portland independent media center  
images audio video
newswire article commentary global

energy & nuclear | technology

The Pioneer Effect, and a New Theory of Gravity

It was inevitable that if there were found to be serious flaws in our physics and in our understanding of gravity or such things as 'momentum' these would be quickly revealed beginning in the early 1970s, when human beings first began to explore space.

http://www.awitness.org/unified/pages/graphics/cmballoon.gif


A rising, expanding weather balloon



Not all objects fall down in the earth's gravitational field. Some objects are seen to be 'falling up'. If an atom of hydrogen or helium is released into the earth's gravitational field, they fall up. Hydrogen is not found in the earth's atmosphere for it rises up and then finally exits the gravitational field altogether and escapes out into space. If gravitation was simply 'matter' following 'the curved geodesic of space time' then we would not expect to see this behavior. Given that an atom of hydrogen rises in the field, it is required that we provide this atom with a set of wheels and a motive force that would then allow this element to climb up 'the curved slope of space-time' and escape from the earth's gravitational field.

There is other evidence that the rising of gases is an antigravity effect. It is interesting to note that gases do not rise or fall outside a gravitational field, an effect which requires an explanation. Hot gas rises and expands, much like a weather balloon full of hydrogen or helium would, but this rising of hot gases only occurs in a gravitational field. The following quote describes experiments conducted on the International Space Station which demonstrate that the rising of gases is a phenomenon only observed within a gravitational field.

Columbus: Sky-high science, from the BBC site. "In an Earth laboratory, gravity pulls hard on everything; but in space, there is no "up" and "down" as such. When gases and liquids are heated, they don't rise and sink as they do at the planet's surface. Suspended particles don't settle out into neat layers like they would in an Earth river."

Both an atom of hydrogen or a hot gas atom will rise in a gravitational field, with the difference between them being that a hot gas atom will lose energy, and then fall, while a hydrogen atom does not rise and then fall, it simply keeps on rising. Therefore we can see that the anti-gravitational property possessed by a hot gas atom is temporary, while that same property is permanently possessed by a hydrogen atom. A hot gas atom rises only so long as it possesses an increased energetic density. The energetic density that causes a hydrogen atom to rise is an intrinsic property of the hydrogen atom. It cannot be lost and therefore the hydrogen atom cannot fall.


http://www.awitness.org/unified/pages/graphics/radii.jpg


A hydrogen atom, although it has the last energy of any atom, is very densely packed, because of its tiny atomic radii.



Hydrogen is the very least of all the elements, which means that it has the very lowest 'atomic weight' or 'mass'. If we consider Einstein's famous equation (E equals MC squared) we know that we can multiply the 'mass' of the hydrogen atom by the speed of light squared to find out the energy possessed by the hydrogen atom, and because the hydrogen atom is the very lowest in mass, it also possesses the least energy of any atom. Therefore, hydrogen does not rise in a gravitational field because it is highly energetic. A hot gas atom rises because it possesses excess energy, and it only continues to rise so long as it possesses this excess energy. Therefore we can see that if we pack more energy into the 'container' so as to make the contents 'more densely packed', we can cause a heated gas atom to rise. If we remove energy from the container, so that it is not so tightly packed, then the gas atom will cool and will sink and fall back down in the gravitational field. Hydrogen is not very energetic, being the least of all the elements, but it is also the smallest of all atoms, and so therefore the small amount of energy that it does possess is very densely packed into a small space. Hydrogen rises not because it possesses excess energy, but rather because it possesses a high energetic density within the three dimensional space that it occupies.

A hydrogen atom possesses 'conserved momentum' while the 'momentum' gained by a hot gas atom is not conserved, but rather is lost because it is not an intrinsic property of the atom. We can visually confirm that a hydrogen atom possesses this property of inherent conserved momentum, for when released into the gravitational field the hydrogen will exhibit an instantaneous burst of velocity.

If we observe the behavior of objects in a gravitational field we can see that objects that fall and objects that rise are inversely related to one another, in that objects that fall start out slowly and then accelerate as they fall, while objects that rise start out very fast and then decelerate as they rise. A weather balloon filled with anti-gravitational gas (such as hydrogen or helium) rockets upwards in the gravitational field when it is released, because the gases possess 'conserved momentum' as an intrinsic property (they are both tiny and densely packed). A weather balloon must provide lift to the material used to construct the balloon and to the instruments being carried aloft, and so therefore given that a balance exists between the gas, which falls up in the field, and the materials being carried, which are less dense and therefore fall down in the field, sooner or later a compromise position is reached where the balloon balances out the two opposing forces. The weather balloon starts out very fast and then begins to slow and decelerate as it rises in the gravitational field, and finally it comes to a complete stop and parks at an orbital altitude.

This same pattern or rising in a gravitational field while constantly decelerating is exhibited by the two Pioneer spacecraft which were launched in the 1970s. Both spacecraft have been constantly decelerating as they rise up in the sun's gravitational field and at least report were 400,000 kilometers behind where they would be expected to be if this gravitational deceleration were discounted (as it is in Newtonian physics, which is the physics still used in our space program today). We have Einstein's matter based theory of gravitation which only allows for objects to fall in a gravitational field and does not permit the existence of the anti-gravity effect, and so therefore the deceleration of the Pioneer spacecraft is regarded as one of the great mysteries of twentieth century physics.

According to both Newton and Einstein, the Pioneer spacecraft should 'conserve momentum', which means that they should coast through space at a constant speed and perhaps reach some far off galaxy in one billion years from now. It is this expectation of constant endless coasting at a constant unchanging speed that led the creators of the two space probes to include a message to some alien species on plaques attached to the two spacecraft, a classic example of Newtonian thinking as well as being evidence that the theory of General Relativity which describes gravity as 'matter based' is erroneous as well. The two spacecraft are behaving like hydrogen or helium. They are behaving like a weather balloon does when released into a gravitational field.

The two space craft are both decelerating as they rise in the gravitational field, and the rate of deceleration is found to be the speed of light multiplied by Hubble's constant, a very significant result, for it also means that Einstein was wrong about the speed of light. Newton was wrong about 'momentum'. Momentum is not a 'conserved property'. Momentum is relative to the position in a gravitational field in which it is measured. The speed of light is not constant. The speed of light is relative to the position in a gravitational field in which it is measured.

Consider the maximum potential velocity of the two Pioneer spacecraft to lie somewhere just below the speed of light. Now we know that the two spacecraft are decelerating like a weather balloon decelerates, or like a hydrogen atom or helium atom decelerate when they rise in a gravitational field. Now as far as it concerns the two spacecraft, we can see that they would require additional 'momentum' if they were to maintain the same velocity that they had before. Therefore, when an object which is rising in a gravitational field decelerates and loses velocity, at the same time their total potential velocity is increasing. Here we can see that the deceleration of the Pioneer spacecraft does not just reveal that the belief in 'conserved momentum' is a fallacy, it also reveals that the speed of light is not constant, and this also explains why the two spacecraft are decelerating at a rate of the speed of light multiplied by Hubble's constant, which is the measure of the red shifting of light.


http://www.awitness.org/unified/pages/graphics/brsat.gif


The red-shifting of light as it rises in a gravitational field is well understood. Satellites in space must be tuned to receive a red-shifted frequency or the satellite receiver would fail to receive signals from the earth due to the lack of correction for the red-shifting of the signal as it rises up from the earth to the satellite. Our satellites do work properly because the satellite is correctly tuned to receive the red-shifted signals.



When light 'red-shifts' it has a lower frequency and a longer wavelength. There is an inconsistency in Einstein's General Theory of Relativity, in that Einstein insists that objects that fall in a gravitational field do not require a transfer of energy, since they are only following the curved geodesic of space-time. However the same is not true of light, which must red-shift in a gravitational field because of a 'transfer of energy' (the light loses energy to the gravitational field). This inconsistency is required to explain the red-shift, for to do otherwise would be to violate the law of the conservation of energy.

Light that red-shifts, and has a lower frequency and a longer wavelength, is less energetic. If we are to assume that the speed of light is a fixed and invariant constant, then it must be true that red-shifted light loses energy. However if we allow that the speed of light is relative, then we can see that no energy is lost when light red-shifts, and that light, like any other object, moves through a gravitational field without any transfer of energy being required to explain either acceleration while falling or deceleration while rising, or red and blue shifting of electromagnetic waves, which can also occur without a transfer of energy taking place between the wave and the gravitational field.. The need for this contradiction is removed when we understand that red-shifted light does not 'lose energy' but rather the energy is transferred into increasing velocity as the light red-shifts. The inverse is also true, in that blue=shifted light does not gain energy as it travels into a gravitational field, but rather it loses velocity and the energy is transferred into a high frequency and shorter wavelength.

To understand why this would be so, and to then begin to understand why objects accelerate when falling or decelerate when rising in a gravitational field, we must take a look at what this red-shifting reveals about the nature of 'space'.


http://www.awitness.org/unified/pages/graphics/meter.gif


The length of a one meter long stick is currently defined as being such and such a number of wave-lengths of a certain specific frequency of light. Now whether one is in space or on the earth, and wanted to define the exact length of one meter, one would use the specified frequency to be certain of calculating the correct length in both cases.

However if Joe is on earth, and then sends that frequency up to Frank, in space, Frank cannot use that frequency to measure his meter stick, because it will be red-shifted by the time he receives it. Therefore, when Joe sends a sample of that frequency to Frank out in space, he is also sending Frank a message. He is telling Frank that Frank has a longer meter stick than Joe has down on earth. The light has red-shifted on its way out into space because space itself is 'dilating', which means that it is expanding, and so a meter stick would be longer out in space. The light adapts to this dilating space by red-shifting, which means it takes on a longer wave-length. At the same time its speed increases as the energy it possesses is conserved and is transferred to increasing velocity.

Frank still measures the speed of light as being constant, because his clock is running faster. He also does not notice that he has a longer meter stick, for when he uses the prescribed wave-length to measure one meter, the result is always one meter. Joe does not notice that the speed of light is slowing in the gravitational field because his clock is running slow. Both John and Frank perceive that they have a one meter stick that is exactly one meter long and both John and Frank perceive both the passage of time and the speed of light as being constant, even though both are relative to the frame of reference in which they are being measured.



Understanding the 'shape of space' is the first step in defining the meaning of 'momentum' and thus being able to explain why it is that objects that fall in a gravitational field accelerate while objects that rise in the gravitational field decelerate, since acceleration is equivalent to an increase in 'momentum' while deceleration is equivalent to a decrease in 'momentum'.


http://www.awitness.org/unified/pages/graphics/002_invsqtri.gif


All fields (gravitational, magnetic, or the field of an electric charge) obey the 'inverse square law', which describes how the density, or strength, of the field decreases with distance (when the distance doubles the field strength falls by one quarter, when the distance is four times greater, the field density is reduced by one sixteenth, 1/16 being the 'inverse square' of 4 (4x4) and being the inverse square of 2 (2x2) and so on.



http://www.awitness.org/unified/pages/graphics/invsqmax.gif


Both the red-shifting of light and the deceleration (or acceleration) of an object in the gravitational field suggest that the total energetic field density remains constant as space 'dilates' (expands) and that the same quantity of energy is simply spread out over an area demarcated by an ever expanding radius.



http://www.awitness.org/unified/pages/graphics/rulerlight.gif


The dilation (expansion) of the shape of space therefore corresponds to the decrease in the energetic field density. In the diagram above, the red line is meant to represent a one meter long stick, the blue line is meant to represent the specific frequency of light used to measure the stick, and as space contracts as one moves deeper into the field, and as clocks slow down more and more the deeper one goes into a gravitational field, so too must the speed of light decrease so as to accurately measure the stick which is decreasing in apparent size. Note that no one notices such effects within their own frame of reference but rather such effects can only be visually discerned by looking outside to another frame of reference. A one meter stick always looks like a one meter stick to any observer in the same frame of reference as the one meter stick being measured.



http://www.awitness.org/unified/pages/graphics/smithestate.gif


The Smith Hydrogen cloud is approaching our galaxy, the Milky Way. The cloud is enormous (with enough hydrogen to make one million new stars) and so the cloud is long enough to visually display the changing shape of the space it is encountering as it plunges deeper into the gravitational field of the Milky Way Galaxy. We can see that the cloud is assuming a visually apparent 'triangular' shape, and we can also see the effects of increasing density in the relativistic heating that is taking place along the leading front of the cloud (as space contracts and the hydrogen becomes more energetically dense, and forced to pack into a smaller and smaller space, it experiences a relative temperature increase).



http://www.awitness.org/unified/pages/graphics/spiral-galaxy.jpg


This contraction of space can also be seen when we look at another galaxy in the universe. The center of the galaxy appears very densely packed, the closer you look towards the center. Part of this effect is an 'optical illusion' created by the optical distortions caused by dilating and contracting space.



http://www.awitness.org/unified/pages/graphics/galrotate.gif


More evidence that this is true can be found by examining the apparent rotational curve of a galaxy. The observed curve is 'flat' while the expected curve should show differences in the rotational speed (the dashed line below). You may have heard that our scientists are searching for the 'dark matter of the universe', since it is said that up to 80 or 90 percent of the universe is made up of this dark matter, which is dark because it emits no radiation and thus is very mysteriously invisible which explains why no one has ever detected it over the course of the last century. Our scientists are searching for this invisible 'dark matter' of the universe since it is alleged that this would explain the anomalous rotational curve of the galaxies we observe out in space.



http://www.awitness.org/unified/pages/graphics/orbit.gif


The graphic above displays the expected orbit, in that objects closer to the center of the field orbit more quickly than objects which are farther away from the center of the field. This corresponds to the dashed line in the rotational curve graph and is the orbital behavior we expect to see.



http://www.awitness.org/unified/pages/graphics/orbitsm.gif


The graphic above shows the actual observed orbital behavior of a galaxy, and corresponds to the solid flat line in the orbital rotation graph. The galaxy seems to rotate as though it was one solid mass, and therefore the hypothesis is that the galaxy must be packed with 'dark matter' which then causes it to behave as though it was a unified solid body. However if we interpret the evidence differently, and we keep in mind that both time and spatial dilation are taking place in the gravitational field, and when we keep in mind that the clock runs slower the closer to the center of the field you look, and that the space is contracted relative to our frame of reference, thus making it appear that an object is covering less distance than it really does, the combined effects of a slow clock and spatial dilation and contraction would also explain the strange observed behavior of a galaxy. This would then be interpreted as one more piece of evidence that spatial dilation is real and that it is visually apparent in that it produces stunning optical distortions of the observable universe.



Now we know that a hot gas rises in a gravitational field only so long as its energetic density remains in an elevated state, and that once it has lost energy, it then sinks and falls back down in the gravitational field. We also know that hydrogen or helium rise, but do not sink, since their conserved system energy remains constant. A hot gas atom has energy to lose, and so therefore it can rise and then fall as its system energy rises and then falls, while hydrogen and helium can only rise since their system energy is simply the equivalent of the 'mass' or the 'atomic weight' of hydrogen and helium.


http://www.awitness.org/unified/pages/graphics/goldcrown.gif


Archimedes was asked to discover some way of determining whether or not gold smiths were adulterating gold crowns with cheaper metals in order to steal a little bit of gold each time they were requested to fashion an object out of gold. Archimedes discovered that a pure gold crown would displace a mass of water equal to itself, while an adulterated gold crown would displace a different mass of water due to the difference in density caused by the introduction of a metal which was either heavier or lighter than gold.



http://www.awitness.org/unified/pages/graphics/eequalse.gif


The mass of the displaced water is equivalent to the mass of the atoms which make up the crown, so therefore it logically follows that since M=M and since E equals MC squared it must also be true that E (the energy content of the crown) also equals E (the energy content of the displaced water). Based on this simple observation, and some consideration of the behavior of hydrogen or helium or hot gas atoms in a gravitational field, we can therefore define momentum as being a density function and the resulting velocity produced by either acceleration (falling into the field) or deceleration (rising in the field) to be a measure of the rate of displacement in the field. Space and energy cannot be separated, since what we think of as 'empty space' is actually an energy field, and the field has a maximum density determined by the inverse square law. Whenever the energy in the field exceeds the maximum allowable energy level then displacement will occur.



Therefore momentum is a density function. Hydrogen rises in the gravitational field because it is 'too dense' and therefore 'displacement' occurs and the rate of this displacement is the measure of what we think of as being 'velocity'. As hydrogen rises in the field space dilates (it expands) and the energetic density of the hydrogen atom decreases as it expands relative to the space around it, and as its density decreases it 'loses momentum' for the simple reason that it is 'losing density' and so therefore an object rising in a gravitational field decelerates and loses velocity as it rises in the field and moves into ever more dilated (expanded) space. Rising hydrogen also becomes 'cooler' as its experiences a relative loss in energetic density resulting in a relative decrease in measured temperature.

Similarly objects fall in a gravitational field because they are 'not dense enough'. As they fall, space contracts (becomes smaller as the field becomes denser). This results in increased density and acceleration.

Therefore in order to raise a satellite into space we know that it is required that energy be added to the satellite system (the rocket and the satellite it is trying to raise upwards in the gravitational field). We also know that such energy, once added to a system, is 'conserved' (it is possible to shut off the engines of a space craft and simply glide through space towards a destination, and satellites once they have received enough energetic density maintain a stable and perpetual orbit). It requires an increase in 'energetic density' for an object to rise in a gravitational field, or it requires an inherent density such as that possessed by the hydrogen atom or the helium atom, which possess a fixed 'conserved momentum' relative to the density of the gravitational field at the surface of the earth which causes objects such as weather balloons to rise upwards with an instantaneous burst of velocity when they are released into the gravitational field.

http://www.awitness.org/unified/pages/graphics/periodicchart.gif


The graph above shows the conserved energy of the atoms listed on the periodic table of the elements, beginning with hydrogen, the least of the atoms, down at the bottom left. The graph is a linear function (a straight line).



http://www.awitness.org/unified/pages/graphics/periodic_density_graph.gif


In the image above the atoms on the periodic table of the elements are displayed according to their 'atomic weight' in yellow on the left side of the image. On the right side of the image is the gravitational field, which is energetically denser (darker) deep within the field and then following the inverse square law, the density falls off the further up in the field one moves. Here we can see that the elements on the periodic table are organized according to a kind of 'inverse' of the inverse square law (the atoms become denser the further down the table you go, and the function is linear).



http://www.awitness.org/unified/pages/graphics/balsatawave.gif


Light red-shifts as it moves up in the gravitational field, and so therefore it would be reasonable to describe any position within such a field as a wave function. For example, the weather balloon dilates as it rises in the field, decelerates and then assumes a fixed orbital position in the gravitational field. We could describe the orbital energy level of the weather balloon as a wave function, in the example above it would be such and such a frequency of yellow light.

On the left of the image we see hydrogen rising in the earth's gravitational field, and it eventually escapes out into space. Therefore we can think of the 'atomic wave function' of the hydrogen atom as being 'very red-shifted'. Hydrogen falls up in the earth's gravitational field because hydrogen, when described as a 'wave function' properly belongs near the very top of the field.

Oxygen is found mixed in with the soil on the surface of the moon. Oxygen on earth is found in the form of a free floating atmosphere above the surface of the earth. Therefore we know that oxygen is not as red-shifted as hydrogen. It belongs in a lower level of the gravitational field. On the moon, which has a less stretched gradient in its field, oxygen properly belongs on the surface, or more likely, somewhere below the surface of the moon. Therefore that is where it is found on the moon. Small moons and small planets do not have atmospheres because the atmosphere 'escapes into space' but rather because the atomic wave function of atmospheric gases is found below the surface of such small bodies, and therefore the atmosphere is found buried underground on the moon, with patches showing through on the surface here and there where the fall of oxygen in the moon's gravitational field was blocked by debris, causing it to remain in scattered patches near the surface.



http://www.awitness.org/unified/pages/graphics/gravemodel.gif


In the graphic above we display locations in the gravitational field using colors. In figure 1. we display hydrogen. Hydrogen cannot fall down in the gravitational field for it would become even more energetically dense, and this is not an allowable energy state. Therefore it must rise in the field, dilating and becoming less energetically dense as it rises through expanding space, as its density decreases as the field energy decreases.

In figure 2 we see an object which is 'red' and which belongs somewhere below the surface of the earth. However the fall of the object to the red zone is blocked by debris, and so therefore it hits the surface of the earth where it is then constantly pulled down by the force of gravity (on earth it constantly experiences what we refer to as 'one G-Force' which is the downward pull of the earth's gravity on every object which belongs somewhere below the surface of the earth and is unable to fall any further because of a large amount of 'debris' on the surface which is all simultaneously attempting to fall at the same time.

In figure three we see an object that belongs to a spot in the gravitational field somewhere above the surface of the earth (such as an atmospheric gas or a weather balloon). Such an object could be dropped down from a height, and it would then fall down to its position in the field, or it could be dropped up from the surface and it would fall up to the same position in the gravitational field, because that it is the position where it belongs (the wave function of the gravitational field equals the wave function of that object, and so therefore such an object floats and experiences no G-Forces, in either the upward or downward direction, for it has reached the correct location in the gravitational field, and therefore it is now weightless).

Figure 4. shows an object that belongs in the red zone, but has been pushed deeper into the field by millions and billions of kilotons of other material all simultaneously trying to fall down at the same time (symbolized by the red arrow). This object is now 'too dense' and therefore it experiences expansion pressure (for an object can neither be to dense nor can it be 'not dense enough', for both are unallowable energy states, and displacement results in both cases). Because this object is 'blue-shifted' (it has been pushed below its proper location in the gravitational field) it experiences relativistic heating because of its increased density. It also experiences expansion pressure and occasionally such material explodes through the surface of the earth in the form of volcanic eruptions.




Experimental Verification of the Unified Field Theory

I have proposed a number of experiments that could be conducted to test the predictions of the unified field theory.

An object raised in the gravitational field should experience a relativistic drop in temperature. If it was well insulated and carried to the a high spot in the field, such as up in the Himalayan mountains, there should be an unexplained drop in temperature caused by spatial dilation. If it is then brought down to sea level there should be an unexplained rise in temperature caused by spatial contraction. This experiment would verify that the heating seen on the leading edge of the Smith Hydrogen cloud is merely a relativistic increase in temperature caused by the contraction of space and the increased energetic density of the hydrogen atoms. The tricky part in conducting such an experiment would be in finding some way to measure temperature that would not itself be influenced by the dilation of space (for example mercury would expand and contract and thus the result of the experiment would be a false negative).

There is another way to test this prediction, and that is to construct the world's very first fusion reactor. According to the Unified Field Theory, all hydrogen belongs on the surface of the sun (the most red-shifted area of the gravitational field). All hydrogen forced below this level becomes blue-shifted and it is this relativistic increase in temperature which then provides the spark that ignites the fusion reaction in a star. This also explains why the corona around a star is so fiercely hot while the surface of a star is relatively cooler, for when hydrogen reaches the correct red-shifted zone near the surface of the star it behaves like a hot gas atom and is free to exhaust excess heat into the corona surrounding the star, which then leaves the surface curiously cooler than the fiercely hot corona.

A quasar in a nearby galaxy appears to be very red-shifted, and normally this would be interpreted as evidence that the quasar was billions of light years distant. This Unified Field Theory explains this anomalous result as being one of the consequences of spatial dilation and the tight binding that exists between energy and space (for 'space' is just an energy field which obeys the inverse square law).

http://www.awitness.org/unified/pages/graphics/space_tornado.jpg


The image above shows an electromagnetic space tornado in outer space which is pulling down hydrogen gas to form a new star. As we can tell by observing the Smith Hydrogen Cloud, hydrogen itself does not form stars, since contrary to Einstein's theory of General Relativity, gravitation is not caused by 'mass' (such as the mass of a hydrogen cloud) and a hydrogen cloud will wander space for hundreds of millions of even billions of years and not form even a single star. For hydrogen to collapse and form a star would involve the atoms in a violation of natural law, since it is not possible for hydrogen atoms to exist close together unless they are forced to exist close together, for as Archimedes principle reveals, displacement will occur. Therefore the source of gravitation must be the magnetic field which we see powering this space tornado which is the first direct evidence we have of how stars really do form.



http://www.awitness.org/unified/pages/graphics/gravefield.jpg




A magnetic field is never present without a corresponding electric field, and it is logical to assume that the direction of the electric field corresponds to the rotation of a body since a planet or star would be found to be rotating in the same direction as the vortex which originally created it. A magnetic field and an electric field are always found to exert forces which are perpendicular to one another. In the image above we can see how the magnetic field is responsible for causing the Smith Hydrogen Cloud to fall into the field of the galaxy while the electric field of our rotating galaxy is responsible for pushing the cloud to the left. It should be possible to duplicate this effect by dropping objects into the field of the moon (where there is no atmosphere to disturb the results of the experiment). It is also true that the Galileo spacecraft did two fly-bys of earth in order to accelerate the craft, and on one occasion the craft accelerated as expected, and on the second occasion the craft received an unexplained kick and a boost in acceleration. If it was true that the craft was circling the earth in the direction of the earth's orbit then this fly by anomaly could be explained as the result of the craft being boosted by the rotating electric field which surrounds the earth.

Thunderclouds do not produce enough 'voltage differential' to explain the phenomenon of lightening. According to the Unified Field Theory, lightening can be explained not simply as the result of 'voltage' but rather by understanding that the build up of the electric field in a low density region of the field is an unallowable energy state, and the result is lightening, a discharge which is a type of displacement, as the energy is directed towards a location in the energy field which is down below and thus more dense where such energy can be accepted.

http://www.awitness.org/unified/pages/graphics/tincans.gif


The two Pioneer spacecraft have been decelerating at a constant rate (the speed of light multiplied by Hubble's constant). This effect can be duplicated inexpensively by launching three 'tin cans' into space and then imparting a small amount of momentum to the tin cans (not to much, for it would be nice to have the results of the experiment in a matter of months rather than being forced to wait twenty or thirty years as some sophisticated space craft is sent out past the orbit of Pluto in the hopes of identifying the supposedly unknown 'force' that causes objects to decelerate when they rise in a gravitational field.

This experiment would definitively refute the erroneous physics of Isaac Newton, by demonstrating that objects in motion do not remain in motion forever (nor should we expect the Pioneer spacecraft to glide along with a velocity unchanged for billions of years). This one single experiment would prove once and for all that it is inappropriate for a 21st century space program to still be found using erroneous physics from the 17th and 18th century. By demonstrating that objects that rise in a gravitational field decelerate (which is the inverse of falling objects which accelerate) the experiment would also definitively refute one of the fundamental premises of Einstein's General Theory of Relativity, which is that gravitation is caused by 'the mass of matter', and therefore is unable to allow or explain an anti-gravitational effect.

The experiment would also prove that the speed of light is relative, and not a fixed constant, another error of General Relativity. It would prove that momentum is not 'conserved' (the so-called 'law of the conservation of momentum' is a 17th century falsehood) but rather that momentum, velocity, temperature, and acceleration or deceleration are all relative properties in that it is impossible to think of space apart from energy for what we think of as being 'empty space' is actually an energy field. A given quantity of conserved energy will produce different properties in a different zone of the energy field, for conserved energy has no fixed meaning which can separated from the surrounding field. Space means nothing apart from energy and the two are intertwined and cannot be separated.



The Pioneer Effect

A brief description of the new physics required to explain the 'Pioneer Effect', which is the constant deceleration of space craft as they fly through space.


http://www.awitness.org/unified/pages/graphics/failed_gravity_theory.gif




The two Pioneer spacecraft which were launched in the early seventies, have both been decelerating at a constant speed as they rise in the sun's gravitational field (the rate of constant deceleration is equivalent to the speed of light multiplied by Hubble's Constant). It is obvious that such a correspondance could not be attributed to random causes, such as gas leaks, but rather new physics are required.

The behavior of objects that fall or rise in gravitational fields are inversely related, in that a falling object begins slow and then accelerates, while a rising object begins fast and then decelerates. An example of the latter is the release of a weather balloon which attempts to rise at full velocity but is prevented from doing so by atmospheric drag. The weather balloon then decelerates at is rises in the gravitational field until finally it stops and then parks in an orbital state at a certain height. This behavior is similar to that exhibited by the Pioneer craft.

Think of the total potential velocity of the Pioneer Spacecraft as being somewhere just below the speed of light. When an object is 'conserving momentum' as it rises in a gravitational field and the result is deceleration and a loss of velocity, this means that the object would require 'more momentum' if it was to maintain its previous velocity. When an object which is rising in a gravitational field and is 'conserving momentum' and it decelerates and then loses velocity what this implies is that at the same time its total potential velocity is increasing. Here we can see the reason for the relationship between Hubble's Constant (used to measure redshift) and the rate of deceleration of an object rising in a gravitational field. Einstein was incorrect to insist that speed of light is a fixed constant in all frames of reference (any space-time) but it must be the case that the speed of light is relative (space dilation, time dilation, and velocity dilation all occur in harmoney). It is this error that prevented Einstein from successfully discovering the Unified Field Theory which would unify gravity and electromagnetism during his lifetime.

The solution to this enigma of 'conserved momentum' resulting in 'deceleration' is to understand that everything is relative, and that includes 'momentum' since one given 'momentum' results in a lower or a higher velocity in different frames (with no exchange of energy taking place an object will acelerate and fall or decelerate and rise).

The explanation for this behavior is found in a proper electromagnetic explanation of Archimedes principle. The universe is a giant energy field and what we call 'space' is a three dimensional creation of the magnetic field (which is a three dimensional pheonomenon). 'Space' dilates according to the Inverse Square Law (the energy field is more dense closer to a source and then becomes less and less dense the further away you move from the source). Given these inherent density restrictions you can only put so much 'energy' into 'so much space' and where this restriction is violated displacement occurs. It is this tight binding that exists between 'energy' and 'space' which then results in 'motion' and 'velocity'.

Another mistake that Einstein made was to dilate space (stretch it out) closer to the field source. This dilation was required if there was to be a slower clock in a gravitational field while at the same time the speed of light was to be kept an invariant constant. It is only when we dilate space-energy (make it less dense) the further we move from the source and allow the speed of light to be a variable constant (relative) that we are then able to discover the unified field theory (unifying gravitation and electromagnetism). Motion is simply displacement (an unallowable energy state) and what we think of as momentum is merely a density function (the greater the density of the energy in a closed energy system, the more forceful the displacement, the greater the velocity).

Think of a weather balloon. It expands at it rises. It also decelerates and eventually parks and maintains an oribt. What this tells us is that even though no energy transfer is taking place, the weather balloon is not 'conserving its momentum', but rather it must be losing momentum because it decelerates as it rises in the gravitational field. We also see that the weather balloon experiences the effects of dilation in that it expands. We also know that 'hot gas' expands, which is also a density function, and that hot gas then rises in the gravitational field (it is to dense, it is displaced, it rises). Now as an object rises it experiences a relative loss of momentum (relative in that this loss of momentum occurs without an actual transfer of energy taking place). This occurs because of relativistic spatial dilation which becomes greater the further you move away from the center of the field. This dilation then results in a lower density since the amount of energy now contained in an expanding space is lower. The displacement decreases and the result is less momentum and deceleration.

In a similar way when an electromagnetic wave rises in a gravitational field it red-shifts. It does not red-shift because it is 'losing energy' to the gravitational field. This was another one of the compounding errors made by Albert Einstein (the result of keeping the speed of light a fixed constant). The light red-shifts because it is following the requirements of the Inverse Square Law. It is becoming 'less energetic' so that it has a lower frequency and a longer wavelength. At the same time the law of the conservation of energy requires that energy never be lost or created, it can only be transferred. In this case the energy is 'transfered' to 'momentum' and teh speed of light increases as it red-shifts. There is nothing mystical or magical about this process, it is just the logically following consequence of the light being forced to dilate as it moves into less dense regions of the energy field.

Even though the speed of light is a variable constant, it makes no difference, for the average speed of light between two points always works out to be 300,000 kilometers per second, so no one notices the variance. Think of it this way. Let's assume that the speed of light was '10'. The speed of light as it bounces off some satellite in space is 5, 10, 15 as it rises and then it is 15, 10, 5 as it descends back to earth, for an average speed of '10', Therefore even though the speed of light is relative, the light from an object '4 light years' away from earth would still seem to take '4 years' to reach us, and so no difference is ever noticed by any observer in any frame of reference you might want to choose.

More discussion of this issue can be found at the following URL.

Unified Field Theory Index

Or as an 'e-book' in the form of a zip file.

unified.zip

Some satirical discussion of 'lighter than air balloons' and Einstein's matter based theory of gravity can be found here. Matter Based Tautologies

A proposed experiment to test the predictions of the Unified Field Theory can be found on the following page.

Pioneer Experiment


DiracsContribution 26.Feb.2008 20:56

ZAgovor

The best description I know of gravity is that given by
Paul Dirac.
He has explained eloquently that the two phenomena: gravitational pull and resistant mass are perfectly balanced and thus objects of different mass fall equivalently in the gravitational field.

Galileo's laws are accepted because they are the most simple description of the trajectory of the falling object. But in the correct equation (I believe) the statistical properties of the variables (properties such as moderation and suppression) are not adequately discussed.