Fruechte Gravity Theory Blog

It has been alluded to before on this website that the thick gamma ray field in which we reside is reminiscent of the aether.  A good book on the subject was written by Joseph Larmor.  Here is a sample:

“The basis of the present scientific procedure thus rests on the view, derivable as a consequence of general philosophical ideas, that the master-key to a complete unravelling of the general dynamical and physical relations of matter lies in the fact that it is constituted as a discrete molecular aggregate existing in the aether.” *

In the same paragraph, Larmor refers to “the properties of a continuum in space,”.

* Larmor, Joseph, AETHER AND MATTER, CAMBRIDGE AT THE UNIVERSITY PRESS, 1900, p. 78

It occurred to me in January or February 2008, during my first foray into Quantum Mechanics, that the reason there is no 1/2 factor in front of mc^2 in Einstein’s formula E=mc^2, – like there is in the Newtonian formula for kinetic energy K. E. = (1/2)mv^2, is that there are gravitons inside a fundamental particle that are bouncing back and forth against gravitational pressure on the outside, which doubles the energy.

Probably will long be gone before those prideful and arrogant physicists begin to understand.  The Milky Way is expanding at an ever increasing rate.  Gravitons keep escaping, and the rate of expansion will slowly increase.  Take the measurements next year and then adjust the calculations.

Here is another item that shows what is meant:

http://news.berkeley.edu/2016/06/02/universe-expanding-faster-than-expected/

Produce a multiple layer wire wound coil around a roughly 2 inch diameter iron core, maybe 8 feet long. Set the cardboard tube from a roll of paper towels, on end, up on a shelf. Get as much capacitance as you can hooked up to the coil and charge up the capacitance. Aim the device at the top half of the cardboard tube, making sure the other end ‘sees’ terrestrial earth, and dump the capacitance all at once to produce a high value of current. Gravitons like to follow magnetic field lines, so one would see if the cardboard tube can be pulled over.

A software engineer across the hall from me, Jeff Johnson, who I have worked with for many years, came up with the idea of loading a lot of capacitance, and producing a high current by dumping it with one switch. The wire gauge would have to be figured out based on the current that would be produced.

If you want your theory of gravity to be worth something, then show a calculation that works.

Many of you have read the news by now about LIGO reading ripples in space-time caused by a violent black hole merger, which were likely giant phononic pulses. The Coulomb force is transmitted faster than the speed of light by phonons transmitting through a gravitational field. Similarly, what LIGO read would have been phononic pulses of immense dimensions.

An interesting aspect of this black hole event is that it probably happened much more recently than scientists think it did. Phonons can travel much faster than the speed of light in a vacuum.

Go to an adhesion seminar, like I did years ago with a fellow engineer, and the speaker may or may not tell you that the main component of adhesion is due to the most fundamental of van der Waals forces, that being dipole-dipole electrostatic attraction, which force falls off at a rate proportional to one over distance to the fourth power. The seminar leader is likely to tell you nevertheless that the surfaces should be clean and dry.

Obviously adhesion can also, and usually does, have a mechanical component. This is especially true in the shear direction when a surface is course, or purposely roughed up first. Pressure is often applied when adhering surfaces to force the adhesive into crevices, for the mechanical component to grab better, and to bring molecules in closer contact for the electrostatic component. If the instructions for the adhesive say to hold the pressure for a certain amount of time at room temperature, that is to let the molecules creep into crevices and to allow the dipoles to move themselves into positions that increase the number of potential energy wells that relate to movement and positioning of the dipoles.

The electrostatic component is strongest in the first 3 or 4 molecular layers of relatively complex adhesive molecules, so this makes it easier to see why pressure helps. The ‘dry’ rule is mostly because water does not make a good adhesive. The ‘clean’ rule is a little more complex. Chemists have made adhesives good at inducing dipoles into relatively non-polar material, but it is best if the material being bonded to has consistent isotropic structure. When the dipoles are setting up the energy wells, it is more efficient when dipoles of a locale ‘see’ a uniform structure across a hemispherical view. Nature prefers mathematical order. Also, an adhesive may stick to a piece of debris, but the piece of debris will probably not stick to the substrate.

Some of the strongest adhesives are solidified by heat curing, when cross linking occurs. If the dipole positions end up more rigid, they can maintain strength under high strain.

For a good description of dipole-dipole bonding, see:

Tipler, Paul A. and Llewellyn, Ralph A., Modern Physics, Sixth Edition, W. H. Freeman and Company, New York, c. 2012, pgs. 387-388

In “A Fight for the Soul of Science”, by Natalie Wolchover, found here: https://www.quantamagazine.org/20151216-physicists-and-philosophers-debate-the-boundaries-of-science/, it is stated that Helge Kragh was at the recent meeting at Ludwig Maximilian University in Munich, and “spoke about the 19^th-century vortex theory of atoms.” At that time, more than 115 years ago, it was apparently “postulated that atoms are microscopic vortexes in the ether, the fluid medium that was believed at the time to fill space.”

The luminiferous aether theory preceded the Rutherford / Bohr model of the atom, so atoms were thought of as chemistry’s most discrete particles and not as nuclei with orbiting electrons. The concentrated particles were later separated into nuclei and electrons, and these can once again be thought of as vortexes in a gravitational medium that is so thick with gravitons that the medium could be called the aether.

Part of the present problem with physics is that the ideas did not historically come together with perfect timing, and were not studied together. Now, in 2015, we cannot see the forest for the trees.

As an example of one of the several particles that must stay, the pion “has a range of 1 Fermi”.  This is a compression factor of close to 4 compared to a graviton.  It is NOT a graviton, even though it probably was one at an earlier point in time.

The pion is a “mediator of nuclear force.” *

*  R. Shankar, Principles of Quantum Mechanics, Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, c. 1994, pg 366

Dan Fordice sent me two articles about newer experiments that were set up to measure the gravitational constant.  One of the articles referenced a paper by Tino et al. where the constant is determined using one mass type of hundreds of kilograms of tungsten, and the other being laser cooled rubidium atoms.  The apparatus involving the tungsten masses looks like it may be the same apparatus as was used for the Schwarz et al. experiment from 1998 [1].  The Tino et al. value for G is given as 6.667 x 10^-11 m³kg^-1s^-2 [2] with statistical uncertainty and systematic uncertainty given in the paper.

When we have a macroscopic mass where atoms are chemically bonded, and masses are held together by various means, a gravitational field acting on one atom can have a component of force on another atom that is chemically bonded to it.  A single atom free of bonding to other atoms, on the other hand, has fewer instantaneous electron orbital path vectors than a macroscopic mass of several kilograms when we consider it as a whole.  Therefore one would expect that the value of G when measured on individual atoms would be lower than a conventional value of 6.672 x 10^-11 m³kg^-1s^-2 [3].

The gravitational constant based on one third the mass of the proton is 6.6807 x 10^-11 m³kg^-1s^-2, but does it ever get this high in reality?  Planets in orbit around the sun would get close to this value.

G = 6.672 x 10^-11 m³kg^-1s^-2 is probably still a good value to use when considering macroscopic masses on the surface of the earth, or in the atmosphere, or in orbit around the earth.

[1]  Schwarz, Robertson, Niebauer, Faller, “A Free-Fall Determination of the Newtonian Constant of Gravity”, Science, 282, 2230-2234; 1998: http://www.ngs.noaa.gov/PUBS_LIB/BigG/bigg.html

[2]  G. Lamporesi, A. Bertoldi, L Cacciapuoti, M. Prevedelli, G.M. Tino, “Determination of the Newtonian Gravitational Constant Using Atom Interferometry”, http://arxiv.org/abs/0801.1580, 2013

[3]  Tipler, Paul A., Physics, Worth Publishers, Inc., 1976, inside back cover