Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

To: All

I have developed a theory of variable G which basically predicts that all objects thought to be less massive than the earth have in fact even less mass than constant G would predict, and conversely all objects more massive would be even heavier than we thought.

This theory would predict that Mars has the density of about 1.1, in other words, largely a water world. And massive ruptures of the thin crust from asteroid strikes would cause the observed water erosion on a large scale, not some past climate where Mars had a dense atmosphere and rainfall.

The theory also predicts that the Moon is hollow, and that the larger “gas giant” planets have more metallic content in their interiors (although still large amounts of methane in their thick atmospheres), and that the Sun is a largely solid object.

I am hoping that accidentally this theory will be proven one day. G is thought to be constant because it seems constant in earth laboratory experiments, but these remove all magnetic influences which I would propose are intermediate forms of variable G. So the experiments are going to miss the variability of G by eliminating any environment that represents it.

Ironically, the 19th century view was that the Sun was solid and that sunspots were areas of this solid core exposed to our view by magnetic disturbances removing the atmosphere of plasma. So why is the Sun so hot if solid? Its gravity attracts large numbers of energetic particles which then are repelled in magnetic storm episodes.

The hollow Moon theory is backed by observations of how moonquakes behave, the outer crust rings like a bell.

The other implication is that as you go to smaller and smaller scales of mass, G would locally be larger than we think (this is how variable G has to work, since we know the value of the product G x M). Since the electro-magnetic force is said to be many orders of magnitude stronger than gravitation, this is why — it is gravitation at that level.

I expect this will be discovered as a unified field theory eventually, whether in my lifetime or some later date, may take a century or many centuries. But when you think about it, why should there be two different forces, gravitation and electro-magnetism?


7 posted on 09/20/2019 8:45:47 PM PDT by Peter ODonnell (Take the next train to Marxville and I'll meet you at the camp)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies ]


To: Peter ODonnell

Whoa. Right when I’m trying to get to sleep. Now I’ll be up all night!


12 posted on 09/20/2019 9:13:58 PM PDT by FreeperCell
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies ]

To: Peter ODonnell

You state several parts to your “Theories” yet, in so stating you provide NO Empirical Evidence to back any of it up.

I am interested in your suppositions. So, please provide documented and peer reviewed scientific observations that support what you state here.

If I were to make statements such as you have made here or on ANY Forum I would provide links to peer reviewed documentation which gives some credence to my “Theories”.

Not busting your balls here. Just wish to understand if you are serious or, just spouting off on this forum for whatever reason.

Giving you the benefit of the doubt that you may be serious I am asking for empirical data or, peer reviewed theoretical data to back up your assertions.


19 posted on 09/20/2019 9:46:18 PM PDT by ocrp1982 (Lurking since the late 90's. Recently retired. No tagline yet.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies ]

To: Peter ODonnell
But when you think about it, why should there be two different forces, gravitation and electro-magnetism?

"I beheld the four winds, which bear up the earth, and the firmament of heaven." - Enoch, the great-grandfather of Noah, Book of Enoch, chapter 18, verse 3...

According to the present understanding, there are four fundamental interactions or forces [or winds]: gravitation, electromagnetism, the weak interaction, and the strong interaction.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fundamental_interaction

21 posted on 09/20/2019 9:51:06 PM PDT by amorphous
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies ]

To: Peter ODonnell
I am hoping that accidentally this theory will be proven one day. G is thought to be constant because it seems constant in earth laboratory experiments, but these remove all magnetic influences which I would propose are intermediate forms of variable G. So the experiments are going to miss the variability of G by eliminating any environment that represents it.

Why "accidentally?"

And: Has your theory been published anywhere? Or, if it hasn't yet been published: How have the various authorities in the field with whom you've discussed your theory responded?

Regards,

33 posted on 09/20/2019 11:08:20 PM PDT by alexander_busek (Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies ]

To: Peter ODonnell

Neither Mars nor the moon are what they seem: Mars is not a planet, and the Moon is not a moon. Both are gravity wave generators constructed a billion years ago which use planetary magnetic pulses for power. The moon generator has failed, but the Martian one continues operation; however, it no longer has data to broadcast, its creators having long passed from the scene: sublimed or otherwise moved on.


41 posted on 09/21/2019 4:02:05 AM PDT by PIF (They came for me and mine ... now it is your turn ...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies ]

To: Peter ODonnell

Dr. Oliver Manuel who served as the principle investigator in NASA’s lunar program, claimed the Sun is mostly an iron encrusted neutron star covered with a hydrogen atmosphere, formed of remnant materials from a supernova. Have fun.


71 posted on 09/21/2019 10:36:20 PM PDT by Ozark Tom
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson