My views on Cosmology and Physics
site navigation menu
Book by David Michalets
THE FUNDAMENTAL theory of this paper is: Gravitation is an electromagnetic phenomenon. There is no primary motion inherent in planets and satellites. Electric attraction, repulsion, and electromagnetic circumduction(1) govern their movements. The moon does not "fall," attracted to the earth from an assumed inertial motion along a straight line, nor is the phenomenon of objects falling in the terrestrial atmosphere comparable with the "falling effect" in the movement of the moon, a conjecture which is the basic element of the Newtonian theory of gravitation.
Aside from several important facts discovered in the study of cosmic upheavals, which are not illuminated here and only enumerated at the end of this paper, and which are discussed at length in a work of research entitled Worlds In Collision now being prepared for publication, the following facts are incompatible with the theory of gravitation:
The ingredients of the air—oxygen, nitrogen, argon and other gases—though not in a compound but in a mixture, are found in equal proportions at various levels of the atmosphere despite great differences in specific weights. The explanation accepted in science is this: "Swift winds keep the gases thoroughly mixed, so that except for water-vapor the composition of the atmosphere is the same throughout the troposphere to a high degree of approximation." (2) This explanation cannot be true. If it were true, then the moment the wind subsides, the nitrogen should stream upward, and the oxygen should drop, preceded by the argon. If winds are caused by a difference in weight between warm and cold air, the difference in weight between heavy gases high in the atmosphere and light gases at the lower levels should create storms, which would subside only after they had carried each gas to its natural place in accordance with its gravity or specific weight. But nothing of the kind happens.
When some aviators expressed the belief that "pockets of noxious gas" are in the air, the scientists replied:
"There are no 'pockets of noxious gas.' No single gas, and no other likely mixture of gases, has, at ordinary temperatures and pressures, the same density as atmospheric air. Therefore, a pocket of foreign gas in that atmosphere would almost certainly either bob up like a balloon, or sink like a stone in water." (3)
Why, then, do not the atmospheric gases separate and stay apart in accordance with the specific gravities?
Ozone, though heavier than oxygen, is absent in the lower layers of the atmosphere, is present in the upper layers, and is not subject to the "mixing effect of the wind." The presence of ozone high in the atmosphere suggests that oxygen must be still higher: "As oxygen is less dense than ozone, it will tend to rise to even greater heights." (4) Nowhere is it asked why ozone does not descend of its own weight or at least why it is not mixed by the wind with other gases.
Water, though eight hundred times heavier than air, is held in droplets, by the millions of tons, miles above the ground. Clouds and mist are composed of droplets which defy gravitation.
Even if perfect elasticity is a quality of the molecules of all gases, the motion of the molecules, if effected by a mechanical cause, must subside because of the gravitational attraction between the particles and also because of the gravitational pull of the earth. There should also be a loss of momentum as the result of the transformation of a part of the energy of motion into vibration of molecules hit in the collisions.(5) But since the molecules of a gas at a constant temperature (or in a perfect insulator) do not stop moving, it is obvious that a force generated in collisions drives them. The molecules of gases try to escape one another. Repulsion between the particles of gases and vapors counteracts the attraction.
The weight of the atmosphere is constantly changing as the changing barometric pressure indicates. Low pressure areas are not necessarily encircled by high pressure belts. The semidiurnal changes in barometric pressure are not explainable by the mechanistic principles of gravitation and the heat effect of solar radiation. The cause of these variations is unknown.
"It has been known now for two and a half centuries, that there are more or less daily variations in the height of the barometer, culminating in two maxima and two minima during the course of 24 hours. Since Dr. Beal's discovery (1664-65), the same observation has been made and puzzled over at every station at which pressure records were kept and studied, but without success in finding for it the complete physical explanation. In speaking of the diurnal and semidiurnal variations of the barometer, Lord Rayleigh says: 'The relative magnitude of the latter [semidiurnal variations], as observed at most parts of the earth's surface, is still a mystery, all the attempted explanations being illusory.'" (6)
One maximum is at 10 a.m., the other at 10 p.m.; the two minima are at 4 a.m. and 4 p.m. The heating effect of the sun can explain neither the time when the maxima appear nor the time of the minima of these semidiurnal variations. If the pressure becomes lower without the air becoming lighter through a lateral expansion due to heat, this must mean that the same mass of air gravitates with changing force at different hours.
The lowest pressure is near the equator, in the belt of the doldrums. Yet the troposphere is highest at the equator, being on the average about 18 km. high there; it is lower in the moderate latitudes, and only 6 km. high above the ground at the poles.
Laplace, pondering the shape of the atmospheric envelope of the earth, came to the conclusion that the atmosphere, which rotates with the same angular velocity as the earth and which behaves like a fluid, must be lenticular in form; its polar and equatorial axes must be about 35,000 and 52,000 miles respectively; at the equator the atmosphere must extend more than 21,000 miles above the ground. At these distances from the ground the gravitational force of the earth is just equal to the centrifugal force due to rotation.
From the measurement of the pressure of the earth's atmosphere, measurement based also on the principles of gravitation, it has been deduced that the atmosphere is but 17 (not 21,000) miles high.
Observations of the flight of meteorites and of the polar auroras lead to the conjecture that the atmosphere reaches to a height of 130 miles (meteorites) or over 400 miles (polar auroras). Radio measurements yield about 200 miles for the upper layer recognizable through this method of investigation.
Two computations, both based on the principle of gravitation, differ in the proportion of 17 and 21,000. Direct observations do not justify either of the computed figures.
Cyclones, characterized by low pressure and by winds blowing toward their centers, move counterclockwise in the northern hemisphere and clockwise in the southern hemisphere. This movement of air currents in cyclonic vortices is generally explained as the effect of the earth's rotation.
Anticyclones, characterized by high pressure and by winds blowing from their centers move clockwise in the northern hemisphere and counterclockwise in the southern hemisphere. The movement of anticyclones has not been explained and is regarded as enigmatic.
Cyclones and anticyclones are considered a problem of fluidal motion with highest or lowest pressure in the center. As the movement of anticyclones cannot be explained by the mechanistic principles of gravitation and rotation, it must be concluded that the rotation of cyclones is also unexplained.
The area of land in the northern hemisphere of the earth is to the area of land in the southern hemisphere as three is to one. The mean weight of the land is two and three-quarter times heavier than that of water; assuming the depth of the seas in both hemispheres to be equal, the northern hemisphere up to sea level is heavier than the southern hemisphere, if judged by sea and land distribution; the earth masses above sea level are additional heavy loads. But this unequal distribution of masses does not affect the position of the earth, as it does not place the northern hemisphere with its face to the sun. A "dead force" like gravitation could not keep the unequally loaded earth in equilibrium. Also, the seasonal distribution of ice and snow, shifting in a distillation process from one hemisphere to the other, should interfere with the equilibrium of the earth, but fails to do so.
Mountainous masses do not exert the gravitational pull expected by the theory of gravitation. The influence of the largest mass on the earth, the Himalaya, was carefully investigated with plumb line on the Indian side. The plumb line is not deflected as calculated in advance.(7) "The attraction of the mountain-ground thus computed on the theory of gravitation, is considerably greater than is necessary to explain the anomalies observed. This singular conclusion, I confess, at first surprised me very much." (G. B. Airy.(8)) Out of this embarrassment grew the idea of isostasy. This hypothesis explains the lack of gravitational pull by the mountains in the following way. The interior of the globe is supposed to be fluid, and the crust is supposed to float on it. The inner fluid or magma is heavier or denser, the crust is lighter. Where there is a mountainous elevation, there must also be a protuberance beneath the mountains, this immersed protuberance being of lesser mass than the magma of equal volume. The way seismic waves travel, and computations of the elasticity of the interior of the earth, force the conclusion that the earth must be as rigid as steel; but if the earth is solid for only 2000 miles from the surface, the crust must be more rigid than steel. These conclusions are not reconcilable with the principle of isostasy, which presupposes a fluid magma less than 60 miles below the surface of the earth. There remains "a contradiction between isostasy and geophysical data." (9)
Over the oceans, the gravitational pull is greater than over the continents, though according to the theory of gravitation the reverse should be true; the hypothesis of isostasy also is unable to explain this phenomenon.(10) The gravitational pull drops at the coast line of the continents. Furthermore, the distribution of gravitation in the sea often has the peculiarity of being stronger where the water is deeper. "In the whole Gulf and Caribbean region the generalization seems to hold that the deeper the water, the more strongly positive the anomalies." (11)
As far as observations could establish, the sea tides do not influence the plumb line, which is contrary to what is expected. Observations on reservoirs of water, where the mass of water could be increased and decreased, gave none of the results anticipated on the basis of the theory of gravitation.(12)
The atmospheric pressure of the sun, instead of being 27.47 times greater than the atmospheric pressure of the earth (as expected because of the gravitational pull of the large solar mass), is much smaller: the pressure there varies according to the layers of the atmosphere from one-tenth to one-thousandth of the barometric pressure on the earth;(13) at the base of the reversing layer the pressure is 0.005 of the atmospheric pressure at sea level on the earth;(14) in the sunspots, the pressure drops to one ten-thousandth of the pressure on the earth.
The pressure of light is sometimes referred to as to explain the low atmospheric pressure on the sun. At the surface of the sun, the pressure of light must be 2.75 milligrams per square centimeter; a cubic centimeter of one gram weight at the surface of the earth would weigh 27.47 grams at the surface of the sun. Thus the attraction by the solar mass is 10,000 times greater than the repulsion of the solar light. Recourse is taken to the supposition that if the pull and the pressure are calculated for very small masses, the pressure exceeds the pull, one acting in proportion to the surface, the other in proportion to the volume.(15) But if this is so, why is the lowest pressure of the solar atmosphere observed over the sunspots where the light pressure is least?
Because of its swift rotation, the gaseous sun should have the latitudinal axis greater than the longitudinal, but it does not have it. The sun is one million times larger than the earth, and its day is but twenty-six times longer than the terrestrial day; the swiftness of its rotation at its equator is over 125 km. per minute; at the poles, the velocity approaches zero. Yet the solar disk is not oval but round: the majority of observers even find a small excess in the longitudinal axis of the sun.(16) The planets act in the same manner as the rotation of the sun, imposing a latitudinal pull on the luminary.
Gravitation that acts in all directions equally leaves unexplained the spherical shape of the sun. As we saw in the preceding section, the gases of the solar atmosphere are not under a strong pressure, but under a very weak one. Therefore, the computation, according to which the ellipsoidity of the sun, that is lacking, should be slight, is not correct either. Since the gases are under a very low gravitational pressure, the centrifugal force of rotation must have formed quite a flat sun.
Near the polar regions of the sun, streamers of the corona are observed, which prolong still more the axial length of the sun.
If planets and satellites were once molten masses, as cosmological theories assume, they would not have been able to obtain a spherical form, especially those which do not rotate, as Mercury or the moon (with respect to its primary).
The Harmonic Law of Kepler views the movements of the planets as depending only on their distance from the sun. According to Newton, the masses of the sun and the planets must also enter the formulas. The Newtonian orbits differ from the Keplerian, found empirically. The Newtonian formula has a sum of masses (instead of a product of masses), and in view of the largeness of the sun, the Newtonian orbits are supposed to not deviate substantially from the Keplerian.(17)
Perturbations of planets due to their reciprocal action are pronounced in repulsion as well as attraction. A perturbation displacing a planet or a satellite by a few seconds of arc must direct it from its orbit. It is assumed that the orbits of all planets and satellites did not change because of perturbations. A regulating force emanating from the primary appears to act. In the gravitational system there is no place left for such regulating forces.
The perturbating activity appears unstable in the major planets, Jupiter and Saturn: Between the minimum of the year 1898-99 and the maximum of the 1916-17 there was found an 18 percent difference.(18) As these planets did not increase in mass in the meantime, this change is not understandable from the point of view of the theory of gravitation, which includes the principle of the immutable gravitational constant.
The pressure of light emanating from the sun should slowly change the orbits of the satellites, pushing them more than the primaries, and acting constantly, this pressure should have the effect of acceleration: the pressure of light per unit of mass is greater in relation to the satellites than in relation to their primaries. But this change fails to materialize; a regulating force seems to overcome this unequal light pressure on primaries and secondaries.
The sun moves in space at a velocity of about twenty kilometers a second (in relation to the nearby stars). This motion, according to Lodge, must change the eccentricities of some of the planetary orbits to an extent which far exceeds the observed values.(19)
The motion of the perihelia of Mercury and Mars and of the nodes of Venus differ from what is computed with the help of the Newtonian law of gravitation. Einstein showed how his theory can account for the anomaly of Mercury; however, the smaller irregularities in the movements of Venus and Mars cannot be accounted for by Einstein's formulas.
Unaccounted for fluctuations in the lunar mean motion were calculated from the records of lunar eclipses of many centuries and from modern observations. These fluctuations were studied by S. Newcomb, who wrote: "I regard these fluctuations as the most enigmatic phenomenon presented by the celestial motions, being so difficult to account for by the action of any known causes, that we cannot but suspect them to arise from some action in nature hitherto unknown." (20) They are not explainable by the forces of gravitation which emanate from the sun and the planets.
It was found that "the strength of radio reception was nearly doubled with the passing of the moon from overhead to underneath the observer ... It does not appear reasonable that the relatively small gravitational tide in the earth's atmosphere, which changes the barometric pressure by less than half of one percent, could account for a sufficient change in altitude of the ionized layer to produce such marked changes in the intensity of reception." (21)
The lifting of the ionosphere generally results in better radio reception, and the small tidal action by the moon when overhead should improve reception a little, not impair it; in any event, the moon cannot have a marked effect on the ionosphere without being itself a charged body. But if the moon is charged, it cannot behave in its motion as though the gravitational force alone acts between it and the earth.
The tails of the comets do not obey the principle of gravitation and are repelled by the sun. "There is beyond question some profound secret and mystery of nature concerned in the phenomenon of their tails" ; enormous sweep which it (the tail) makes round the sun in perihelion, in the manner of a straight and rigid rod, is in defiance of the law of gravitation, nay, even of the recorded laws of motion" (J. Herschel).(22)
"What has puzzled astronomers since the time of Newton, is the fact that while all other bodies in the sidereal universe, as far as we are aware, obey the law of gravitation, comets' tails are clearly subject to some strong repulsive force, which drives the matter composing them away from the sun with enormously high velocities" (W.H. Pickering)
The change in the angular velocity of comets (especially of the comet Encke) is not in accord with the theoretical computations based on the theory of gravitation.(23)
Meteors, after entering the terrestrial atmosphere at about 200 km. above the ground, are violently displaced toward the east. These displacements of the meteors are usually ascribed to winds blowing in the upper atmosphere.(24) The atmospheric pressure at a height of 45 km. is supposed to be but "a small fraction of one millimeter of mercury." (25) On the other hand, the velocity with which the meteors approach the earth is between 15 and 75 km. per second, on the average about 40 km. per second or over 140,000 km. per hour. If winds of 150 km. per hour velocity were permanently blowing at the height where the meteors become visible, it would not be possible for such winds of rarefied atmosphere to visibly deflect stones falling at the rate of 140,000 km. per hour.
Approaching the earth, the meteorites suddenly slow down and turn aside, and some are even repelled into space. "A few meteors give the appearance of penetrating into our atmosphere and then leaving it, ricocheting as it were." (26)
The earth is a huge magnet; it has electric currents in the ground and is enveloped by a number of layers of electrified ionosphere. The sun possesses an electric charge and magnetic poles; also the sunspots are found to be powerful magnets. The ionosphere is permanently charged by particles arriving from the sun; sunspots actively influence terrestrial magnetism, ground currents, the ionosphere's charge, and auroras. As the principle of gravitation leaves no room for the participation of other forces in the ordinary movements of the celestial mechanism, these obvious and permanent influences of the electromagnetic state of the sun on the magnetic field of the earth, the ionosphere, the auroras, and the earth currents are not allowed to have more than zero effect on the astronomical position of the earth, and this for the sake of maintaining the integrity of the gravitational principle.
Sun and moon, comets, planets, satellites, and meteorites - all the heavenly host - air and water, mountain massifs and sea tides, each and all of them(27) disobey the "law of laws" which is supposed to know no exception.
* * *
To the empirical evidences of the fallacy of the law of gravitation four well known difficulties of the gravitational theory can be added:
Gravitation acts in no time. Laplace calculated that, in order to keep the solar system together, the gravitational pull must propagate with a velocity at least fifty million times greater than the velocity of light. A physical agent requires time to cover distance. Gravitation defies time.
Matter acts where it is not, or in abstentia, through no physical agent. This is a defiance of space. Newton was aware of this difficulty when he wrote in a letter to Bentley: "That gravity should be innate, inherent, and essential to matter, so that one body can act upon another at a distance through a vacuum without the mediation of anything else, by and through which their action and force may be conveyed from one to another, is to me so great an absurdity that I believe no man, who has in philosophical matters a competent faculty of thinking, can ever fall into it." Leibnitz opposed the theory of gravitation for this very reason.
Gravitational force is unchangeable by any and all agents or by any medium through which it passes, always propagating as the inverse square of the distances. "Gravitation is entirely independent of everything that influences other natural phenomena" (De Sitter(28)). This is a defiance of the principles governing other energies.
Every particle in the universe must be under a tendency to be pulled apart because of the infinite mass in the universe: it is pulled to all sides by all the matter in space.
A few additional remarks about the motion of bodies in the universe which bear upon the theory of gravitation are added here:
The notion of the tangential escape or inertia of the primary motion of the planets and satellites, being adopted by all cosmogonical theories of post-Newtonian days, led all of them into insurmountable difficulties. The retrograde motion of some satellites is one of these difficulties.
The principle of gravitation demands an ultimate balling of all matter in the cosmos. This is not in harmony with spectral observations, which suggest even an "expanding universe"
"An atom differs from the solar system by the fact that it is not gravitation that makes the electrons go round the nucleus, but electricity." (B. Russell). Different principles are supposed to govern the motion of the planetary bodies in the macrocosm and microcosm.(29)
* * *
Newton explained the principle underlying the motion of the planets and the satellites by the example of a stone thrown horizontally from a mountain with such force that gravitation bends its flight so that it revolves around the earth, coming back to exactly the same place, once again to repeat the course of its flight. But he admits "It is not to be conceived that mere mechanical causes could give birth to so many regular motions," and invokes an act of Providence in providing each satellite with a tangential push of a strength which, together with the pull of the primary, creates an orbit. (General Scholium to Book III of the Principia) The inertia of the tangential (instantaneous) push has not exhausted itself in all the eons despite the tidal friction between a satellite and its primary, or the sun pulling the satellite away from the primary, or the resistance of matter (meteorites) in space, though all these forces act permanently and therefore with acceleration.
* * *
Newton's gravitational theory is regarded as proved by the action of the tides. But studying the tides, Newton came to the conclusion that the moon has a mass equal to one fortieth of the earth. Modern calculations, based on the theory of gravitation (but not on the action of the tides), ascribe to the moon a mass equal to 1/81 of the earth's mass.(30)
The greatest triumph of the theory of gravitation was the discovery of the planet Neptune, the position of which was calculated simultaneously by Adams and Leverrier from the perturbations experienced by Uranus. But in the controversy which ensued concerning the priority in announcing the existence of Neptune, it was stressed that neither of the two scholars was the real discoverer, as both of them calculated very erroneously the distance of Neptune from the orbit of Uranus.(31) Yet, even if the computations were correct, there would be no proof that gravitation and not another energy acts between Uranus and Neptune. The gravitational pull decreases as the square of the distance. Electricity and magnetism act in the same way. Newton was mistaken when he ascribed to magnetism a decrease that follows the cube of the distance.(32)
Building his System of the World, Newton put before his readers "Rules of Reasoning in Philosophy." The First Rule is: "We are to admit no more causes of natural things than such as are both true and sufficient to explain their appearances."
Rule II is : "Therefore, to the same natural effects we must, as far as possible, assign the same causes."
Section I mixes many unrelated topics.
There is an important mistake in the first paragraph.
"the "falling effect" in the movement of the moon, a conjecture which is the basic element of the Newtonian theory of gravitation."
This statement implies Newton's equation for gravity was never observed.
The basic element of the force is that it acts instantaneously on both massses. The masses are multiplied because both driv the mutual force.
The field for gravity from a mass diminishes by distance.
Therefore, the mutual force is diminished by inverse-sqare of distance becuse both fields are diminishing.
The Moon is not falling to the Earth. The Moon and Earth rotate about the mutual center of gravity. That is why the orbit is elliptical.
The next part of section I is about Earth's atmosphere.
The assumption is the distibution of gas molecules is not driven by only gravity,. This causes a problem when heavy molecules like ozone can remain high.
By definition, matter in the gas state should fill its container.
Earth has no container but the atmosphere remains with pressure deceasing with increasing altitude.
This a gravity behavior. CwG notes inconsistencies with pressures, and it is too shallow at only 31 miles..
In my opinion, Earth's atmosphere is too complex for a single explanation by only one of gravity or electromagnetism.
Gravity seems better in most scenarios.
According to NASA, there are 6 distinct layers, though with an overlap of the ionosphere, with their top alitude are:
troposphere to 9 miles, stratosphere to 31 mi, mesosphere to 53 mi, thermosphere to 37 mi, ionosphere is from 30 mi to 600 mi, exosphere to 6200 mi.
Our atmosphere, when lacking a container is certainly driven by gravity, for the most part.
There are many anomalies, like the lack of mixing of gases, like observed in the 6 layers.
There are academic courses for fluid dynamics in the ocean and atmosphere.
There are many behaviors where air is acting as a fluid.
Cold fronts and warm fronts are like interactions between fluids, where one rides over the other, without mixing.
The rising air can cool, causing condensation into clouds.
There is a statement about the cause of high and low pressure systems being unknown. I suspect meteorology has advanced substantially since 1946, without discarding gravity.
There is even a weather phenomenon called a gravity wave, where the interaction between different layers of air results in a wave between 2 fluids, driven by gravity.
I expect these weather behaviors cannot exist without gravitation, contrary to the title of CwG.
CwG correctly notes clouds defy gravity, with many tons of water in the air.
Earth has an electric field. Water molecules are bipolar.
EU cosmology recognizes that Earth's electric field can explain this apparent levitation of water molecules.
The previous observation about fluid behaviors applies.
Clouds appear as coherent objects with bonds between molecules. Clouds are white because they can absorb and re-emit light, just as condensed matter (liquid or solid) can do.
CwG claims cyclones cannot be explaind by gravity.
Scientists in EU cosmology have explained these weather phenomena can be explained as electrical phenomena.
Therefore, EU cosmology explained the CwG concerns with our atmosphere, but without discarding gravity.
Though not in CwG, EU also explained the unusual dust devils on Mars as electrical in nature.
Despite this better understanding of cyclones, there is no need to discard gavity.
In the next part of section I, CwG takes issue with the gaseous sun.
This starts with a line
"11. The stmospheric pressure of the sun..."
CwG notes the gaseous sun is round not oval.
CwG is correct that the gaseous sun model is wrong in many ways.
Pierre-Marie Robitaille and Stephen Crothers developed a solar model based on condensed matter. with much of Sun being liquid metallic hydrogen (LMH).
Unlike the gaseous sun model, the LMH model explains all solar observations..
The Sun is a perfect sphere because it is liquid, composed of liquid metallic hydrogen, except for only the core, where it is solid metallic hydrogen.
The pefect sphere is a direct result of gravity. A liquid subject to gravity will seek equilibrium on its surface. "Water seeks its own level."
A large mass of liquid, which is relatively uniform in composition, free to flow in space, and which is not distorted by a external force, should result in a perfect sphere, by gravity.
The Sun is a confirmation of gravity. The perfect sphere could be difficult to explain by anything other than a massive liquid object in space, maintained by gravity.
Electromagnetism involves charges. Liquid metallic hydrogen is a lattice of protons with free electrons, maintained by the electrostatic force between charges.
In the Sun, the lattice configuration changes with depth. The core has the densest lattice, body-centered cubic. This compression iby depth s due to gravity.
Therefore, The LMH model explained the CwG issues with the gaseous sun, but without discarding gravity.
he next part of CwG is about inconsistencies of gravity around the world, in oceans, and around mountains.
CwG makes frequent references to expectations.
EiU documented Earth's geology reveals catastrophic disruptions.
Perhaps EiU, written after CwG, subsequently explained this issue with unexpected mass distributions around thw world.
NASA conducted a systematic measurement of Earth's gravitational anomalies.
Gravity Recovery and Climate Experiment (GRACE)
This uneven mass distribution in Earth cannot be explained. However, we did not observe Earth's creation, to know whether that process should have a result of uniformity, or whether mascons are the result of a process which could not maintain a uniform structure throughout the sphere.
I expect the eventual explanation will not entail discarding gravity.
There is a known historical inconsistency with Earth's gravity.
There was a time of megafauna and megaflora.
Many animals and plants were much larger than found on Earth now.
The archeological evidence does not suggest a pattern.
It seems like gravity was weaker initially, but something happened, and then gravity became stonger, to what we have now.
There are 2 alternatives for this transition.
1) the force of gravity somehow changed, where the force between the same pair of masses was stronger than before,
2) the mass of the Earth increased.
GRACE suggests an explanation, when it detected inconsistent mascons, or mass concentrations.
The Earth does not have a uniform internal structure. If the planet was formed with uniform layers, many layers were disturbed. EiU reported catastrophic changes to Earth's geology.
The mascons reveal changes below the surface.
One possible explanation is the scenario offered in WIC. The thunderbolts from other planets brought streams of energetic protons and electrons to the Earth.
Lichtenberg figures result from an electrical discharge to a surface.
Precious metals, like gold and silver, are found in veins. Even the word vein suggests a filament, like from an event from an electrical discharge.
This electrical event could have caused transmutations to occur where the discharges flowed beneath the surface.
The atoms affected would increase their atomic number and their atomic mass.
WiC described catastrophic encounters with other planets, providing opportunities for transmutation events.
This explanation has consequences.
The heaviest radioactive elements, uranium and thorium, are used to estimate the age of the Earth, and also the Sun. These heavy elements are considered primordial, or present when the solar system was created.
If their quantity ever increased, since Earth was created, then this assumption for dating is invalid.
CwG mentions a problem for tides from only the Moon's gravity.
Despite many missions to the Moon, we know very little about it.
Apollo missions left seismometers to monitor moonquakes, to listen for activity in this nearby object assumed to be billions of years old.
Quite simply, we cannot explain the unknown interior of the Moon.
NASA crashed stages from Apollo misions 12 and 13 and monitored the moon for the quakes from the impacts
Here is a story from Popular Science in 2016.
Does the Moon Sound Like a Bell?
Scientists are unable to explain adequately these quakes from the impacts and the periodic shallow moonquakes which are detected periodically.
Possible Hollow Moon explanation
THE MOON - TOO MANY IMPOSSIBLE COINCIDENCES [AMPLEX / YOUTUBE]
Though this explanation might be difficult for most people to believe, the bottom line is we have never taken a deep sample of the Moon's crust.
The video mentions Apollo 13 had that task in its mission, but it never landed on the Moon.
This unusual explanation must be considered because it explains more anomalies than just the ringing. Perhaps, we we must wait, until another theory has evidence for its alternate explanation of the ringing. One can wonder when another mission (manned or not) lands on the Moon whether a deep sample will be taken. I expect scientists wish to solve the mysterious ringing.
Velikosky published an article titled Earth Without a Moon, In Pensee issue 3 (December 1972).
This supports the story of the Moon arriving during human history.
On April 22, I found a much better explanation for thehollow moon.
(start April 22 insertion)
2 astrophysicists working on the electric universe cosmology collaborated on this explanation of the hollow Moon.
Cataclysm 26: Archimedes and the Moon walk into a bar
(end April 22 insertion)
In the next part of section I, CwG notes comets do not behave correctly for gravity.
This part starts with a line starting with "22. The tails of the comets..."
EU cosmology has already explained that a comet is an electromagnetic phenomenon and is not explained by gravity.
It is called an electric comet.
Therefore, EU cosmology explained the CwG issues with comets, but without discarding gravity.
CwG becomes a diatribe against conventional cosmology which treats gravity as the "law of laws" which is supposed to know no exception.
Electric Universe cosmology has advanced past that mistake.
The work by Hannes Alfven, who was awarded the 1970 Nobel Prize in Physics for his important work developing plasma physics, has been accepted by Electric Universe cosmology.
The context for CwG in 1946 is now quite different in cosmology, in 2022, or 76 years later.
CwG has a paragraph beginning "a. Gravitation acts in no time."
Newton's equation for gravity has no time variable.
The equations for the forces of electromagnetism also have no time variable.
All 3 fundamental forces "act in no time."
This is because these forces arise from fields. When an object is in a field that it is susceptible to, then it gets the force instantaneously. It arises from the context, not requiring time for propagation of a mechanism.
I proposed a mechanism for gravity based on that defined for the electric force.
Newton's force of gravity acts instantaneously, though diminished by inverse-square of distance. This behavior is identical to the electric force.
CwG mentions Liebnitz opposed Newton's force of an action on another over a distance through a vacuum.
Liebnitz lived several years before James Clerk Maxwell, who defined the electric field which enabled the forces of electromagnetism to act instantaneously over a distance through a vacuum.
Mass and Gravity
CwG has a statement of exaggeration by using the word infinite.
"Every particle in the universe must be under a tendency to be pulled apart because of the infinite mass in the universe: it is pulled to all sides by all the matter in space."
This ignores gravity diminshes by inverse-square of distance. The pull to "all sides" is very weak, if even detectable.
CwG proceeds with observations of perturbations of planets between 1898-99 and 1916-17.
I cannot find an on-line reference to describe these observations in CwG.
I find no evidence of repulsion of planets in their orbits. After these repulsions are identified, then they could be addressed.
WiC described catastrophic electric discharges when planets became too close. Those events were not repulsion. If it did occur, the observers could not measure such a motion by either body.
There are observations of the Moon lifting the ionosphere.
CwG has this statement:
"But if the moon is charged, it cannot behave in its motion as though the gravitational force alone acts between it and the earth."
There is no justification for that conclusion. CwG provided no evidence for it.
The forces of gravity and electric are quite unrelated.
The Sun is definitely, positively charged. Its mass participates in the solar system's center of gravity.
Observations of the Moon concluded the Moon has a magnetic field, and so it probably has a charge, but without details, like polarity and the number of Coulombs.
Perhaps, CwG is correct about a charged Moon.
However, it does not require discarding gravity.
CwG makes misguided comments about the principles of science.
This might be due to the influence of Einstein who will be mentioned after these principles.
2. The principle of gravitation demands an ultimate balling of all matter in the cosmos.
3. "An atom differs from the solar system by the fact that it is not gravitation that makes the electrons go round the nucleus, but electricity." (B. Russell). Different principles are supposed to govern the motion of the planetary bodies in the macrocosm and microcosm.(29)
There is no principle which can make a demand on the universe.
There are no principles which are "supposed" to govern motion in macrocosm and microcosm.
These statements have a poor choice of words.
Gravity acts between masses. The electric force acts between charges.
Since most of the matter is in the state of plasma, or charged, the universe has 2 disparate instantaneous forces.
Both forces can affect motion. It is just wrong to claim there must be ultimate balling of matter" just because Newton defined Gravity which is measured to be much weaker than the electric force.
There are 2 different forces are at play.
I suggest principle is the wrong word for the presence of the 2 known, fundamental forces.
Physics made a mistake accepting only gravity is important
Go to Table of Contents, to read a specific section.
last change 04/22/2022