Moving Pisa Leaning-Tower Experiment and a Review of my Research Work

Discussion in 'Physics & Math' started by humansave, Oct 18, 2007.

  1. humansave Registered Member

    Messages:
    13
    For over 90 years, a theory has never been verified by any physical experiment but regarded as truth for the explanation of astronomic phenomena and even the basis of the model of the whole universe. This theory is Einstein’s general relativity (GR). Very fortunately, NASA and Stanford University designed the first physical experiment to test GR. This is the satellite borne experiment of Gravity Probe B (GP-B) [1]. After more than 40 years of preparation, the experiment was finished whose results, however, will be announced in December of 2007. On 14 April 2007, at the American Physical Society (APS) meeting in Jacksonville, FL, a preliminary result was released with the graph (see below) which shows that Einstein is wrong!

    I call the graph Pre-graph (preliminary result graph). If Pre-graph is confirmed in the December, people will ask where Einstein is wrong? Scientists deify GR because its weak-gravity approximation is testified by astronomic observations of the solar system and a few extrasolar objects. GP-B experiment tests the same weak-gravity too but its results are very accurate. If Pre-graph is confirmed then we can say that general relativity (GR) is correct in the first order approximation and is wrong in the second order! The basic equation of GR is Einstein field equation which, therefore, is wrong too. This is hardly surprising because the equation contains great parts of speculation. Its basis is the concept of curved space-time which must be amended. Therefore, Newton’s gravitational law is the first-order result of gravitation, and the higher-order result must contain new law. GR does not include this new law and, therefore, does not generalize Newtonian theory.

    My suggestion of the new law is rotational gravity. This means that the rotational Earth produces not only the normal Newtonian gravity but also the additional gravity due to its rotation. Below I will propose a very simple physical experiment to testify the new gravity. This is also the most inexpensive physical test of GR! The experiment is called Moving Pisa Leaning-Tower experiment. Very fortunately, through the efforts of the past seven years, I made contributions to most important areas of astrophysics and cosmology in line with astronomic observations. Therefore, I give a simple account of the proposal of the experiment and a review of my previous research work, starting with my simple analytic model of galaxy patterns.

    1. Symmetry and Analytical Expression of Galaxy Patterns
    Human race is in the age of information and no result of scientific research could be hidden. Google Earth lets people at home see every corner of the Earth surface while Google Sky lets people see most observed objects and galaxies on the sky. These heavenly galaxies have charming patterns which are approximations of corresponding mass distributions and are the results of gravitational interaction. But general relativity (GR), the mainstream theory of gravity, is powerless for their recognition. This also suggests that GR has problem. From the end of 2000 to the end of 2005, I spent almost five years to identify the underlying symmetry and the corresponding analytical expression of galaxy patterns [2,3]. For example, the two-dimensional patterns of spiral galaxies are determined by the orthogonal nets of curves of exponential type. The symmetry is that the ratio of mass densities on two sides of a curve at any point is constant along the curve. This simple symmetry of exponential index is in line with all observational laws of spiral galaxies. Firstly, astronomical observations show that the optical density of spiral disks decreases exponentially in radial direction. My symmetry derives this law. Secondly, the arms of spiral galaxies are logarithmically curved. My symmetry derives this law too. Thirdly, regular spiral galaxies have only two types: normal and barred. My symmetry allows only the two solutions. Fourthly, barred galaxies show, more or less, a set of symmetric enhancements at the ends of the stellar bar, called ansae, or the ‘handles’ of the bar. My symmetry presents the required ansae. Fifthly, my symmetry explains the three-dimensional patterns of elliptical galaxies. This is really a miracle.

    2. Potential Application of Galaxy Pattern Symmetry on Earth Typhoon
    Nowadays, earth’s atmospheric pollution, environmental destruction, human-induced surface temperature increases, and climate changes have continued to worsen. The number of typhoons increases with their power strengthening. Anyone reading the satellite photos of typhoons could not resist suggesting the strong similarity between typhoons and spiral galaxies. Since the dynamical expressions of galaxies are found, is it possible to use the expression to study typhoons? I think it is very possible. Once typhoons are generated, their power is strengthened by various factors. However, if we know their formation mechanism, we can kill them in their cradles. Unfortunately, my expression of galactic dynamics is against the theory of general relativity, and I have neither fund nor opportunity to study typhoons.

    3. Galactic Dynamics and Rotation Curves
    My symmetry principle of galactic patterns leads naturally to galactic dynamics, and explains galaxy rotation curves [2]. A galaxy rotation curve is the radial variance of statistically averaging rotational speeds of the stars or other celestial bodies in the galaxy. General relativity once again is powerless for their explanation. The current galactic dynamics is based on Newtonian theory of gravity. Because the optical density of spiral galaxy disks decreases exponentially with radius, the rotation curves of galaxies would decrease too in accordance with Newton’s theory if galaxies consist of mainly luminous objects. Actual rotation curves, however, are either constant or increase with galaxy radius a little bit. To make both Newtonian theory and general relativity right at galaxy scales, relativists assume the existence of large amount of dark matters which surround galaxies so ingeniously that constant rotation curves are maintained. However, my galactic dynamics, which is based on pattern symmetry, explains galaxy rotation curves without the needs of dark matters. This is definitely not a coincidence. Therefore, there must exist some new law of gravity. GR does not include the new law and, of course, does not generalize Newtonian theory. I proposed this new law, the rotational gravity.

    4. Rotational Gravity and its Explanation to GP-B Preliminary Results (Pre-graph)
    My recent paper [4] is the interpretation of GP-B preliminary results (Pre-graph). The paper presents a new law of gravitation, the rotational gravity. This means that the rotational Earth produces not only the normal Newtonian gravity but also the additional gravity due to its rotation. The gravity is similar to Newtonian gravity, but is anisotropic. In the direction which is perpendicular to rotational axis, rotational gravity is the largest. Rotational gravity can explain GP-B preliminary results (Pre-graph) which deviate from the prediction of GR. Further, it is possibly the basis for the explanation of galactic constant rotational curves.

    5. Moving Pisa Leaning-Tower Experiment which Testifies Rotational Gravity and GR
    If GP-B preliminary result (Pre-graph) is confirmed, then GR must be wrong. My explanation is that GR does not include rotational gravity. In fact, we can make a very simple experiment to testify both GR and rotational gravity. This experiment is called Moving Pisa Leaning-Tower experiment. To obtain Earth mass, we usually measure gravitational acceleration on Earth’s surface. To measure the acceleration, we do what Galileo did by letting some objects freely fall from Pisa leaning-tower. Galileo found out that all objects of different masses hit the ground in the same time. That is, they have the same gravitational acceleration. To measure the exact value of this acceleration, we need only record the whole time interval of freely falling. However, Earth is always rotating and all our measurement is made in the non-inertial reference frame of rotation. The measured acceleration is the rotational-frame acceleration, and the corresponding mass is the rotational-frame earth mass. To get the inertial-frame acceleration, people usually add centrifugal acceleration to the rotational-frame one, according to Newtonian theory.

    The question is: can we build a true inertial reference frame of Earth in the meaning of Newton? The answer is yes. If we allow the Pisa leaning-tower move uniformly at the speed of 1286.57 km per hour in western direction (actually we let the experimental apparatus move), then the movement of leaning tower cancels out earth rotation, and the Pisa leaning-tower is the true inertial reference frame of Earth in the meaning of Newton. The gravitational acceleration measured by the moving Pisa tower is the inertial-frame acceleration on earth surface, and the corresponding mass is the inertial-frame earth mass. This is called moving Pisa leaning-tower experiment. Is this inertial-frame acceleration equal to the one obtained indirectly by static tower? The answer given by Newtonian theory and GR is that they are approximately equal with immeasurable difference. However, if rotational gravity exists, the difference is measurable in the same way that GP-B preliminary result (Pre-graph) differs from GR prediction by measurable amount. Pre-graph indicates that earth rotational gravity is smaller than Newton gravity by a factor of about 207. According to moving Pisa leaning-tower, Earth is rotating, rotating mass produces rotational gravity, and every object has additional weight. If the additional weight corresponds to exactly the additional geodetic effect seen on Pre-graph and confirmed in the coming December, then rotational gravity is verified.

    6. Significance of Rotational Gravity
    Theoretical significance: Rotational gravity is similar to Newtonian gravity, but is anisotropic. In the direction which is perpendicular to rotational axis, rotational gravity is the largest. This can explain many astronomical phenomena. From our solar system to galaxies, there are many kinds of planar mass distributions. Their centers are usually objects of large rotational masses, and the rotational axes are approximately perpendicular to the planes. This can be easily explained by rotational gravity. Perpendicular to the rotation axis, gravity is larger and attracts more materials. Therefore, the moon moves on Earth’s equatorial plane. Earth atmosphere gathers more air in the equatorial direction. Natural satellites and planetary rings are usually on the equator planes of corresponding planets. All planets move approximately on solar equatorial plane. However, Newtonian theory and general relativity (GR) can not explain these phenomena!

    Economic significance: Earth’s resources are limited. Today, more and more people use dynamical transportation. These transportation tools consume energy because they must overcome Earth’s gravity to do work. However, rotational gravity can be used to offset partially Earth’s gravity. For instance, on the top of any aircraft can be put a high-speed rotational mass. The rotational gravity produced by the mass can partially offset the earth gravity from beneath the aircraft. Because rotational gravity is squarely proportional to the rotational speed, rotational gravity can be comparable to aircraft weight if the speed is large enough.

    7. General Relativity View of Space-time vs. my View of Space-time
    General relativity view of space-time: GR is a theory of gravitation and the theory is very simple: in one sentence, gravity is curved space-time. Therefore, GR assumes that space-time is matter, a matter without mass and energy. In order to determine this strange matter, Einstein and his mathematician friends invented Einstein field equation to determine the strange matter. One side of the equation is the curvature of curved space-time while the other is the energy-momentum of real matters. It is straightforward to show that the equation is wrong. Einstein considered space-time to be physical. Therefore, curved space-time must have non-trivial topology as curved paper must have uneven shape. However, Einstein field equation has not the slightest relationship with topology. In other words, Einstein’s field equation can not determine curved space-time which Einstein sought. Einstein in his life did not find any other equation to determine his curved space-time. Therefore, Einstein’s space-time is independent of physical matters. The quantum mechanics of 20th century has given us a lesson: any physics concept independent of physical matters is usually wrong!

    My view of space-time: My view of space-time is based on true matter. Space is the extension of true matter while time is defined to be the real changes of real matters. Newton’s view of space-time is also built on real matters but he overlook the truth that causal relation has limited propagation speed. Therefore, Newton has the concept of absolute time. However, the values of my time and distance measurements are dependent on reference frames. Newton’s inertial reference frame is real moving body. For example, Earth’s inertial reference frame is the hypothetical Earth without its rotation. In fact, Earth’s inertial frame is not really a inertial frame because any test particle with respect to the frame is subject to Earth’s gravity. In real inertial frame, any test particle is either static or moving straightly at constant speed with respect to the frame. However, with further assumption that Earth mass were zero, the Newton inertial reference frame is my inertial frame of earth. In my inertial frame, any test particle is really static or moving straightly at constant speed with respect to the frame. Similarly, Newton’s solar inertial reference frame is my inertial frame of sun if we assume sun had zero mass. In the inertial frame of sun, any test particle is either static or moving straightly at constant speed with respect to the frame because solar mass were zero. Similarly, the Milky Way inertial reference frame of Newton is my inertial frame if we assume that Milky Way had zero mass. Therefore, my inertial reference frame is truly flat space-time! Then, how to describe Earth’s gravity by using the inertial reference frame of earth? According to classical mechanics, flat space-time description of gravity is a Lagrangian form. If there were no earth rotation, the Lagrangian form of earth gravity is a Schwarzschild metric form of general relativity. Because GR has no global inertial frame and curved space-time has infinite sets of mathematical coordinates which have no real meaning, Scharzschild metric has various expressions corresponding to the coordinate systems, such as the standard expression, isotropic expression, and so on. My theory of space-time always uses a flat inertial reference frame to describe gravity. For example, Earth’s gravity is expressed by the flat earth inertial frame. Therefore, a specific expression of Scharzschild metric is the Lagrangian form of earth gravity in my theory. Which is the expression? The answer is determined by experiments. I do not know the answer by now.

    At this point, you know that the metric form of general relativity which describes curved space-time is taken to be the Lagrangian form of gravity on flat space-time in my theory. It may seem that I am crazy. In fact, I am not crazy. If you have an objective view of GR and calm down to listen to my explanation, you will be able to understand me. In actual mathematical calculations, my Lagrangian form is the metric form which describes curved space-time, and most formulas of GR are carried over to my theory. However, my space-time is always curved locally with respect to a global flat space-time. For example, the curved space-time due to earth’s mass is locally curved with respect to the flat inertial frame of earth. Similarly, the curved space-time due to the mass of sun is locally curved with respect to the global flat inertial frame of sun. We now understand that my theory of gravity is formally the general theory of relativity if we accept one assumption that the whole universe itself constitutes an inertial reference system. This is the flat and absolute inertial system which sets the standard for all changes of matters in the universe. I proved that this unique inertial system does exist and it can explain astronomical observations without contradictions and without the needs of dark matters and dark energy. Because the mass distribution of the universe is locally uneven and there exists local hierarchical structure, the corresponding inertial reference frames constitute a hierarchical structure too. The values of time and distance measurements are dependent on reference frames, giving us a mathematical sense of curved space-time, and most formulations of general relativity can be carried over formally to my theory of gravity.

    In short, the major differences between general relativity view of space-time and my view of space-time are as follows. Firstly, the whole universe itself constitutes a flat background reference frame, and the local apparent structure of curved space-time is with respect to the flat background. Secondly, space-time, which is not true substances, is the mathematical impression of measurements with respect to inertial reference frames. Curved space-time, which is not true substances too, is the mathematical impression of measurement transformations between different reference frames. Thirdly, time basically does not exist. Anything measured is the changes of real matters, and the tool which performs measurement is itself a changing material. For example, the precise tool of measurement is generally the employment of electromagnetic waves. Time is the illusion of physical changes, and the evolving universe provides the most basic time. Fourthly, Einstein field equation is wrong which does not include rotational gravity.

    8. Quantum Gravity and the Law of Orbital Radii of Planets
    The classic theory of gravity which is not quantized can only describe the movement of single particle. Therefore, classical theory can not be used to describe a system of many bodies. One such system is the solar system. General relativity is still not quantized and, of course, can not be used to describe the distribution of planets in solar system. Any quantization scheme of a force must have an independent background space-time. This is because quantization must be based on an independent causal relation. Causal relation is in fact the background space-time. You can quantize a force but you can not quantize its causal relation. However, Einstein thought that gravity is the background space-time and background space-time is the gravity. This is why general relativity can not be quantized over 90 years. Over 90 years, how much money is consumed in the game of quantizing general relativity?
    continue in the following
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. humansave Registered Member

    Messages:
    13
    However, my theory of gravity always has a flat inertial frame as its background. For example, Earth’s gravity is expressed by the flat earth inertial frame and sun’s gravity is expressed by the flat inertial frame of sun. If you must use the mathematical concept of curved space-time, then the curved space-time due to earth’s mass is locally curved with respect to the flat inertial frame of earth, and the curved space-time due to the mass of sun is locally curved with respect to the global flat inertial frame of sun. Therefore, my theory of gravity can always be quantized: quantization with respect to the background flat spacetime. To this end, I only employ the classical scheme of covariant quantization. I do not introduce any new constant. My results on the quantization of sun’s gravity do explain the distribution of planets in solar system [5]. This is really a miracle!

    9. My Very Simple Model of the Universe [6]
    Since Einstein’s curved space-time of pure mathematical meaning does not exist, the universe must be flat. Will a flat universe made of physical matters be consistent and give results in line with astronomical observations?

    First, a flat universe should provide the unique and eternal reference frame. A universe without any reference frame is chaos, and no common standard is available for the measurement of any kind of changes. With a physical universe, how is the unique and eternal reference frame achieved? Newton’s definition of inertial frames is not applicable because objects of either static or uniform linear motion can not define a reference frame for the whole universe. The only possibility is that all objects in the universe tend to be static with respect to each other. Such decelerating movement also suggests an evolving universe.

    Second, the velocity of any object is not infinite. In any stage of the universe, particles of the largest velocity have zero mass. This condition and the one of uniform and isotropic universe require that the Lagrange form of particle motion in the universe depend on only two variables. Third, Hubble law requires that one variable be dependent on the other. Therefore, a flat universe has only one variable for its description. I call the variable cosmic one. The variance of the cosmic variable with the evolution time of the universe is either an increase or a decrease. The choice of increase (or decrease) must comply with all observational laws and there should be no contradiction! Fourth, flat universe has no expansion, and the cosmic redshift is gravitational one. Redshifts require that the change of cosmic variable with evolution time be increase. Fifth, astronomical observations show that the Hubble constant is not constant, but increases with the evolution time. This corresponds to the condition that the change of the cosmic variable is increase, a fact consistent to gravitational redshift. Sixth, the uniformity of the universe and the existence of horizon require that the change of photon speed with evolution time of the universe be decrease. This corresponds to the condition that the change of the cosmic variable is increase, a fact consistent to gravitational redshift once again. Seventh, a flat universe requires the unique and eternal reference frame. This corresponds to the condition that the change of the cosmic variable is increase, a fact consistent to gravitational redshift once again. No contradiction. Eighth, the average mass density of the universe decreases with the evolution time of the universe. This corresponds to the condition that the change of the cosmic variable is increase, a fact consistent to gravitational redshift once more. This is really a miracle! Should we believe in Big Bang theory?

    10. Social Significance of the Recognition that Time does not Exist
    Since the universe is flat, time which is simple but mysterious, does not exist. All are the changes of real matters. The evolution of the universe defines the absolute and eternal time. Local changes of matters have the evolution of the universe as a background. For example, the local space-time which is curved by a giant mass must be balanced by the flatness of the whole universe. Therefore, those kinds of extreme concepts of curved space-time, such as time machine, time tunnel, time reversal, space-time wormhole, black holes, Big Bang, etc. simply do not exist.

    We should admit that many of extreme human motivation and behavior are due to human’s mysterious fear of life and the universe. In essence, they are the results of human’s hallucinations of the monster, i.e., time. The final rescue of humans is to eliminate their mysterious fear of life and the universe, to seek their healthy changes, to avoid their destructive activities induced by their hallucinations, and finally to lead to the harmonic existence in physical nature.

    To test my theory, we wait for two more months for the final results of GP-B experiment, or we can perform the Moving Pisa Leaning-Tower experiment!

    [1] einstein.stanford.edu
    [2] arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0510535
    [3] arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0510536
    [4] arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0604084
    [5] arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0604084v4
    [6] arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0605213v4
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. humansave Registered Member

    Messages:
    13
    No comment?
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. 2inquisitive The Devil is in the details Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,181
    humansave,
    Why does your hypothesis not agree with the actual measurements made of Earth's gravitational field? For instance, it is widely known that effective sealevel gravity is less at the equator rather than at the poles. I speak of the equatorial bulge, of course. The distance from sealevel to the center of the Earth is greater at the equator than the same measurement at the poles. Why is this rotational gravity not apparent in the very accurately measured GPS satellite orbital data? The gravity at specific locations on the Earth's geoid has been measured very accurately by laser ranging from satellites. More advanced experiments, such as GRACE, have even greater detail:
    http://www.csr.utexas.edu/grace/asdp.html
     
  8. humansave Registered Member

    Messages:
    13
    Dear 2inquisitive,
    My idea is that at the same place in the same time there are two different gravities, one is measured by static Leaning-tower and the other is by the moving one at the same place. The usually assumed difference of the two is centrifugal force. My idea is that the difference is more than the assumed. However, the extra difference is small (about 1 in 207).

    Any measurement does not compare the different result in two different reference frames. GPS neither.

    I am reading your reference right now. Thanks.
     
  9. 2inquisitive The Devil is in the details Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,181
    humansave,
    Centrifugal force is a center-fleeing force. Gravity is a center-seeking force. Centrifugal force acts to offset measured gravitational attraction on the Earth's surface in the moving frame. This difference is greatest at the equator, as you stated. But gravity is measured at different points all over the surface of the Earth, not just at the equator or the Leaning Tower of Pisa. Centrifugal force plays no part in the measurement at Earth's poles, for example. The orbits of satellites above the Earth's surface are not affected by this centrifugal force, nor, apparently, by your hypothesized spin gravity. Polar orbiting satellites are not seen to 'dip down' in their orbits when passing over the equator. In fact, due to Earth's density at different locations, there are gravitational anomolies that do affect the orbits, Two of these anomolies are located near the equator, one over the Indian ocean and another over the Andes mountains (IIRC). These anomolies are areas in which satellites experience less gravitational acceleration than normal.

    By observing and measuring the orbits of satellites as they circle the Earth, very detailed data is collected about the Earth's gravity field. If there is any support for your idea of increased gravity at the equatorial plane due to rotation, it would be in that data. No moving towers of Pisa would be necessary.
     
  10. humansave Registered Member

    Messages:
    13
    Ok, I understand what you said. My idea is that the value of measured force depends on the reference frame by which you make the measurement. And more important, spin gravity depends on the value of earth angular velocity which the reference frame has measured. Usually people use static lab on earth surface to measure those values. In this static frame, however, there is no spin gravity!!
     
  11. 2inquisitive The Devil is in the details Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,181
    You have to remember that a reference frame is not a 'real' entity. They are artificial constructs to enable mathematical descriptions to be simpler. Many times in these forums, I have stated my dislike for inertial 'rest' frames because of the confusion they can cause. The surface measurement made in the static lab is taken in a moving frame of reference. The lab is rotating right along with the surface. The Earth does not stop rotating just because we draw an inertial frame in which the lab is at rest. The surface measurements made at the poles are not affected by the Earth's rotation. The satellites orbiting the Earth record the effects of Earth's gravity while the Earth is rotating.

    A slight error made in our measurements of gravity is not enough to eliminate the need for dark matter. When cosmologists calculate the mass of a galaxy other than our own, they consider not only the visible wavelengths, but also wavelengths that are not visible to optical telescopes. They can also detect clouds of hydrogen, estimate the mass of mesons, etc. when calculating the total mass. The result is often only about 1/4 the mass needed to keep the galaxy together at the measured rotation velocities. Thus, they say about 4% of the mass is 'normal' matter and over 20% is something that does not emit or absorb any lines in the electromagnetic spectrum. Those galaxies do not rotate like our solar system, in which the parts nearer the center of rotation complete an orbit much more quicky than those at the perimeter. Galaxies rotate more like a fixed disk, in which those stars about 3/4 of the way out from the center complete an orbit almost as quickly as those stars only 1/4 of the way out. Just adding additional gravity from rotation does not explain the rotational curves. That would only serve to make the galaxy rotate at a higher velocity, but would not explain why the stars more distant from the center complete one orbit in about the same length of time as those nearer the center.
     
  12. humansave Registered Member

    Messages:
    13
    You know that Newtonian theory is based on reference frames.
    Special Relativity is too.

    You can not neglect the dependency of measurements on reference frames.
     

Share This Page