Problems with Flowing Space Gravity Theory

1. Problems with Flowing Space Gravity Theory Glen W. Deen, B.S.E.E. glen.deen@gte.net 18th Natural Philosophy Alliance Conference College Park, Maryland, July 6, 2011 http://www.glendeen.com/Files/Deen-NPA-18-slides.ppt http://www.glendeen.com/Files/Deen-Problems-with-Flowing-Space-Gravity-Theory.doc Blue Slide Titles for material in the Paper Red Slide Titles for NEW material not in paper (42% new)

2. Errata • Delete Section 5 in the paper entitled, “Teasing Nuclear Density from Space Flow.” It presents intriguing results, but it was computed for a sphere with a radius of one meter. If you make that radius 2 meters, the nuclear radii of the chemical elements is reduced by the factor 1/sqrt(2). Oops. Sorry about that. • Delete the last two paragraphs of Section 6.2 entitled, “Must Space Flow be Radial?” This issue is covered in more detail in slide 24. Add another sentence to the first paragraph of Section 6.2: A space drain planet will also have an entrained ether globe that translates with the planet in its orbit because the surface inflow velocity will be less than the escape velocity. For the Earth, the inflow velocity is about 98% of the escape velocity. This means the radius of the entrained ether globe is about 24 Earth radii. • Equations (14) and (16) need parentheses around the factor (r2 – r1) in my pdf file conversion. The doc file is correct.

3. Airy’s Method of “Weighing” the Earth • George B. Airy, 1856 • Spherical, non-rotating Earth • z is the depth of a mine shaft • ρ is the density of ΔM, not (M – ΔM) • ΔM does not contribute to g(z) • First term is the free-air gradient. 2nd is the double Bouguer term.

4. Airy’s Method, continued • Airy’s intent was to determine G by measuring Δg(z) • But all you can determine is the Gρ product • Airy underestimated G by 19% because he relied upon a mineralogist’s report for the local rock density, ρ, in the mine that was too high by 19%. • Airy’s method is not a practical way to measure G (a torsion balance is more accurate), but it can be adapted to study flowing space gravity theory.

5. Adapting Airy’s Method to Flowing Space Gravity • Airy’s method is concerned with Δg, the difference in the acceleration of gravity between the inside and outside surfaces of a thin spherical shell, i.e., the radial variation in the acceleration of gravity inside the planet. • Flowing space gravity is concerned with the radial variation in the space flow velocity. • If you know how the space flow velocity varies with the radius, you can compute the acceleration of gravity variation. I show the equation in slide 10.

6. Preliminary Reference Earth Model • A.M. Dziewonsky, D.L. Anderson (1981) • Radial density profile ranges from 1.02 g/cc (ocean) to 13.03 g/cc (center). • Profile specified as third-order polynomials in the normalized Earth radius R/R0. R0= 6,371 km same volume as oblate spheroid • Profile is continuous within each of five spherical shells: Inner Core, Outer Core, Lower Mantle, Upper Mantle, Crust. • The profile is discontinuous at the boundaries between adjacent shells. • PREM world is spherical, does not rotate, has no continents, is completely covered with an ocean that is 3 km deep.

7. PREM Radial Density Profile • Average density (homogeneous Earth) is 5.513 g/cc. • Lower crust, upper crust, and ocean shells have constant densities of 2.90, 2.60, 1.02 g/cc, respectively.

8. PREM Mass inside Radius R • Integrate density polynomialρ(r) from r = 0 to R to get MR, mass inside R. Use MR to compute average density inside R.

9. PREM Escape Velocity versus R/Ro

10. Acceleration of Gravity as a function of Space Flow Velocity and Radius • Assume a particle of mass mat a radius r from the center of the Earth moves at a velocity v with the space flow. • This equation shows that the acceleration of gravity is always inward, no matter whether the space flow velocity is negative (inward) or positive (outward).

11. PREM Acceleration of Gravity vs.R/Ro

12. Space Absorption Theory • Physical space = quantum foam. • Each bubble of foam = a quantum of space. • Atomic nuclei “absorb” space by popping foam bubbles upon contact. • Static case (near center): Imagine each nucleus is surrounded by concentric spherical shells of quantum foam. As each layer of bubbles touching the nucleus pops, the next layer falls inward to take its place. The effect is an omnidirectional inflow of space towards each nucleus. • Dynamic case (above center): Laminar radial space flow is unidirectional. It is “swallowed” by each nuclear upwind surface like an airplane’s pitot tube swallows the air flow. Or like a windshield collects bugs. • Space absorption rate for each nucleus = space flow velocity at the site of the nucleus times nuclear circular cross-sectional area. • Space flows radially into the planet from the interplanetary environment through the planet’s surface to replace the space that the atomic nuclei inside are continuously absorbing by popping the quantum foam bubbles. • Space volume absorption rate for planet = flow velocity at surface times surface area.

13. Space Absorption Theory, continued • We can divide space inflow rate at radius R from slide 12 by the mass M inside R (volume times density) to obtain space absorption rate per unit mass inside R. Substitute the formula for vR from slide 9. Earth 5,513 0.95537

14. Space Absorption Rate (cc/s)/kg vs. R 14

15. Space Absorption Theory, continued.Nuclei “absorb” (pop) space bubbles;Nucleons (protons and neutrons) do NOT. • Average space absorption per unit time per unit mass is inversely proportional to the square root of the average mass density. • Lithium absorbs space 6 times faster than gold per kilogram because gold is 36 times denser than lithium. • This fact rules out the possibility that each nucleon (proton or neutron) absorbs its pro-rata share of space. • Lithium has 7 nucleons, and gold has 197 nucleons. • Gold has 28 times as many nucleons as lithium, yet a gold atom only absorbs 1/6 as much space per unit time as a lithium atom. • Lithium’s nucleons seem to be 6×28 = 168 times more efficient as space absorbers than gold’s nucleons. • A nucleon’s properties cannot be a function of what element contains it. • Conclusion: Individual nucleons are NOT the principal absorbers of space. • Instead whole nuclei “absorb” (pop) space bubbles from the laminar flow like windshields collect bugs. Call this the “windshield effect.”

16. Non-uniform Density Causes Space Inflow to be up to 2% less than the Escape Velocity • Conventional flowing space wisdom states that space flows into a planet at the escape velocity. This is true only for a planet having a uniform (constant) density profile. • Earth’s non-uniform radial density profile produces a space inflow velocity that is about 98% of the escape velocity at the surface, rising to 100% in the core with increasing depth. • This result is obtained when you start with zero space flow velocity at the center of the Earth and integrate upward to the surface. The space absorption rate per unit mass formula was presented in slide 13.

17. Non-uniform Density Causes Space Inflowto be up to 2% less than the Escape Velocity • This means we must distinguish between the space flow velocity andthe escape velocity. The gravity equation uses the space flow velocity.

18. Earth’s ether globe has radius of about24 Earth radii. Particle at rest there reaches terminal velocity at 98% of escape velocity.

19. Space Inflow Speed can’t = Escape Velocity

20. Reg Cahill’s Central Black Hole

21. Space Fountains and Space Drains (Author’s speculations)

22. The Seven Problems with Flowing Space Gravity Theory • The Space Fountain Problem • Must Space Flow be Radial? • The Entrained Ether Problem • The Non-Uniform Density Problem • The Ether Structure and Mechanism Problem • The Space Flow Reversal Problem • The Mutual Attraction Problem

23. 1. The Space Fountain Problem

24. 2. Must Space Flow be Radial? • When I wrote “Section 6.2 Must Space Flow be Radial?”, I did not understand that a space drain planet would be enclosed by an entrained ether globe. • After the paper was published, I learned that any space drain planet that had a non-uniform radial density profile, as the Earth has, will have a space inflow velocity that must necessarily be less than the escape velocity. For the Earth, it is about 2% less. • This means that space can’t reach Earth if it falls from rest above about 24 Earth radii. This is taken to be the radius of Earth’s entrained ether globe. • The only way that any planet could have a surface inflow velocity that is equal to the escape velocity is if it’s radial density profile is perfectly uniform. That is, it must be a homogeneous planet that does not even suffer self compression. This is impossible in practice.

25. 3. The Entrained Ether Problem • Dayton C. Miller suggested in 1933 that his results could be accounted for if the Earth is inside an entrained ether globe that moves with it in its orbit. • GPS radio signals are not aberrated by Earth's orbital velocity, and this suggests that Earth is isolated from its orbital motion by entrained ether. • They are aberrated by Earth's diurnal rotation about its axis. We know this because GPS corrects the signal timings for this Sagnac effect. • Physical space is evidently entrained like a big reservoir (globe) surrounding the Earth. The GPS satellite orbits are within that globe, and it translates with the Earth in its heliocentric orbital motion • Starlight, on the other hand, is aberrated by Earth’s orbital motion. Starlight appears to be photon streams which are aimed at the Sun and that behave as if Earth had no entrained ether. • This contradiction has not been explained to my satisfaction.

26. 4. The Non-uniform Density Problem • The space absorption rate per unit mass of any given material is not easy to predict because it depends not only upon the material’s own density but also upon the density of the material underneath it. • A solid lithium world would absorb space at the rate of 3.070 cc/sec/kg, yet a lithium crust resting on a solid gold world would absorb space at the rate of 9.488 cc/sec/kg (of lithium). • On the other hand, a solid gold world would absorb space at the rate of 0.510 cc/sec/kg, while a gold crust resting on a solid lithium world would absorb space at the rate of 1.577 cc/sec/kg (of gold).

27. 5. Ether Structure Problem • Does the physical vacuum (ether) behave like a solid, liquid, or gas? • Some authors claim the ether must be a solid because liquids and gasses cannot propagate transverse electromagnetic waves. • But how can a solid flow? This is a flowing space theory. • One possibility is that the ether might be like quicksand. It behaves like a solid for high-frequency waves but otherwise like a liquid. • Nina Sotina points out that there are fluids in which transverse waves can exist: magnetic liquids, superfluid He-3, and others. She also points out that light is not a simple transverse wave anyway. Photons are like solitons in a superfluid.

28. 6. Space Flow Reversal Problem • This problem does not apply to the uniformitarian model presented in the paper. That model says that space drains have always been and always will continue to be space drains, and likewise for space fountains, if in fact space fountains even exist. • The author’s catastrophic model is not ready for publication, but it will claim that supernovae and gamma-ray bursts are the results of space flow reversals. • Earth’s historic space flow reversals may have caused the mass extinctions observed in the fossil record. • The unprecedented October 23, 2007 explosion of Comet Holmes may have been caused by the reversal of the comet’s space flow from inward to outward.

29. Space Flow Reversal Problem contd. • If the author’s theory that comets are flying volcanoes and volcanoes are buried comets is true, then every sudden volcano eruption that follows a long period of dormancy may be an instance of a space flow reversal in the buried comet nucleus. • The problem is that no explanation for how any gravitating body can possibly reverse the direction of its space flow has been proposed so far. I intend to resolve this problem in the future. The easiest targets will be comets because they reverse their space flows whenever a dormant comet becomes active or vice versa.

30. 7. The Mutual Attraction Problem • It is easy to see in a qualitative way how two space drain planets can attract each other because they are both effectively draining the space between them. So far, there is no quantitative description. • The logical corollary is that two space fountain planets ought to repel each other. Since we have no evidence of gravitational repulsion, one possible conclusion is that space fountains do not exist. • In fact, I believe that the Sun and all planets but Venus and Mars are space fountains, so the logical corollary must be wrong. • I get around this problem by postulating that the force of gravity is always directed towards the center of mass of a two-body system, and I claim that the center of mass for two space fountains is located at infinity, behind both of them. As a result, the repulsive force between two space fountains is zero. • But attractive forces are observed in the solar system.

31. Mutual Attraction Problem, continued • The Sun is a Population I star with a space outflow. It has a mirror-matter twin that would look to us like a Population II star with a space inflow. Visually this twin may be Groombridge 1830, the nearest Population II star which is located 29.9 light-years away in Ursa Major. If so then future extra-solar planet searches should reveal that this twin has eight planets orbiting it, and they have the same periods as the solar system planets. They would be the mirror-matter twins of the solar-system planets. • Gravitationally, this mirror-matter twin is concentric with the Sun, since they are joined at their cores. As well every planet, including Earth, has a gravitational mirror-matter twin concentric with it. Each space body is strongly bound to its mirror-matter twin because they are joined at their cores, and their axial rotations are phase-locked by gravity. • So, Earth’s space-drain twin is attracted to the Sun’s space-drain twin, and their space fountain twins feel this attractive force indirectly because every space body is joined gravitationally to its own twin via their cores.

32. Conclusion: Flowing Space Gravity Theory Should Explain This Gravitational Anomaly Measured anomalous gravity residuals versus depth for a mine shaft (falling curve) and a Greenland ice cap borehole (rising curve)