Universal Gravity Based on the Electric Universe Model

Transcription

1 Universal Gravity Base on the Electric Universe Moel By Frerik Nygaar Nov 015, Porto Portugal. Introuction While most people are aware of both Newton's Universal Law of Gravity an Einstein's Theory of Relativity, with its implications on gravity, few people are aware of the existence of a thir theory promote by the Electrical Universe community, a fringe science group popular on the internet. An even fewer are aware of the basic premises an maths associate with the Electric Universe theory. As for myself, I ha not pai much notice of the Electric Universe moel until I got involve in helping Mr. Peter Woohea fin theoretical support for his theory about the inosaurs an how they coul have grown as large as they i. Unlike other theories attempting to explain the impossible size of the inosaurs, Peter Woohea's theory oes not inclue any mysterious mechanism for mass increase. Instea, his theory suggests that our planet has expane ue to internal pressures an that the subsequent change in the istribution of mass has resulte in an increase surface gravity. However, while this simple explanation solves a number of problems, Peter Woohea's theory got heavily criticize for being incompatible with Newton's Universal Law of Gravity. But seeing that the alternatives to Woohea's theory were to introuce magical mechanisms for mass creation, I foun his theory eserving a closer look, an it was uring this investigation that I got the iea that the Electric Universe moel might provie support for Woohea's theory. As it turne out, the maths associate with the Electric Universe moel i not only support Peter Woohea's theory, but gave the exact numbers that people ha been looking for. From fossil recors, people like Stephen Hurrell ha estimate that surface gravity must have increase by at least 400 per cent since life first appeare on our planet. An my calculations base on the assumption that gravity is a ipole at the atomic level yiele an increase of exactly 500 per cent. The number I arrive at was spot on, an from this I conclue that both Peter Woohea's theory an the Electric Universe moel of gravity are likely to be correct. Encourage by this, I publishe a paper calle "The Electric Universe Moel of Gravity an the Expaning Earth" which is freely available on the web for anyone intereste in the subject. An seeing that there has been little theoretical work associate with the Electrical Universe moel, I ecie to make a more general analysis in the hope of fining aitional support for it. Having foun my mathematical approach fruitful in my work on Peter Woohea's theory, I ecie to continue with the same general approach. Continuing where I left off in my first paper, I set off to iscover the general rules associate with the Electric Universe moel as it applies to universal gravity, an cosmology in general. Methoology

2 Since the purpose of this work was to buil support for the Electric Universe moel, I have been careful not to introuce anything that oes not irectly follow from the moel itself or from observe facts. Having mae up my min to fin the maths associate with the Electric Universe moel of gravity I coul not very well make any changes to the original theory. I ha to stick to the assumption that the Electric Universe moel is correct, an let the logic flow from there. Retracing my thinking in this paper we will therefore start where I began, with the premise that there must be one or more Universal Gravity functions associate with the Electric Universe moel in the same way that Newton's point source moel of gravity has a Universal Gravity function associate with it. Following Newton's example, we will not try to explain exactly how things work but rather formulate a mathematical moel base on what we can see an what we can reasonably assume to be true base on the Electric Universe theory. Our aim will be to erive a escriptive moel, an we will leave the question of how exactly things hang together for others to speculate in. The Electric Universe Moel of Gravity At the heart of the Electric Universe moel of gravity is the iea that gravity is a ipole at the atomic level, an not a point source as postulate by Newton. Furthermore, the Electric Universe moel postulates that the ipoles, which are best imagine as "gravitational stick magnets", align in such a way that their "positive poles" all point to the center of our planet, while the "negative poles" point out towars the surface, making it "negatively charge" from a gravitational viewpoint. Small boies like rocks an ust, all have "internal stick magnets" that align with the gravitational fiel of our planet, an we are therefore pulle own by gravity in much the same way a collection of freely rotating stick magnets woul be pulle own by a magnetic surface. We will use the analogy of stick magnets throughout this paper because magnetism is a goo example of a ipole phenomenon. But gravity is not magnetism so we will use quotation marks to emphasize that we are merely using the analogy for convenience. Stellar an Cosmic Boies In our analysis we will refer to large spherical boies such as our sun, planet an moon as stellar boies, while smaller boies such as ust, rocks an asterois will be referre to as cosmic boies. An since we will fin in our analysis that the two types of boies o not behave ientically in a ipole universe, the istinction is not merely cosmetic but mathematically significant. The reason for this is that stellar boies have "negatively charge" external surfaces, while cosmic boies have freely rotating "internal stick magnets". Furthermore, in my paper "The Electric Universe Moel of Gravity an the Expaning Earth", I showe that all stellar boies must have a "positively charge" internal surface ue to the ipole nature of the Electric Universe moel, an we will use this conclusion as a fact in this paper. We will efine stellar boies as having a "negatively charge" outer surface an a "positively charge" inner surface, an we will efine cosmic boies as having freely rotating "internal stick magnets". - -

3 Only uner extreme circumstances will a stellar boy allow its "internal stick magnets" to change their orientation, in which case the stellar boy ceases to be a stellar boy, an becomes a cosmic boy instea. Intermeiate size boies on the other han may flip flop between being a stellar an a cosmic boy epening on the size of the objects it interacts with. Analyzing Newton's Law of Universal Gravity In eveloping his Universal Law of Gravity, Newton mae the assumption that the only factors involve in gravity, apart from it being a point source at the atomic level, was the mass of the objects involve, their istance from each other, an a constant. An from this he erive his function: M1M F = G Newton erive this function without any further explanation than that it ha to be correct for the simple reason that no other elements are known to have an influence on gravity an that it fits observations given the right value of G. Newton's Law of Universal Gravity is in other wors a hack. It is as it is, not ue to some profoun insight into the nature of things, but because it works without introucing anything except G beyon the observe elements. Newton use the inverse square law when ealing with istance since this fit the observations. In other wors, he use the law governing raiating boies, an treate gravity as something that raiates from a point source at the geometrical center of stellar boies. However, in the Electric Universe moel, gravity is neither a point source nor something that raiates. Gravity accoring to the Electric Universe, is something akin to magnetism, with attracting an repelling surfaces. So, where Newton use the inverse square law, we must instea use the inverse cube law that governs attracting an repelling fiels. At the base of our equations we will fin the following: F = K M1M An since we cannot simplify matters by moeling gravity as a point source at the geometrical center of stellar boies, we also have to consier the surfaces from which the gravitational fiels emanate. The geometry of curve surfaces will play an important role in the equations we will be eriving. Since we know that Newton's Law is a goo fit for a large range of observations, we know even before we have starte that these geometrical consierations will have to significantly moerate our base function in orer to give us a goo representation of reality. However, we also know that Newton's Law oes not fit all observations equally well, an our aim must be to come up with equations that escribe both the Newtonian an non-newtonian range of observations. - -

4 Repelling an Attracting Surfaces Since the Electric Universe moel postulates that all stellar boies have an outer surface that is "negatively charge" from a gravitational viewpoint, it woul appear that all stellar boies shoul repel each other, rather than attract. An with such a clear contraiction with observe facts, the knee jerk reaction is to say that the theory must be wrong. However, a stellar boy oes not only have a "negatively charge" outer surface, it also has a "positively charge" inner surface. An if the fiel emanating from this inner surface acts relatively unhinere through the shell of its boy, we have a much more subtle situation. Taking the earth an the moon as an example we have the following repelling an attracting fiels: 1. Outer surface of moon repels outer surface of earth. Inner surface of moon repels inner surface of earth. Outer surface of moon attracts inner surface of earth 4. Inner surface of moon attracts outer surface of earth Furthermore, we have to consier the shape of the surfaces involve since it is reasonable to expect that this will have a significant effect on how the gravitational fiels sprea. Since we are ealing with ipoles, we can assume that only surfaces facing each other are interacting with each other. The gravitational fiels emanating from the back of the moon, for instance, o not interact with our planet, nor oes the back of our planet, as seen from the moon, interact with the moon. An from this we see that the repelling fiels are between the two convex outer surfaces an between the two concave inner surfaces of our stellar combination, while the attracting fiels are between two convex-concave pairs. Geometrical Consierations When it comes to the geometry of spherical surfaces an how they affect the gravitational fiels emanating from stellar boies, we have the following factors to consier: - 4 -

5 1. The shape of the surface, being either Convex or Concave. The raius "ro" from the geometrical center to the outer surface. The raius "ri" from the geometrical center to the inner surface 4. The raius "cg" from the geometrical center to the center of gravity 5. The istance "" between the geometric centers of the two boies involve An from this we can conclue that we are ealing with two functions: 1. Convex(ro, ri, cg, ). Concave(ro, ri, cg, ) These two functions escribe the moerating factors that apply to our base function F = K*M1M/^ to prouce the net effect of gravity at a given istance. For instance, the force between the two outer surfaces of a pair of stellar boies M1 an M, can now be expresse as: F = - Convex(ro 1, ri 1, cg 1, ) * Convex(ro, ri, cg, ) * K M1M The geometry of the two stellar boies has now been ae to our base function F = K*M1M/^ in the form of two moerating functions. To simplify things, we can use the fact that the geometries expresse by the Concave an Convex functions are relate to the two boies M1 an M, an we can therefore use Convex(1) as shorthan for Convex(ro1, ri1, cg1, ) an Convex() as shorthan for Convex(ro, ri, cg, ). An if we simplify things further by expressing our base function as B() instea of K*M1M/^ we get the following shorthan for the above function: F = - Convex(1)*Convex()*B() Note that we have mae the force negative in this particular case since the two convex surfaces are both "negatively charge", an therefore repelling each other. Note also that we are not saying anything about what the moerating functions o. We are simply saying that they play a role in etermining the force between stellar boies. However, we can make the assumption that the Convex function will result in a fiel that tapers off quicker than a fiel moerate by the Concave function. Concave surfaces are after all generally associate with focus, while convex surfaces are associate with sprea. A satellite ish is a typical example of a focusing evice base on the geometry of a concave surface, while lamps esigne to sprea light in all irections use convex surfaces to o this. However, both functions are likely to prouce an overall focusing effect since the base function is such that it requires moeration of the focusing kin in orer to compensate for the inverse cube law. The - 5 -

6 Concave function is likely to be the one with the strongest focusing effect. But the Convex function will have a focusing effect too, at least at intermeiate istances. Deriving the Universal Gravity Function for Stellar Boies Arme with the base function B ( ) = K M 1M an the Convex an Concave functions we are now in a position to erive a function for gravitational force between two stellar boies. Using our shorthan notation we get the following four equations for the four surface combinations of two stellar boies: 1. The two convex outer surfaces repel each other accoring to F = Convex(1)*Convex()*B(). The two concave inner surfaces repel each other accoring to F = Concave(1)*Concave()*B(). The first concave-convex surface combinations attracts each other accoring to F = Concave(1)*Convex()*B() 4. The secon concave-convex surface combinations attracts each other accoring to F = Convex(1)*Concave()*B() Subtracting the repelling forces from the attracting forces we get the overall force: F = Concave(1)*Convex()*B() + Convex(1)*Concave()*B() Convex(1)*Convex()*B() - Concave(1)*Concave()*B() F = ( Concave(1)*Convex() + Convex(1)*Concave() Convex(1)*Convex() - Concave(1)*Concave() ) * B() An from this we see that we have a complex geometrical expression that is rather lengthy to write. If we give this lengthy expression the shorthan notation Complex() we can express the full equation as: where F = Complex() * B() Complex() = Concave(1)*Convex() + Convex(1)*Concave() - Convex(1)*Convex() - Concave(1)*Concave() B ( ) = K M 1M - 6 -

7 Analyzing the Universal Gravity Function for Stellar Boies Note that while the base function is known to us as M1M B ( ) = K, we o not have any specific knowlege of the Concave an Convex functions apart from our assumption that the Concave function moerates the base function in a more focusing manner than the Convex function. The surface combinations have the theoretical capability of moerating the base function in such a way that we get a Newtonian result for a large range of values. An this is in fact how things must be in orer to conform with observations. With Newton's Law agreeing well with a wie range of observations, our full function must give results that agree with Newton's Law for the istances where Newton's Law can be applie without moeration. Letting Newton's Law be equal to our universal function we get: M1M G M1M = Complex() * B() M M 1 G = Complex() * K Complex() = G { in the Newtonian range } K The Convex an Concave functions must in other wors be such that they generate a linear result for the Newtonian range. However, this is not to say that our full function will agree with Newton for all values. At extremely short istances for instance, the two outer surfaces of a stellar combination will no oubt ominate the complex geometry. The two outer surfaces are the only ones that can have irect contact with each other, which means that these mutually repelling surfaces have the potential to generate enormous repelling forces, easily warfing all the other geometrical factors. As a result, our universal function is likely to reuce to the following for extremely short istances: F = - Convex(1)*Convex()*B() An observations o in fact confirm this. Binary stars in extremely close orbit with each other are tremenously unstable an will either merge into a single object or efinitely repel each other into a wier an more stable orbit within months, a mere blink of an eye in the cosmic scale of things. The two outcomes of a very close encounter between stellar objects is in other wors a swift repulsion or a merger, exactly as preicte by our investigations so far

8 As for very large istances there is another interesting preiction we can make from our function. Since the concave-concave combination is the one with the greatest egree of focus, this part of the overall function will become ominant at some point even if it is relatively insignificant at shorter istances. At large istances our universal function reuces to: Again we are getting a repelling force. F = - Concave(1)*Concave()*B() An this too is in accorance with observations. Distant galaxies are not only receing from each other, but are accelerating rather than slowing own. So, something is pushing istant galaxies apart, an with no goo explanation for this in the stanar moel, the repelling force is put own to a mysterious "ark energy". However, using our function base on the Electric Universe moel, we see that the observe repulsion is in fact what we woul expect. This phenomenon that cannot be satisfactorily explaine in the stanar moel is nothing more than gravity itself, acting s a repelling force at large istances. Establishing the Newtonian Range for Stellar Boies At this point we have foun that our universal function for stellar boies yiels a repelling force at extremely short istances an also at large istances, an it follows from this that there must be two zero points where gravity goes from negative to positive. One of these zero points occurs at an extremely short istance, an the other one occurs at a very large istance. A consequence of this is that there is an upper an a lower limit to the size of stellar orbits. An since all of this is epenent on the geometry of the boies involve we can assume that a large stellar boy can support a wier orbit than a smaller stellar boy even if the mass of the two boies are the same. For our sun, we know that its stellar companion with the wiest known orbit is the warf planet Eris which at its most istant is about 100 astronomic units away from the sun. So we know the istant zero point has to be farther away than this, but not necessarily much farther away. The near zero point for stellar boies orbiting our sun must by the same logic be closer than the orbit of Mercury, but not necessarily all that much closer. Mercury oes after all exhibit non-newtonian behavior in its orbit, which inicates that it is in an area close to where gravity starts changing from an attracting to a repelling force. From observations it woul appear that the Newtonian range for our sun relative to its planets is locate in the Mercury to Eris range, an that any stellar boy outsie this range will isplay non-newtonian behavior. For boies larger than the sun, the Newtonian range can be expecte to be at a greater istance both to the insie an to the outsie, while smaller boies will have its Newtonian range at a shorter istance. This follows from the general logic of geometry, where things can be expecte to behave in a proportional manner. But we also have observational evience to support this assumption

9 Mercury is after all in a slightly non-newtonian orbit aroun the Sun, while our moon is istinctly Newtonian in its orbit aroun our planet, espite being much closer to the Earth than Mercury is to the Sun. The relatively small size of our planet compare to the Sun is clearly of importance. Plotting the Universal Function for Stellar Boies To sum things up, we now know from theory an observation that our universal function for stellar boies has to conform to Newton's Law for istances typical in our solar system, but turn negative for extremely short istances an very large istances, an from this we are in a position to plot the following graph of force against istance: The curve of our universal function is smooth an natural, an without knowing much more than this at the moment, we can so far conclue that the Complex function shoul be relatively easy to erive. Given enough ata points it shoul be possible to erive both the Concave an the Convex function. Gravitational Capture an Stability Finally, before going on to iscuss cosmic boies, it shoul be note that the fact that gravity becomes repelling between stellar boies at extremely short istances, yet positive at intermeiate istances, means that the Universal Gravity function base on the Electric Universe moel has in it the mechanism require for a stellar boy to capture another boy an subsequently stabilize its orbit

10 In general, we can say that the Electric Universe moel prouces a more stable universe with stellar boies rarely being pulle out of one system without being inclue in another. In a collision scenario with two solar systems coming into extremely close contact, there will be tremenous upsets, but things will stabilize relatively quickly. Capture an a quick return to stability will be the rule in an Electric Universe, rather than the chaos of collisions an scatter preicte by Newton. Universal Gravity applie to Cosmic Boies While the stellar boies that we have iscusse so far can be thought of as spherical shells with a "negatively charge" outer surface an a "positively charge" inner surface, cosmic boies can best be escribe as boies containing freely rotating "internal stick magnets". An it follows from this that the biggest ifference between a stellar boy an a cosmic boy, apart from their ifferent size, is that the "internal stick magnets" of a cosmic boy will always orient themselves in such a way that there will be attraction between them an whatever other boy they are influence by. Furthermore, cosmic boies have no "charge surfaces", an it follows that our universal function for stellar boies cannot be use for cosmic boies. A cosmic boy in gravitational interaction with a stellar boy will be uner influence of the two surfaces of the stellar boy, an the "internal stick magnets" of the cosmic boy will orient themselves towars whichever surface is the ominant one. At short istances, the outer surface will ominate. However, ue to the moerating effect of curvature, the internal surface will ominate beyon a zero net gravity point as illustrate in Fig

11 The existence of a zero net gravity point follows from the fact that there can be no net gravity where the "internal stick magnets" of the cosmic boy turn to realign themselves with a ifferent surface of a stellar boy. Paraoxically, gravity will taper off to zero an then grow again for a while before again tapering off towars zero, an it follows from this that there must be a region aroun every stellar boy which is virtually free of any cosmic boies, yet where there is a marke increase in the ensity of such boies at a farther istance. This follows from the fact that nothing can form a stable orbit at zero gravity. Any motion in such a region will cause a cosmic boy to either fly off into a farther region or plunge closer to the stellar boy. Mathematically we no longer have four, but two curve surfaces to consier, an we have to allow for the fact that cosmic boies always let their "internal stick magnets" align in such a way that they attract. From this we get: F = Convex(1)*B() - Concave(1)*B() F = Convex(1) - Concave(1) * B() In other wors, we have the same base function B() = K*M1M/^, but a ifferent moerating geometry. An we express the fact that this function never goes negative with the use of absolute value symbols. Furthermore, we can simplify the above by using the shorthan name Combine() to express the moerating term: An we can write our universal function as follows: where Combine() = Convex(1) - Concave(1) F = Combine() * B() Combine() = Convex(1) - Concave(1) B = ( ) K M 1M Analyzing the Universal Function for Cosmic Boies in Interaction with Stellar Boies The ifference between the universal function for two stellar boies an for a cosmic boy interacting with a stellar boy is confine to geometry. The base function B() is the same in both cases. However, the Complex an the Combine functions are very ifferent, an we must therefore expect significant ifferences between the two cases, at least in certain regions

12 However, one thing the two universal functions must have in common is an ability to be Newtonian for a large range of values. Just like the Complex function must prouce a linear result for the Newtonian range, so must the Combine function. Letting Newton's Law be equal to this universal function we get: M1M G M1M = Combine() * B() M M 1 G = Combine() * K Combine() = G { in the Newtonian range } K However, this is not to say that the Newtonian range for cosmic boies is the same as that of stellar boies. In fact, it is easy to see from the geometrical functions themselves that this cannot be the case. They are much too ifferent to result in ientical Newtonian ranges. One big ifference between the functions is that the Complex function has two zero points, beyon which there is negative gravity while the Combine function has a single zero point in between two positive regions. There is no negative solution for the Combine case, an it follows that there is no limit to where cosmic boies can orbit relative to a stellar boy. With the notable exception of the zero point, cosmic boies can establish stable orbits at any istance aroun a stellar boy. Orbital Spees An important consequence that can be erive from the fact that the Complex an Combine functions are ifferent is that stellar an cosmic boies will not generally orbit a stellar boy at the exact same spee. In most regions, there will be a ifference in spee between these two types of boies, an as a consequence, the larger stellar boy will gobble up all the smaller cosmic boies that constantly get in its way. However, since the Combine function has a ifferent shape than the Complex function, there may be one or more region where stellar boies orbit at pretty much the exact same spee as cosmic boies. In such regions, we woul be able to fin a high ensity of asterois together with one or more stellar boies. An as a matter of fact, we have two such regions in our solar system. The closest being the Asteroi Belt with its warf planet Ceres, an the more istant being the Kuiper Belt with its warf planet Pluto. This suggests that there are two points where the Complex an Combine functions yiel ientical values: Complex() = Combine() - 1 -

13 Complex() = Convex(1) - Concave(1) Assuming the two solutions are at either sie of the zero point for the combine function, we get the following two solutions: an: Complex() = Convex(1) - Concave(1) { for the near solution } Complex() = Concave(1) - Convex(1) { for the far solution } An since this is a general observation that we must assume to be true for other solar systems too, we can make the preiction that most, if not all solar systems, possess two asteroi rich regions corresponing to our Asteroi Belt an Kuiper Belt. Plotting the Universal Function for Cosmic Boies Orbiting Stellar Boies From the above analysis, it follows that we can plot the graph for the universal function for cosmic boies orbiting stellar boies. Taking the graph for stellar boies acting among themselves, we can superimpose the graph of cosmic boies orbiting stellar boies, an we get the following: - 1 -

14 As we can see, the far point where the Complex an Combine functions are equal is relatively easy to spot, while the near solution is less obvious. An it follows from this that there shoul be observable anomalies in the far region, while any anomaly in the near region woul be almost unetectable. It is also clear that we now have even more ata points that we can use in orer to erive the Concave an the Convex functions. The more anomalies we can fin, the more ata we have, an with the far region of our solar system being a likely place to fin anomalies for cosmic boies, we procee to look into the known anomalies for that region before looking into known anomalies an interesting observations closer to home. Orbits of Long-Perio Comets The orbits of so calle long-perio comets have always pose a problem for astronomers. Comets that travel beyon the Kuiper Belt all have orbits that have proven themselves impossible to preict, an many o not return at all. An this anomaly has been put own to gravitational pull of nearby stars an the hypothetical existence of an asteroi rich region in eep space calle the Oort Clou. However, as we will see, no Oort Clou is neee to explain the observe facts. The fact that many comets o not return is most probably ue to the fact that most comets are intermeiate size boies, an such boies will typically be expelle from our solar system once they go beyon the point where gravity for stellar boies goes from being an attracting to a repelling force. An with comets also being small enough to isplay cosmic boy properties, they will be affecte by the zero point for cosmic boies. Comets traveling away from our sun will first be subjecte to an unexpectely small gravitational pull before being subjecte to an unexpectely large pull seen from a Newtonian viewpoint. An it follows that the orbits of long-perio comets cannot be preicte by the Newtonian moel because these orbits are not perfectly elliptical. It also follows that the hypothetical Oort Clou is unlikely to exist since the basis for its propose existence no longer hols. The Pioneer Anomaly After passing about 0 AU from the sun, the eep space probes Pioneer 10 an Pioneer 11 no longer followe the path preicte by stanar theory. Instea, the eep space probes followe a path conforming to a slightly stronger than expecte gravitational pull towars the sun. The accepte explanation for the anomaly is currently put own to a phenomenon calle thermal recoil force, where it is suggeste that heat escaping through the shay sie of the probes exert a force towars the sun. However, this rather fanciful explanation is only there to support the stanar moel. Using our moel, the phenomenon can easily be explaine as ipole gravity. On their way out of the solar system, the eep space probes first entere a short region with low gravitational pull towars the sun before entering a large region with gravity higher than stanar theory preicts, an while the effect of the first region went unetecte, the effect of the subsequent higher than expecte gravity region became so evient that it coul not be put own to measurement errors

15 Interestingly enough, the anomaly was first iscovere at 0 AU which is at the start of the Kuiper Belt. An since we have alreay establishe that the zero point for cosmic boies orbiting the sun is locate between the Asteroi Belt an the Kuiper Belt, the location of the anomaly fits our theory very well. The Kuiper Belt is in the region where ipole gravity is stronger than stanar theory preicts. An it follows that the Kuiper Belt is exactly where we woul expect to see an anomaly of this sort. The short istance with low to no gravity was passe unetecte, an it was not until the space probes were well into the region of stronger gravity that the anomaly was etecte. But this is no surprise since no one expecte to see any anomaly at all. The relatively short region of low gravity i eviently not prouce a large enough eviation to catch the attention of astronomers. However, the anomaly shoul not have come as a complete surprise. Comets follow the same general path as the eep space probes, an we have known for a long time that comets o not follow perfect elliptical paths, so why shoul we expect the eep space probes to somehow behave ifferently? Flyby Anomalies Closer to home, we have the so calle flyby anomalies, which are marke by an unaccounte for velocity increase for space probes using our planet's gravitational fiel to accelerate. As a matter of fact, all sorts of near surface anomalies have been known to scientists for a long time, so the flyby anomaly shoul not have come as a big surprise. Close to the surface of our planet, things o not generally conform well with Newton's simple moel where all mass can be moele as a point source at the geometrical center of our planet. The flyby anomalies are in other wors just another type of the many anomalies associate with near surface gravity. As for our ipole gravity moel, these anomalies contain important clues to the nature of the Convex function, because the effect of Earth's internal surface can most likely be ignore when moelling near surface phenomena. Very close to Earth our function can be reuce to F = Convex(ro, ri, cg, ) - Concave(ro, ri, cg, ) * B() F = Convex(ro, ri, cg, ) * B() An from my paper "The Electric Universe Moel of Gravity an the Expaning Earth", we can euce that the Convex function solves to 1 where equals the raius of our planet. The reason for this being that we i not use any moerating function in calculating the 500 per cent increase in gravity from preexpansion times. We simply assume that there was no moerating effect. an since our numbers came out correct, we have strong supporting evience for our assumption. However, as we leave the surface of our planet by going into an airplane, for instance, an important moerating effect kicks in. An I touche upon this fact towars the en of my paper on the expaning Earth. Noting that we get roughly a 1 per cent ecrease in gravity at 10 km altitue, I mae an initial analysis of what the moerating function might look like

16 As expecte, the moerating effect has to be of the focusing kin at 10 km. This follows from the following observations in my paper on the expaning earth: With no moeration of our base function, gravity woul fall by about 1.5 per cent at 10 km altitue Actual gravity at 10 km altitue is own by a mere 1 per cent An from this we can euce that if Convex(ro, ri, cg, ) = 1 at the surface of our planet, then Convex(ro, ri, cg, ) = 1.1 at 10 km above the surface of our planet. Furthermore, from the flyby anomalies it appears that the Convex function has the effect of actually overshooting Newton's preictions at high altitues: M M 1 M1M Convex(ro, ri, cg, ) * K > G { at flyby values for } An since we have erive exact values for ro, ri, cg an in my paper on the expaning earth, it follows that the flyby anomalies can provie important insights into the exact nature of the Convex function. The Role of Interstellar Dust in Galaxies Having consiere cosmic boies orbiting our sun an the Earth, we can go on to consier cosmic boies uner the influence of more than one stellar boy such as is the case for interstellar ust an rocks. Uner such circumstances, the "internal stick magnets" of cosmic boies will always align themselves with the ominant fiel. However, if at all possible the "internal stick magnets" will align themselves so as to attract all the fiels influencing them, an not only the ominant fiel. The "internal stick magnets" will always seek to orient themselves in such a way that they prouce a maximum net attracting force. An the result of this is that interstellar ust an rocks play an important role in countering the repelling forces between stellar boies. While stellar boies repel each other at large istances, cosmic ust an rocks have the effect of proucing a net attracting force between stellar objects. An the more ust an rocks there is in a region separating two stellar boies, the more net attraction there will be. Given the right relative proportions of cosmic an stellar boies we en up with a stable system that keeps its shape in the typical non-newtonian way that galaxies o. Ha this not been the case, our Milky Way Galaxy, with its iameter of about light years, woul have been completely blown apart by the repelling forces between stellar boies. But as is evient from observation, the Milky Way Galaxy hols itself together nicely. The usty arms of our spiral galaxy are like ropes spinning out from its usty center, an the mutually repelling forces between the spinning arms keeps the structure in place. The arms are hel together by the attracting forces of ust an rocks, while the repelling forces acting through the relatively ust an rock free space between the arms keep them from blening into each other

17 An again we have foun an explanation for something that is not easily explaine by the stanar moel. The rope-like structure of spiral galaxies efies the stanar moel, an the concept of "ark matter" has been introuce to make the theory fit observations. However, given the right properties for the Concave an Convex functions, an keeping in min that stellar boies are hollow, an therefore much less massive than generally assume, there is no nee for ark matter. The stable nature of galaxies are likely to be fully accounte for by a further analysis of the maths associate with ipole gravity. As for the largely ust free space between galaxies, there is nothing to counter the repelling forces, an we have repulsion winning out pushing galaxies apart. Gravity Between Cosmic Boies Having ealt with stellar boies an stellar boies interacting with cosmic boies, we can move on to cosmic boies acting on each other. An as an example of two such boies we can take the case of a satellite visiting a small comet, an we will see that the measure gravity between these two objects will be very ifferent from what woul be anticipate from the stanar moel. Consisting entirely of freely rotating "internal stick magnets", cosmic boies o not have any moerating functions associate with them an we can conclue that the force acting between two cosmic boies are efine entirely by the base function: where F = B() B ( ) = K M 1M In other wors, we have the following simple expression governing cosmic boies interacting with each other: F = K M1M The force between two cosmic boies is etermine by the inverse cube law, an is therefore tapering off much faster than woul be expecte using Newton's Law. An this serves to explain why the stanar moel preicts comets to be irty snowballs when in fact they are mae of rock. The low gravitational fiel of a comet is not ue to a lack of mass, it is ue to the ipole nature of gravity. An once this is unerstoo, we see that a satellite flyby of a comet can be use to calculate the value of K in our base function. Given a goo unerstaning of the composition of a comet, we can estimate its mass an calculate K as follows: K = F M M

18 Black Holes At this point it is clear that we o not have any nee for ark energy or ark matter when we use the ipole moel propose by the Electric Universe. Both phenomena are simply inventions mae up to make the stanar moel work. An by efinition, black holes have to go too, since there is no such thing as a point source of gravity in the Electric Universe moel. Black Holes are impossible entities in a ipole universe. An since the function of black holes have been to make observations fit the stanar moel in much the same way ark matter has been use to make things a up, we must assume that cosmic ust is in fact sufficient to make the Electric Universe moel of gravity stan on its own. The Big Bang The Big Bang is another invention that seeks to remey the shortfalls of the stanar moel, an its purpose is similar to that of ark energy. Seeing that galaxies recee from each other, there was a nee to explain this, an the Big Bang theory was aopte to o that. However, galaxies recee from each other ue to the repelling force of gravity at great istances, so the Big Bang has no purpose in a ipole universe. Furthermore, there is no nee for a beginning or an en to the universe where there is a balance equilibrium between repelling an attracting forces, an the Electric Universe moel is capable of proviing such a balance, so the whole iea of a Big Bang is no longer neee. Instea of a Big Bang we can propose a perpetual mechanism where large boies come into existence through the assembly of smaller parts, an that these large boies subsequently expene themselves through raiation an outflow of matter which in turn provies builing material for a new generation of large boies, starting the cycle over again. Such a universe has no beginning an no en, only creation an estruction. Anti-Gravity On a final note, we can see that the ipole nature of gravity has in it the elements require for antigravity. In fact, we have alreay conclue that anti-gravity exists between stellar boies at large an extremely close istances. Gravity that exerts a repelling force is after all the efinition of anti-gravity. However, to prouce an anti-gravity evice to be use in a flying machine we will somehow have to trick nature. Cosmic boies will always attract other boies since their "internal stick magnets" always align with the ominant gravitational fiel, an it is only by somehow interfering in this alignment process that an anti-gravity evice can be constructe. But since there is no reason to believe that it is impossible to construct a evice to manipulate the "internal stick magnets" of matter, we have no reason to believe that anti-gravity evices cannot be mae. An we must therefore conclue that the construction of an anti-gravity evice is a theoretical possibility that may one ay be turne into reality. Conclusion

19 Having followe Newton's example in eriving a universal function for gravity, but replace Newton's point source assumption with the ipole of the Electric Universe moel, we have prouce three universal functions for the following three cases: 1. Stellar boies, such as the moon, our planet an our sun interacting with each other. Stellar boies interacting with cosmic boies such as ust, rocks an satellites. Cosmic boies interacting with each other M M 1 B ( ) = K. These functions all have a base function The first function has a moerating function that we have calle Complex, the secon function has a moerating function that we have calle Combine, while he thir function oes not have a moerating function. The moerating functions are base on the geometry of stellar objects, with a function we have calle Concave applying to concave surfaces, an a function we have calle Convex applying to convex surfaces. While both the Concave an the Convex function moerate the base function in a focusing manner, the Concave function has a stronger focusing ability than the Convex function. The parameters use to etermine the value of Convex an Concave for a stellar boy at any given istance from another boy are: 1. The raius "ro" from the geometrical center to the outer surface of the stellar boy. The raius "ri" from the geometrical center to the inner surface of the stellar boy. The raius "cg" from the geometrical center to the center of gravity of the stellar boy 4. The istance "" between the geometric centers of the two boies involve For stellar boies interacting with each other we erive the following function: where F = Complex() * B() Complex() = Concave(1)*Convex() + Convex(1)*Concave() - Convex(1)*Convex() - Concave(1)*Concave() B ( ) = K M 1M The numerical values 1 an of the Concave an Convex functions refer to the boies M1 an M in the base function B(). Concave(1) is shorthan for Concave(ro1, ri1, cg1, ) an Convex() is shorthan for Convex(ro, ri, cg, ), etc

20 For stellar boies interacting with cosmic boies we erive the following function: where F = Combine() * B() Combine() = Convex(1) - Concave(1) ( ) B = K M 1M For cosmic boies interacting with each other we erive the following function: where F = B() B ( ) = K M 1M An from this we arrive at the following conclusions: 1. Stellar boies repel each other at large istances. "Dark energy" is gravity acting in a repelling manner between stellar boies at great istance. Stellar boies repel each other at very close istances, preventing them from colliing 4. There is a maximum an a minimum size to stellar orbits epening on the size of the orbiting boies 5. Mercury's non-newtonian behavior is ue to it being close to the inner limit of allowe orbits aroun the sun 6. There is a region of zero net gravity for ust an rocks locate somewhere between the Asteroi Belt an the Kuiper Belt 7. Dust an rocks o not generally orbit the Sun at the same rate as planets 8. The Kuiper belt an the Asteroi belt are the only two regions where ust an rocks orbit the Sun at the same spee as planets 9. Other solar systems are likely to possess two asteroi rich regions, just like our own solar system 10. Comets o not follow perfect ecliptic paths 11. The "Oort Clou" oes not exist 1. The Pioneer anomaly is ue to non-newtonian gravity effects beyon the Asteroi Belt 1. Flyby anomalies are ue to non-newtonian gravity effects close to stellar boies - 0 -

21 14. "Dark matter" is ust an rocks acting as glue to hol galaxies together 15. Comets are more massive than stanar theory preicts 16. "Black holes" o not exist 17. Cosmos is infinite in time an there was no "Big Bang" 18. Anti-gravity evices are theoretical possibilities Relate Articles Electric Universe moel of gravity: The Electric Universe Moel of Gravity an the Expaning Earth: Peter Woohea's theory of the expaning earth: