it's very big and it may be partially dissolved, and we're studying that."

---

---

quote:

Introduction: The objective of this paper is to develop an orbital model specially suited for the perijove time-frame. This model should take into account, at least, the tidal effects of Jupiter’s Galilean satellites and the known zonal harmonics of the planet. By comparing with the telemetry data we disclose a small, but significant, anomalous acceleration whose components in spherical coordinates are of the order of magnitude of a few mm/s2 and decay below the measurement error bars after a period of 30 minutes before or after the peri- jove. As we will see this is compatible with the expected order of magnitude from Anderson’s phenomenological formula [10] and some modified models of gravity [1, 6].

---

---

quote:

3.2 (pg 10) Our interest is now to implement the whole orbital model as defined in Sec. 2. In the first place, we have plotted the difference among the radial coordinate in the zeroth-order keplerian approximation and the data compared with the same difference for the prediction of the orbital model. This is shown in Fig. 4. We see that the agreement is very good but the model systematically underestimates the altitude of the spacecraft as if some outwards anomalous radial acceleration were acting upon Juno during its approximation to the perijove. (bold mine)

---

---

quote:

Conclusion: In our model model we have taken into account the tidal forces exerted by the Sun and by Jupiter’s larger satellites, i. e., the Galilean satellites: Io, Europa, Ganymede and Callisto and also the contributions of the known zonal harmonics [11]. We have found that the multipolar field contributions due to Jupiter’s oblateness are far more important near the perijove than the tidal forces and that they provide a very good fit of the trajectory. Nevertheless the agreement is not perfect within the error bars for the models and small discrepancies persist after considering the aforementioned perturbations. We have interpreted this discrepancy as an anomalous extra acceleration whose component is mainly radial. This acceleration is in the range of a few mm/s2 and exhibit two, almost symmetric, peaks around fifteen minutes before and after the perijove...
In the context of this discussion we should also mention that similar anomalous accelerations are also found in several spacecraft flybys of the Earth [3]. In this case, they are only a 1.5 % of those found in the case of the Juno’s flybys of Jupiter.

---

---

quote:

Beyond WIMPs and dark sectors, sterile neutrinos and axions, there are even more exotic possibilities for dark matter, although they occupy the fringes of physics, including “primordial” black holes, extra dimensions and the possibility that Einstein's theory of gravity is wrong in some way.

---

ADDENDUM: If you think about it, doesn't it stand to reason that if the universe is 'isotropic and homogenous' (per Einstein et al) and hydrogen is ubiquitous throughout the whole universe, then it is 'hydrogen' in its various forms (baryonic and non-baryonic) that under stated high G conditions (high G in interstellar-intergalactic medium) which mimics the so called 'dark matter' (invisible to our instruments) but is everywhere out there; and that included large aggregations like the Dark Galaxy. Occam's razor et al.

---

quote:

Mistele’s analysis defies this expectation, providing a startling revelation: the influence of what we call dark matter extends far beyond previous estimates, , stretching at least a million light-years from the galactic center. Such a long-range effect may indicate that dark matter—as we understand it—might not exist at all. “This finding challenges existing models,” he said, “suggesting there exist either vastly extended dark matter halos or that we need to fundamentally reevaluate our understanding of gravitational theory.”

---

PS: I could not have come to these conclusions and findings without the help of many who had contributed their thoughts to the HumanCafe discussions, though any mistakes in my understanding I humbly submit were my own. To name a few, Col. Edward Chesky, Mohideen Ibramsha, Jim White, also Israel Sad, Nelson Zink, Isaac Cavaliero, Mikhail Shapkin, John Tsang, Sushil Yadav, Carl Schmidt, John Duffield, Michael Stransky, Vlad Parkhom, Wayne Hodges; some were only known by their handle, Aladim, Naive, Davet84, PeterK, Chris, WJ, Ron, G-man, Anon, Sextus, Brother Michael, Claude, Amar, Kevin, Scheptik, Le Chef, Bradley, Mark, eV, and many others who wrote but wished to remain anonymous. There were kind advisors from outside these boards who gave input, not always in agreement, Dr Anthony Smart, Bill Chapin, Dr Dimitri Kirillov, Ray Raines, Dr Vladimir S. Netchitailo, Hugh Lawrence, and others. We may have opened a chink into the fabric of the universe, and perhaps now explore it in ways we never thought before. To all thank you!

---

quote:

Exploring various possible explanations for the non-gravitational acceleration that was detected, we find outgassing the most physically plausible explanation, although with some caveats.

---

---

quote:

Any stars in the universe can collide, whether they are 'alive', meaning fusion is still active in the star, or 'dead', with fusion no longer taking place.

---

---

quote:

This (superluminal) velocity would be reached through continuous deep space higher G acceleration (assuming G grows at about 1G per AU) until G peaks about half way (in coldest part of interstellar space), then starts to regress as approaching target, where G declines approaching hot star, and where the G powered spacecraft begins to slow …

---

---

quote:

This also makes sense at the quantum level, where more energy applied raises the electron quantum shells; in effect, more e.m. energy 'weakens' the Strong force, thus allowing electron to 'gravitate' at higher levels, while lower e.m. energy 'strengthens' the Strong force so electron 'gravitates' to a lower level; the remainder of this interaction is what is left over as Gravity, which itself stays 'constant' after energy shell level adjustments balance out - 'constant' at any orbital distance from the Sun, per Axiomatic Eq., gravity as variable G - which is why no lab experiment on Earth can validate variable G.)

---

Axiomatic Equations (new physics):
By Ivan A. on Wednesday, May 26, 2004 - 08:04 pm:
THINKING ON GRAVITY G, a possible interpretation in Volts? 

In my original above, I wrote:

---

quote:

G^2 (m)^2 = g (m) c^2 pi^2, which simplifies into: 

G^2 * m = g c^2 pi^2 

where G=6.67x10^-11 m^3.kg^-1.s^-2 (Newton's G) 
g=~5x10^-39 (proton to proton gravitational constant) 
c=3x10^8 m.s^-1 
m = 1 dimensionless, kg implied 
pi=3.14... 

When you multiply it out and take the square root of G^2, you come up with approx. G = 6.67x10^-11 (m^3.kg^-1.s^-2).

---

However, these two sides of the equation fail to balance in terms of SI base units. I had used the smallest value for g, where g = ~5e-39 (vs. 5.9e-39), dimensionless gravitational constant for proton to proton, where this constant g is derived after applying 1/137 ratio to the Fgravity/Felectric ratio = 8.1e-37 ( possible that the observationally derived Fg/Fe are inexact?). For g = ~5e-39, the conversion from g to G seems to then require pi^2 as a multiplier to make the numbers work, better with g = 5e-19, though SI units are off.

There was something that came up when I rewrote the above gravity conversion, by taking the square root of the equation (m = 1, stays same) as:

G*m = (g)^1/2 *c*pi

Now, the SI units became

(m^3.kg^-1.s^-2) kg = (g?) m.s^-1

which cancels the kg, so it leaves g as 'm^2.s^-1', not something immediately recognized, except that it might be a Volt expression... here's how:

If amperes are expressed in Newton's per meter (i.e., electron current is force 2e-7 newton's per meter, as per SI base units), then we can say:

A = N.m^-1
N = m.kg.s^-2, so that m cancels and
A = kg.s^-2

Volts are W/A so that W = J.s^-1 = m^2.kg.s^-3 which give us
V = W/A = m^2.kg.s^-3 / kg.s^-2, which simplifies into
V = m^2.s^-1

Now we can recognize (g) m^2.s^-1 as an expression of Volts!*

If the whole Axiomatic Equation were now rewritten as eV, it begins to make sense... I think. This then gives us an expression whereby the square root of gravity constant g can now be a function of electric force.
Hmmmph... what does this mean?

Ivan

---

quote:

“Some of these galaxies existed a mere 600 million years after the Big Bang.”

---

It will take some incredibly creative mental calisthenics to understand how a universe only ‘600 million years old’ can have fully formed galaxies present. How can this be? The more we look in infrared the more we will see this mind boggling phenomenon, fully formed galaxies…. Of course, if distant cosmic light is ‘gravitationally redshifted’, that’s another story.

---

quote:

Remarkably, this galaxy full of primordial gas isn't billions of light-years away and thus seen as it was when the 13.8 billion-year-old universe was in its infancy; instead, the dark galaxy designated J0613+52 is just around 270 million light-years away.

---

About Gravity/anti-gravity.
First about what is gravity-G?
Gravity is presently misunderstood: it is NOT a universal constant G as derived from Newton’s equations and Einstein’s General Relativity (which says gravity is a space-time distortion around mass), but G is inversely proportional to the local hot star’s energy output, where weakest close to a star, but stronger further away from it. In ‘cold’ stars gravity G is extreme, like in neutron stars or brown dwarfs. The reason for this is G is a ‘remainder force’ of the atom: the proton is extreme micro-gravity, what’s mass leftover from proton’s micro-gravity; but is modified into a very weak force, like on earth, by the electromagnet energy received, so it is a much weaker remainder force, when taken in aggregate of all the mass (like a planet) it becomes the gravity measured. On earth it is G=6.67e-11 m^3 kg^-1 s^2, for example, but about ten times that at Saturn, or 40X at Pluto. So it’s a variable-G.
Here is a page that explains atom’s remainder force gravity:
http://www.humancafe.com/discus/messages/1177/1872.html?1413219176#POST5677

Pretty easy so far. But until they measure G at Saturn
or Pluto, we’re in the dark about it. Now, about anti-gravity? More in next…

Now ‘anti-gravity’ is a bit more complicated, because it isn’t really ‘anti’ but ‘pro-gravity’ that makes it work. As I explained it here, why Moved-G motor works:
http://www.humancafe.com/discus/messages/1177/2432.html#POST5552

Now, if you take two gyroscopes and attach them tail to tail (or head-head) you’ll discover they cancel each other’s angular-momentum and lose precession. You can maneuver them with no resistance (unlike single gyro) so they modify each other to cancel gyro force. If you put the two gyros in a spinning cylinder, something interesting happens: if you add force to increase cylinder spin, the cylinder moves in direction of its spin axis (if spun other way, it moves in opposite direction) creating a small inertial force resulting in motion. If you do this in small bursts of force-to-spin (pulses can be done electrically) then depending on the frequency of added force, the motion increases or decreases (depending on direction of spin). So what you have is a ‘capture’ of inertial force (what makes gyros resist motion or precess) and now redirect it in the desired direction of motion. That’s how UFOs work!

So that’s all it is, just a capture of inertial force, canceled gyro force, and directed to produce motion, which means you capture gravity (inertial force by equivalence, thank you Albert!) and direct it along the cylinder’s spin axis. It is ‘gravity on board’ if you will, and this is what will take us into space. Much better than rockets burning fuel, can be on board battery powered, light weight, and creates unlimited acceleration…. The higher the G, the faster you go. Might even propel vehicle faster than speed of light!!
I actually submitted a patent application, but it was turned down since I didn’t have a working model. But no matter, it’s on record:
https://patents.google.com/patent/US20130186711

Btw, some of the pilot reports on UFOs leads me to think ‘we’ already developed this tech, but it’s ABOVE TOP SECRET. Mess with it and you…

---

quote:

"NASA engineer and co-founder of Exodus Propulsion Technologies has claimed that his company's propellantless propulsion drive system has generated enough thrust to counteract Earth's gravity."

---

---

quote:

The bulge of water on the side of Earth that faces the Moon is easily explained. It is due to the gravitational attraction between the Moon and Earth, including the water on Earth. This attraction pulls water toward the Moon and creates a “bulge” on the surface of Earth. The bulge on the other side of Earth is due to inertia. Inertia is the tendency of an object at rest to stay at rest and the tendency of a body in motion to continue its motion in a straight line.

---

---

quote:

Many textbooks and other sources use the concept of “centrifugal force”— which is actually a preconception—to explain the effects of inertia. According to this preconception, there is a force that acts on all objects that are in circular motion, and this force pushes or pulls the object out from the circle. There is no such force.

---

---

quote:

There is an inertial tendency resulting from the rotation of the Earth-Moon system for objects (water among them) to move away from both sides of Earth—the side facing toward the Moon and the side facing away. The model demonstrates that the effect of things moving away from Earth is much greater on the side facing away from the Moon.

---

“The key is to consider the differences in gravitational pull felt by the Solid Earth and both the water facing the Moon, and that oposite to it.
As the Earth and the oceans orbit around the Earth-Moon center of mass, the Earth will make a tighter circle than the ocean in the "far side" because it feels a stronger pull from the Moon. As a consequence, the ocean will lag behind and will bulge as in the figure.”

---

quote:

In reality, the tides instead of running east to west as Earth rotates, tidal waves propagate around in circles around islands, and certain points in the sea, called tidal nodes or amphidromic points… Thus, the tidal patterns in the ocean are a set of rotating standing waves. These waves have periods that represent the natural resonance periods of the ocean basins. These waves can be considered modes of "vibration" and can be decomposed using a Fourier decomposition.

---

---

quote:

Ask yourself why Feynman didn't insist on the barycenter solution. He was in a position to insist, and he was the type to insist if he knew he was right. He didn’t insist because it was only a suggestion, one he couldn’t ultimately make fit the data. He saw correctly that it was the logical answer given gravity, but once it didn’t fit the data, he gave it up. He was always an empiricist, and never let his theory get before the facts. Now, ask yourself why Feynman did not follow up with another theory. Surely he could see that gravity insisted on the barycenter tide. If the barycenter tide does not work, then there is something seriously wrong with gravity. The only way the barycenter tide could be false is if it is itself being swamped by another force field. What could this field be? Feynman obviously hadn’t a clue.

---

---

quote:

What was general relativity? Einstein's earlier theory of time and space, special relativity, proposed that distance and time are not absolute. The ticking rate of a clock depends on the motion of the observer of that clock; likewise for the length of a "yardstick."

---

---

quote:

The Ives–Stilwell experiment was carried out by Herbert Ives and G.R. Stilwell first in 1938[22] and with better accuracy in 1941.[23] It was designed to test the transverse Doppler effect - the redshift of light from a moving source in a direction perpendicular to its velocity—which had been predicted by Einstein in 1905.

---

---

quote:

In another verification of the validity of Einstein's theory of general relativity scientists have used two finely tuned optical lattice clocks to make new ultra-precise measurements of the time dilation effect predicted by Einstein's theory of general relativity.

---

---

quote:

Once clocks are synchronised one can measure the one-way speed of light. However, the previous conditions that guarantee the applicability of Einstein's synchronisation do not imply that the one-way light speed turns out to be the same all over the frame.

---

---

quote:

It is easily demonstrated that if two clocks are brought together and synchronized, then one clock is moved rapidly away and back again, the two clocks will no longer be synchronized. This effect is due to time dilation. This was measured in a variety of tests and is related to the twin paradox.[14][15]
However, if one clock is moved away slowly in frame S and returned the two clocks will be very nearly synchronized when they are back together again.

---

---

quote:

JILA physicists have measured Albert Einstein’s theory of general relativity, or more specifically, the effect called time dilation, at the smallest scale ever, showing that two tiny atomic clocks, separated by just a millimeter or the width of a sharp pencil tip, tick at different rates.

---

---

quote:

NASA held a big press conference yesterday to announce that the Gravity Probe B experiment had confirmed a prediction of General Relativity that spacetime near Earth should be "twisted" by the Earth's rotation. A lot of the coverage has focused on the troubled history of the mission (as did the press conference, apparently), but scientifically it's very impressive.
The shift measured is very, very small-- 0.04 arcseconds over the course of a year, or 0.000011 degrees-- but agrees nicely with the predictions of relativity.

---

---

quote:

Physicists have been unable to unite quantum mechanics – a theory that describes matter at the smallest scales – with general relativity, which predicts the behaviour of objects at the largest cosmic scales, including how gravity bends space-time. Because gravity is weak over small distances, it is hard to measure relativity on small scales.
But atomic clocks, which count seconds by measuring the frequency of radiation emitted when electrons around an atom change energy states, can detect these minute gravitational effects.

---

“LIGHT REDSHIFT DISTANCE TRAVELED AT 1 Z in intergalactic medium, with implications for deep space gravity G.”