Just where did you see a referance to force in GR? I never said that and I am well aware of how they claim GR functions. But it's gravity affect is still based on the center of mass. Testing shows gravity is not based on center of mass. So there you have it.
Testing shows gravity is not based on the center of mass? Is this true? Am I missing something? Please explain.
It is indeed true but needs to be duplicated by an independant source to verify. http://www.unikef-gravity.com/UniKV2/Gravtesting.htm
In your setup, you create a UniKEF "port" in your apparatus that affects the strength of gravity as measured on some test mass. This port, in effect, allows a UniFEF field to "flow" through or not depending on whether it is open or not. Do I read this correctly? If so, then would not masses of any kind, that came between one mass and another, cause a similar effect? To somehow enhance or impede the UniKEF field? If so, would this not be an obvious effect seen in large astronomical objects such as moons, planets, and stars obstructing the UniKEF field as they move between and around other objects?
Basically, but it doesn't turn it on or off, it merely attenuates the flux when closed causing a slight decrease in the time for the test mass to move. Yes again, it does and it has been measured many times by different researchers. http://www.science-frontiers.com/sf074/sf074a05.htm http://forrootbasic.51.net/wytk/xtwzh/chenshouyuan/inductiongravity/igtvgfdtse.htm CONFIRMED PREDICTIONS 2 - A "Gravity Shadow" should be found in relation to other massive bodies coupled by gravity. A shadow is now known to exist and no other theory of gravity satisfactorily explains it. The Geodetic Institute in Frankfurt, Germany measured a 4.28E-9 deviation in gravity during a Lunar eclipse in Norway in 1954. A mechanical view via UniKEF yields results of 4.2E-9 deviation predicted. The Institute granted permission for publication of UniKEF including their work as Chapter 7 - See "History", "Permission to Publish".
Fascinating effect. I had no idea it existed. Here's an alternative explanation: http://www.eclipse2006.boun.edu.tr/sss/paper01.pdf
Thanks. Note that it may well be a contributing factor but doesn't explain the overall affect. According to Tom's paper it is only 1/100,000th of the total pendulum affect. In the case of an eclipse the bodies form a complex macroscopic shift in the components of their individual gravity over an extended period of time. In my test the change is relativily sudden being a response in the change of the geometry presented to the flux. The change is primarily only that component which trigometrically equals 1.000 or is along the line of gravity and is not part of a larger change in flux interception by the two or more masses duriong an extended period of eclipse. http://www.sciforums.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=3838&stc=1
As has been pointed out before, the UniKEF explaination does not jive with what is observed as the pendulum effect. Under push gravity, you would not have two dips as observed, but one.
Not pointed out before and if pointed out totally unsupported conjecture. Look at the overlaping CoS's, UniKEF indeed predicts pertabation(s) not a single event.. http://www.sciforums.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=3838&stc=1 As measurement improves you will find other undulations besides the leading and lagging dips. Also the mass of the pendulum takes time to be affected by such minor force changes. This is why the graphics in UniKEF show multiple undulations (pertabation's') and not a singular event. If you understood UniKEF you would know the primary transitions at the onset and termination would be most evident. http://www.sciforums.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=3873&stc=1 You are typically talking through your hat about something you know little or nothing about.