5 - Gravity


Here we consider how gravity can be explained as a manifestation of 4D aetheric waves.
  Gravity as a 4D Wave Phenomenon
  Aether and General Relativity
  Resolution of the Conflict between QED and General Relativity
Gravity as a 4D Wave Phenomenon
Modern science is still not able to give a convincing explanation of how gravity works. It struggles to explain how two bodies can pull on one another at large distances.
The conventional view involves the rather peculiar notion that gravity results from an exchange of particles (the as yet unseen gravitons) between the planetary bodies.

We think that there is a much simpler and conceptually more satisfying explanation for gravity, which involves the idea of a push or shadow effect.
If a force is transmitted to a body from 'something' pushing on it from all directions the body would remain stationary as all the forces would cancel out, Fig 5.1a.

         Fig 5.1 The shadowing effect of two bodies resulting in an 'attraction'.

However if a second body is brought close to the first one, part of the impinging force on body 1 would be blocked out and cause a net push towards body 2, Fig 5.1b.
Similarly body 1 would cause a push on body 2 towards body 1, resulting in what would appear to an observer to be an attraction between the two bodies.

This idea is not new, it has been proposed by a number of people, one of the earliest of which was La Sage [1]. He showed that the amount of shadowing produced is proportional to 1/r2, where r is the distance between the two bodies. This is consistent with the 1/r2 variation of the gravitational force.
However we will not assume, as La Sage did, that the impinging force is caused by the bombardment of particles or gravitons or aether particles in our case. This type of assumption leads to other difficulties, such as the resistance and slowing down that this would cause to an orbiting body and incompatibility with inertia.
This is the fundamental flaw of all 'pressure' based gravity models - inconsistency with inertia. That is, if gravitational attraction is to be considered as an imbalance in the pressure due to shadowing it implies that any object moving through the aether will experience a greater pressure in the front compared to the back. It would therefore experience a resistive force even if moving at constant velocity, contrary to experience. 
We will adopt here the model outlined by Maurice Cooke which explains the push on the bodies to be a consequence of the shielding of 4D waves [2]. That is, aether waves along the 4th dimensional axis as described in the Matter section. The very same waves that in the aether model are responsible for the creation of particles, giving us a way of unifying gravity and quantum mechanics.

As described in the Matter section, 4D waves are generated by 'primary' points and appear in 3D space as spherical waves travelling in all directions.
Close to a planetary body the waves from the opposite end are blocked by the planet causing a change in the resultant interference pattern, or points of low and high vibration surrounding the body. 
In such a situation the superpostion of waves will produce a general drift of nodal points towards the body. The best way to illustrate this effect is with a computer simulation.

        Fig 5.2  The interference pattern from spherical wave generators (red points)
                     sorrounding a spherical body.

Fig 5.2 shows the arrangement used in the calculation. The purple sphere represents a planetary body. The red dots represent a more or less randomly distributed collection of 3D spherical wave generators. The black and white areas show the interference pattern produced by superimposing all the individual contributions.
Of course this is not to scale. In actuality the waves would be of a much smaller wavelength, of the same order as atomic distances, but the principle would be the same.

        Fig 5.3  Series of images showing the nodal drift towards a planetary surface. 
                     The time interval between images is ~5%  of the wave period.

Fig 5.3 shows a magnified image of the rectangular region in Fig 5.2 as it develops over time.
Although there are small changes in particular areas of the pattern due to a time evolution of wave amplitudes, the overall structure of the pattern remains intact from one image to the next.
As the highlighted points show there is a general movement of the recognizable structures towards the spherical body. The drift being greater the closer one gets to the surface.

        Fig 5.4.  Same as Fig 5.3, but without the planetary body.  

Fig 5.4 shows the same area when the spherical body is not present.
As before there are small changes due to a time evolution of waves but there is clearly no movement in the structure of the pattern.

As discussed in the Matter section the nodal points in the 4D wave pattern, corresponding to low vibration areas in the aether, are the points where matter particles condense out of the aether.
If we further assume that the particles once formed have a tendency to 'stick' to low vibration nodal points we can see that the nodal drift near a planetary body will exert a force towards that body on any objects in the vicinity.
When a second body is brought close to a planetary body it will block out some of the waves normally reaching it, as in Fig 5.1(b). This will result in a smaller nodal drift, and therefore a smaller force, on the side facing the second body. The side facing away from the second body will still have the same nodal drift and therefore push.
The result of all this will be to produce a net force on the first body towards the second. By a reciprocal argument there will be a net force on the second body towards the first.

The amount of nodal drift near the planetary surface will be dependent on the amount of 'shadowing' from the other body.
Given that the amount of shadowing follows a 1/r2 relationship [1] the present model would be consistent with the 1/r2 variation of the gravitational force.

This model also explains why all objects fall towards the surface of a planet at the same rate independent of shape, mass or density. The nodal points at a particular radius all drift towards a planet at the same rate giving an equal 'push'.

This model also accounts for the breaking up of large objects, such as large meteors, as they hurtle towards a planet.
Because the nodes are drifting towards the surface of a planet they get progressively closer due to lateral shrinkage. This lateral shrinkage will squeeze the object perpendicular to the line of the nodal drift, Fig 5.5.
The larger the object and the faster it travels the greater the lateral force.

        Fig 5.5 Compression forces on a falling body. 

We should also note that the 4D waves are unlikely to be completely blocked at the surface of the planetary body. It is probable that they will penetrate some way into the body, with a diminishing amplitude.
The 4D waves might actually exit the other side with a much smaller amplitude, particularly for smaller bodies, and possibly a phase shift due to the waves slowing down inside the body in a similar way light does when it goes through a denser medium.
In either case the net effect will be the same, a drift of the nodal points towards the body.
One of the other implications of this assumption is that above a certain planet size the 4D waves will be completely blocked from exiting the other side. Therefore when a planet volume goes above that size the increase in shielding, and therefore the gravitational pull, will not go up in the same way as it did below that critical size.
Amazingly there is good evidence for this type of behaviour in our own solar system as shown by Stanley V. Byers & Michael D. Byers [7] who have proposed a gravity shielding model similar to what is advanced here. Their investigation into the consequences of the shadowing model has come up with interesting explanations for a number of gravity anomalies such as the fact that there are small changes in the gravitational and inertial force during a solar eclipse which standard theory doesn't explain.
Another interesting model of gravity based on an aether is by Bayarsaikhan Choisurena & Itgel Bayarsaikhan [8]. It is able to explain some of the gravitational anomalies, such as the solar eclipse changes mentioned above (ie the Allais gravity anomaly). It predicts similar effects for other planetary conjunctions and oppositions.

Aether and General Relativity

General relativity is an outgrowth of special relativity and embodies some of the same assumptions, such as the constancy of the speed of light.
Because electromagnetic signals are used to measure distances and times one could say that the curvature of space-time, or change in the metric, is a consequence of the need to maintain the constancy of the speed of light.
However, once one frees oneself from the straight jacket of requiring the constancy of the speed of light a lot of new options open up. Then it makes more sense to assume that the metric is constant and the speed of light changes, the effect is the same.
For example, the bending of light by gravity could be explained by assuming that the aether increases in density as one nears the surface of a planetary body. Light would then be bent or refracted in a similar way as when it passes through matter of varying density.
Also, one would expect that the atomic processes of clocks might run slower in a denser aether, giving rise to the time dilation that we observe in a gravitational field.

Tom Van Flandern has shown that the above effects ascribed to general relativity could be explained by an underlying medium whose density increases linearly with the closeness to the gravitational body [3].

The above 4D wave model gives us a possible mechanism by which the density of the aether would be increased near a planetary body.
One might expect that the drift of the nodal points towards the surface of a planet will create a small but definite pressure on the underlying aether. A pressure that would increase as one moved closer to the planetary surface, giving rise to an increasing aether density.

Tom Van Flandern has also presented a convincing argument, based on experimental observation, suggesting that the speed of gravity is much greater than the speed of light [4]. The assumption that gravity is propagated at the speed of light leads to predictions that are in stark disagreement with observation.
The notion that gravity propagates faster than the speed of light is also supported by experiments carried out by Eugene Podkletnov and Giovanni Modanese.
They used a high voltage discharge mechanism to generate what they refer to as a gravity wave impulse [5]. This impulse was found to travel through thick metal and brick walls, and was able to affect objects a long distance away from the source.
More importantly, they measured the beam speed to be more than 60 times the speed of light.
We must therefore allow the possibility that the 4D waves we have been describing can travel much faster than the speed of light.
This also implies that gravity cannot be explained as a residual effect of electromagnetic interactions as some have proposed, because electromagnetic forces are limited to the speed of light.

Resolution of the Conflict between QED and General Relativity
The inconsistencies between Quantum Electrodynamics and General Relativity are well documented. Jordan Maclay gives a good account of these [6].
The main difficulty is that QED predicts a zero point energy density in empty space to be somewhere around 10114 joules/cubic meter.
It is amusing to think that 'empty' space could contain such staggering amounts of energy. 
To get a better idea of the quantaties we are dealing with we can use Einstein's E = mc2 formula to convert the above figure to an equivalent mass, giving us a density of about 1092 kg/cc.
The consequence of this is that, as Jordan Maclay points out - "A volume the size of a proton in empty space contains about the same amount of vacuum energy as all the matter in the entire universe!".
According to general relativity this should produce a gravitational field so strong that it would collapse the entire universe into a region of space much smaller than the atom.
That hasn't happened yet, so obviously there must be something wrong with the assumptions of QED or GR or both.

If the aether theory presented here is correct it becomes obvious where the problem lies.
As discussed in the Matter section, the zero point energy that QED describes can be equated to the energy of the 4D waves. It is likely that the 4D waves would contain a lot of energy, it is just that we are not normally aware of it because the vibrations are along the 4th dimensional axis with no component projected onto 3D space.
However the key point is that this enormous energy cannot be equated to mass that would gravitationally influence normal mass.
These waves are instrumental in facilitating the attraction of two bodies as discussed previously, but until some of this energy is converted to dense matter it will not directly attract another body.

We think that this is a case where the E = mc2 equation has been taken beyond the domain to which it applies. Or it could be said that the equation correctly describes the conversion of energy to matter and vice versa, but that we cannot always consider them as being equivalent.
[1] Mathew Edwards (ed), "Pushing Gravity", Apeiron 2002    
[2] Maurice B. Cooke, “Einstein Doesn’t Work Here Anymore”, Marcus Books, PO Box 327, Queensville, Ontario, Canada L0G 1R0, 1983   
[3] Tom Van Flandern, “Relativity with Flat Spacetime", MetaRes.Bull. 3,9-13 1994, see www.metaresearch.org
[4] Tom Van Flandern, “The Speed of Gravity - What the Experiments Say",  www.metaresearch.org/cosmology/speed_of_gravity.asp
[5] Eugene Podkletnov, "Superconductors and Gravity-Modification",  www.pureenergysystems.com/news/2004/08/04/6900035EugenePodkletnov
[6] Jordan Maclay, “Vacuum Energy”, see article at www.quantumfields.com/ZPV.htm 
[7] Stanley V. Byers & Michael D. Byers, "Radiant Pressure Model of Remote Forces", home.netcom.com/~sbyers11/grav11.htm 
[8] Bayarsaikhan Choisurena & Itgel Bayarsaikhan, "New Aether Sink Model for Gravity", Physics Essays Vol 26, No 2, June 2013 

Go to Top