return to homepage The Third Wave
In this paper I thoroughly explore the subject of mass and weight. The last section of the paper is undoubtedly the most interesting and important, since it is there that I apply some simple math to data from the Moon and discover several astonishing things. In doing so, I begin to fill in the last major hole we inherited from Newton.
Implications
You can see that my theory mirrors current theory in many ways. But there are major differences. Several of these are already apparent, but there are a few that I haven't yet touched on. Some readers will have noticed that my theory implies that mass can vary due strictly to molecular composition or atomic composition, and this is true. It is one of the basic predictions of my theory, in this regard. Meaning that I predict that it will eventually be proved that mass is not just a summation of atomic masses—an adding up of all the masses of the protons and neutrons and electrons. Rather, mass is a summation of bond strengths at all levels. These bond strengths directly create the rigidity I have been talking about. In general, more atoms will create more bonds which will create greater rigidity. But in some circumstances this will not be true. In some cases an object with fewer molecules or fewer atoms would actually have more mass and weight than an object with more molecules or atoms. Since some molecular structures are more rigid than others, these micro-structures must create better weight-bearing and weight-causing macro-structures.
Gravity on the Moon
Now let us move on to another question. My reader will have noticed that I have stated outright that the gravitational field is not a function of mass. Of course this contradicts both Newton and Einstein. Furthermore, it contradicts all current models of exotic celestial objects like pulsars, white dwarfs, and black holes. I stand by my statement, however, and back it up with data much closer to home. I remind the reader that all estimates of gravitational fields of exotic objects are based on speculation and calculation from various assumptions. Obviously, no one has dropped an object in the vicinity of a black hole or a white dwarf and directly measured the acceleration in freefall. We have, however, traveled to the Moon and dropped objects there. What we have found is that the Moon's gravity at the surface is about 1/6th that of the gravity at the surface of the Earth. I now offer you the fact that the Moon's mass is 1/81 that of the Earth and that the diameter of the Moon is .272 or 1/3.672 that of the Earth. It does not take a genius to see which of these numbers is closer to the other. Once we correct for the presence of the E/M field, the Earth and the Moon have gravitational fields that are exactly proportional to their radii. We did not get an exact match in the third decimal place only because we used 9.8 m/s^{2} for g_{E} in the first equation. We must now add .009545 to that, and if we do we get 2.671 m/s^{2} in the first equation as well. You will say that we have tested the fields on the Moon already and found them to be quite small. There are two problems here. One, our tests were designed to measure local fluctuations in the E/M field, and especially the magnetic component of that field. This is not the same thing as measuring the strength of the entire field at a distance. Two, the tests of the E/M field are compromised just like all our tests of the gravitational field have been. In neither case have we been successful in separating the effects of the two fields. Whether we are measuring a gravitational field or an E/M field, we must measure a force on a body. But the force on the body is a composite of the two. A differential. If we do not take this into account (and we don't) there is no way we can know what the strength of each field is alone. We would have to block one field or the other in our measurements, and we have never done this. According to my theory, you cannot block the field of gravity, since it just a real acceleration. You cannot block an acceleration. But the E/M should be blockable. If it is the radiation of photons, we should be able to block this radiation. It is unclear how successful this blocking might be expected to be. If you block off a small area of an E/M field, it is doubtful that you can thoroughly block the effects of that field. However, it should be possible to design a simple experiment that would test my theory. Dropping ball bearings above a large sheet of lead would be a beginning. It may be that an experiment that direct would yield an acceleration measurably above 9.8 m/s ^{2}.Notice that the number I have arrived at for the E/M field of the Earth is quite small. This explains why it has always been neglected. Physicists have correctly assumed that it was negligible in most cases, and they went on to assume the same for the Moon. Why, they thought, would the Moon have an E/M field that was more active at the surface of the Moon than the Earth's E/M field is at its surface? The idea was counterintuitive, so no one has ever done any math to show it one way or another. I have just shown, using postulates that are not too difficult for even the mainstream to accept, that the Moon's E/M field should be expected to offset its gravitational field quite strongly. This finding applies regardless of whether you accept expansion theory or not. You will say that if it applies regardless of expansion theory, it can hardly be strong evidence in favor of it. But this is not true. You do not need to accept expansion theory to see the logic of my postulates and math, but once you see how the calculations prove that the gravitational field is proportional to the radius, you have to re-examine the Standard Model. It would be a giant coincidence if the gravitational field just happened to vary as the radius. And it would be a giant coincidence if the numbers from the Moon fit this proportionality and other celestial bodies do not. The math above implies very strongly that all celestial bodies, including exotics like black holes and white dwarfs, also have gravitational fields that vary as their radii vary. It suggests in the strongest possible way that the huge additional forces hypothesized for exotics are mainly a function of a super-strong E/M field, and have nothing to do with gravity per se. This means we must reconsider all our theories for exotics, and indeed for non-exotics. Our theory has existed with a very large hole in it and now we must re-calculate many things. I think it would be an extraordinary coincidence if the Moon and the Earth had gravitational fields that varied as their radii and other objects did not. It cannot be because they are of similar origin, since we know that their densities differ. If density is not a factor between the Earth and the Moon, then why should it be a factor in other objects? The only reason we have finally discovered this secret with the Moon is that its statistics are entirely more settled and complete. We have been perfecting this data for centuries, and the data finally bears fruit. Some will say, "What do you mean density is not a factor? You had to correct for it, it must be a factor!" Yes, it is a factor in the E/M field. A denser object creates a stronger E/M field and I had to correct for the fact that the Moon is not as dense as the Earth. But this correction did not affect the gravitational fields. That is what the final number shows. I predicted that the gravitational field was a straight outcome of the radius, with no other factors involved. That is where we got the first number 2.671 above. That first equation has no correction for density. It is radius and nothing else. If my postulates here are true, the implications are, of course, beyond number. I could not begin to address them here, even as a list. I begin to address them in other papers, but it will take physics decades to come to terms with the full import of this discovery. Those who have claimed that physics is nearly over will be glad to discover that they have something left to do. [March 25, 2008: Go to An Update on Weight for more on this topic.]If this paper was useful to you in any way, please consider donating a dollar (or more) to the SAVE THE ARTISTS FOUNDATION. This will allow me to continue writing these "unpublishable" things. Don't be confused by paying Melisa Smith--that is just one of my many |