The Allais Effect Solved

[Bjarne]

 

1.) So what's the equation that tells you the size of the effect?

 

2.) You have the sun at angles other than 0º with respect to the earth. That's not fixed.

 

1.

If you see the sun at angles other than 0º with respect to the earth (in one of the 2 last images) it was not intentional, - still the points in these images such be clear.

 

2.

How to calculate the upwards acceleration is shown by the illustration below, the essence is, at which atitude level (position of the Moon) will the Allais effect reach maximum.

Based on the available data it can be between 4000 and 6500 km above the Sun / Earth axis, which correspond to between 20 and 45μGal..

[swansont]

 

How to calculate the upwards acceleration is shown by the illustration below, the essence is, at which atitude level (position of the Moon) will the Allais effect reach maximum.

Based on the available data it can be between 4000 and 6500 km above the Sun / Earth axis, which correspond to between 20 and 45μGal..

 

 

 

What happens above 6500 km?

 

All you've shown here is (incorrectly) calculated accelerations from the moon. Where does this alleged DFA come into the calculations?

[Bjarne]

 

1.

What happens above 6500 km?

 

2.

All you've shown here is (incorrectly) calculated accelerations from the moon. Where does this alleged DFA come into the calculations?

 

1.

When the Moon is more than 6500 km (radius) above ecliptic, the moon will also accelerate the test body upwards,(depending on where the test body is off course) - finally to such extend that the test body will not feel any exposed DFA.

Almost all Allais Effect anomalies are measured by pendulums.

These are very limit and bad instruments to use, mainly because; - to have a significant result the DFA interaction axis and the DFAS axis must be more or less parallel.

If this not is the case (because measurement take place too much north) – the results will be weaker, simply because the upwards acceleration of the Earth also will affect the test body (indirectly).

In short , pendulum will not reveal the full range of exposed DFA when used too much north.

So we can only guess how much stronger than 20 to 30μGal, this anomaly really is.

It can very well be 50μGal.

Combined relative / absolute gravimeter measurement very much north, - can meassure a much larger range and therefore meassure the influence of all exposed DFA / moon combinations, regardless whether the moon is 25 km or 6500 km above the ecliptic.

 

2.

Allais effect is about exposing DFA. So long everything is accelerating towards the same direction DFA cannot be measured.

To be able to meassure DFA there is only 1 option, and this is

A. The Earth must accelerate opposite DFA (the moon must prevent the Earth to follow DFA)

B. BUT the moon must not prevent the test body to follow DFA ..

I would be happy if you would tell why the calculated, - upwards acceleration of the Earth - is wrong..

Edited June 23, 2017 by Bjarne

[swansont]

1.

When the Moon is more than 6500 km (radius) above ecliptic, the moon will also accelerate the test body upwards,(depending on where the test body is off course) - finally to such extend that the test body will not feel any exposed DFA. [/size]

Almost all Allais Effect anomalies are measured by pendulums.[/size]

These are very limit and bad instruments to use, mainly because; - to have a significant result the DFA interaction axis and the DFAS axis must be more or less parallel.

If this not is the case (because measurement take place too much north) – the results will be weaker, simply because the upwards acceleration of the Earth also will affect the test body (indirectly).

In short , pendulum will not reveal the full range of exposed DFA when used too much north.[/size]

So we can only guess how much stronger than 20 to 30μ[/size]Gal, this anomaly really is.

It can very well be 50μ[/size]Gal.

Combined relative / absolute gravimeter measurement very much north, - can meassure a much larger range (the whole radius of the Earth) and therefore meassure the influence of all exposed DFA combinations, regardless whether the moon is 25 km or 6500 km above the ecliptic.[/size]

 

So you don't know, but you should be able to make predictions based on how big the DFA is. That would be testable. Something resembling science.

 

 

I would be happy if you would tell why the calculated, - upwards acceleration of the Earth - is wrong..

 

You are dividing 90º by an angle, rather than doing trigonometry. We've discussed this already.

[Bjarne]

 

1.) So you don't know, but you should be able to make predictions based on how big the DFA is. That would be testable. Something resembling science.

 

2.) You are dividing 90º by an angle, rather than doing trigonometry. We've discussed this already.

 

1.) There is no way to predict the full range of that effect, based on pendulum measurement, - the earth is simply too small. Only measurement by the mentioned gravimeter setup can certainly solve that question. To my opiun the DFA peaks by 30 to 40μgal, but it would not surpise me if it is peaking at 50μgal, we have no way knowing that without using the mentioned new experiment.

 

2.) OK I see, thanks a lot for your time, now it much better fits to my expectation as well.

 

Edited June 23, 2017 by Bjarne

[swansont]

I didn't ask for a prediction based on measurement. You have proposed a mechanism. Can't you predict based on theory?

[Bjarne]

I didn't ask for a prediction based on measurement. You have proposed a mechanism. Can't you predict based on theory?

 

Calculation of the force it is also mentioned in the article.. Ref [11] + [12]

I can look up the page number of REF (11) if you want and if you have access to the book

Maurice Allais have calculated the unknown force to be at the minus 7 scale, I agree to that this is the correct scale (as you can see), - but (to my opinion) it is simply too early to predict the full force of DFA magnitude. I mean whether is on the, middle or high end of that scale.

( I 90% sure it’s on the middle)

If you want to have all this 100% accurate, - you have to take serveral factors into consideration...

• the swing direction of the pendulum, and whether the operator was compensating for the rotaion of Earth
• the position of the test body
• the tilt of the Earth (relative to the DFA / the interaction axis)
• the rotation of earth

This is not a piece of cake.

I have chosen just to accept that YES we have (only) a rough model, based on controversial measurement devices.

From now on better, use time on preparations for using modern measurement methods.

Everyone will immediately understand whether prediction and reality are consistent.

Even if I would use a lot of time on trying to extract a little more precise model, - I am not sure that would impress anyone.

Predicted significant gravity experiment that can be repeated and predicted repeatedly, is the only way.

So as I see it further refining the magnitude, is really waste of time. Still the Allais effect will be considered as controversial / speculation, and will be ignored.

 

You also have 2 gravitational anomalies, [9] [10] but relative weak. However, one is on the minus 7 scale.

These only reveal sudden change, - not the underlying the long-term (20 hours) influence.

The reason is that it is (complicated /impossible) (now today) to distinguish what was possible (long term) calibration problems, possible ocean tide influence, (no data) and in fact what was caused by “unknown cause”

For example a team measuring on Greenland have sometimes a 10μgal “unknown factor” that cannot be addressed. In addition to that, bad position and wrong type of instruments also play a major role. You can impossible get that right.

 

To my opinion, there are so many “challenges” and unknown factors by analyzing the available data.

Better accept, (as I do), that we now only have a very rough model, and that the task is, fastest possible 1.) to use the best possible measurement setup the theory now have uncovered – 2.) The perfect place - 3). With open eyes fine-tune measure what we are up against. 4.) Predict and repeat that setup repeatedly, until there are no more doubt and no more questions. A combined gravimeter setup the 20 of August can within 24 hours confirm or reject whether this theory is correct. By repeating we can do minor fine-tune during the years to come.

 

[9] D. C. Mishra and M. B. S. Vyaghreswara Rao, “Temporal variation in gravity field during solar eclipse on 24 October 1995,” Current Science, vol. 72, no. 11, pp. 782–783, Jun. 1997.

[10] Yang, Xin-She; Wang, Qian-Shen Gravity Anomaly During the Mohe Total Solar Eclipse and New Constraint on Gravitational Shielding Parameter http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2002Ap&SS.282..245Y

[11] Maurice Allais L'ANISOTROPIE DE L'ESPACE (page 206-212) http://ether-wind.narod.ru/Allais_1997/Allais_1997_1.pdf

[12] Jean-Bernard DELOLY- 22/04/2016 “Continuation given to Maurice Allais's experimental works State of the situation (2015)” http://www.fondationmauriceallais.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/05/situation_allais_2015-trad.pdf

Edited June 24, 2017 by Bjarne

[swansont]

Calculation of the force it is also mentioned in the article.. Ref [11] + [12]

I can look up the page number of REF (11) if you want and if you have access to the book

Maurice Allais have calculated the unknown force to be at the minus 7 scale, I agree to that this is the correct scale (as you can see), - but (to my opinion) it is simply too early to predict the full force of DFA magnitude. I mean whether is on the, middle or high end of that scale.

( I 90% sure it’s on the middle)

 

If you want to have all this 100% accurate, - you have to take serveral factors into consideration...

• the swing direction of the pendulum, and whether the operator was compensating for the rotaion of Earth
• the position of the test body
• the tilt of the Earth (relative to the DFA / the interaction axis)
• the rotation of earth

This is not a piece of cake.

 

 

The period of a pendulum depends on g, and g is varying in a predictable way, according to you. Somewhat complicated or not, you should have a model.

 

What does "minus 7 scale" mean?

 

I have chosen just to accept that YES we have (only) a rough model, based on controversial measurement devices.

You should be comparing your model to the measurements, not basing it on them. The measurements would only give you the value of the one unknown.

 

From now on better, use time on preparations for using modern measurement methods.

Everyone will immediately understand whether prediction and reality are consistent.

But you haven't really made a prediction, since you have no finished model.

 

Even if I would use a lot of time on trying to extract a little more precise model, - I am not sure that would impress anyone.

Predicted significant gravity experiment that can be repeated and predicted repeatedly, is the only way.

So as I see it further refining the magnitude, is really waste of time. Still the Allais effect will be considered as controversial / speculation, and will be ignored.

Since what you've presented thus far implies that the effect should be present on a daily basis for up to half of the lunar cycle, I would say that people won't be impressed because this isn't observed, and the concept is already falsified.

 

 

You also have 2 gravitational anomalies, [9] [10] but relative weak. However, one is on the minus 7 scale.

These only reveal sudden change, - not the underlying the long-term (20 hours) influence.

The reason is that it is (complicated /impossible) (now today) to distinguish what was possible (long term) calibration problems, possible ocean tide influence, (no data) and in fact what was caused by “unknown cause”

For example a team measuring on Greenland have sometimes a 10μgal “unknown factor” that cannot be addressed. In addition to that, bad position and wrong type of instruments also play a major role. You can impossible get that right.

 

To my opinion, there are so many “challenges” and unknown factors by analyzing the available data.

Better accept, (as I do), that we now only have a very rough model, and that the task is, fastest possible 1.) to use the best possible measurement setup the theory now have uncovered – 2.) The perfect place - 3). With open eyes fine-tune measure what we are up against. 4.) Predict and repeat that setup repeatedly, until there are no more doubt and no more questions. A combined gravimeter setup the 20 of August can within 24 hours confirm or reject whether this theory is correct. By repeating we can do minor fine-tune during the years to come. [/size]

Again, there's nothing you've presented that requires an eclipse. No reason to restrict yourself to an eclipse.

[Bjarne]

 

What does "minus 7 scale" mean?

 

 

For exsample 0.0000005m/s^2

 

 

You should be comparing your model to the measurements, not basing it on them. The measurements would only give you the value of the one unknown.

I do not agree, it’s too early to make a model, better make the model, so soon you have best possible data, - these data can be available within 2 month. Instead of wasting time on something you already know not will be perfect based on the bad data we have now. - For example a model will never be able to predict the magnitude of DFA. But if the combine gravity measurement is done first, then and first then you have perfect data to predict a lot more for the future based on a model. Why make a model today, and scrap it after 8 weeks ?

 

 

But you haven't really made a prediction, since you have no finished model.

 

I have predicted that a relative gravimeter and an absolute gravimeter will measure a deviation between, - 35μgal and 50μgal, - if the measurement take place by the correct solar eclipse, and is place the right place.

I have also predicted that this will come as a huge surprise, no one will expect that. This will show that we must have a significant acceleration pointing south. _ I have to correct the anomaly can only be measure within a range of 20 to 24 hours.

After that is done, I have also predicted that we can really forget everything about pendulums, - and model based on pendulum, simply because after modern measurement is done for the first time , old methods is immediately old fashioned.

 

 

Since what you've presented thus far implies that the effect should be present on a daily basis for up to half of the lunar cycle, I would say that people won't be impressed because this isn't observed, and the concept is already falsified.

 

I don't understand how you have come to that conclution ??

 

 

 

Again, there's nothing you've presented that requires an eclipse. No reason to restrict yourself to an eclipse.

 

If there were no solar (or lunar) eclipse, you would not get enought upwards acceleration of the Earth to expose DFA.

Fig. A and B, - shows that four hours after a solar eclipse the Earth has moved 4000 km whereby the angle to the moon and therefore also the upwards acceleration has declined 50% compared to the solar eclipse position of Earth. Eight hours later angle and upwards acceleration is reduced to 25%. The same thing happens before solar eclipse. In addition to that the moon is also either declining or inclining during that period, this will also effect the anomaly and must also be taken into consideration.

 

In short, - the resulting force will only point 100% upwards exact when the max solar eclipse take place, after that the angle of the resulting force will decline, - tilt

 

ONLY by solar eclipse, you will have straight upwards resulting force. By (almost) all other similar configuration, the force will not be pointing upwards, - but much more vertical than upwards. This is why (some) solar (and lunar) eclipse are unique to expose DFA, and why many other configurations (where the moon also is about 4000km above the Earth) , - is bad.

 

This image also illustrate the moon 4000 km above the Earth, but the resulting force is almost 100% horizontal, - not vertical , - and therefore such configuration is useless.

Edited June 24, 2017 by Bjarne

[Mordred]

I have a question. Do you truly wish to convince the professional community you have solved the alias effect?

If your answer is no then ignore this post.

 

If your answer is yes then apply what is stated in this post.

 

1) Do the math

2) show the math

3) graph the math and compare to the alias measurements.

 

Without those steps your done.

 

When I read a proof of a kinematic dynamic. I don't bother even reading the words or bother with the pictures.

I immediately start looking for the formulas and graphs etc. If that paper has none.

I literally ignore it as incomplete and not properly examined.

Any physicist would do the same. The words have little meaning. The images provided to help explain the idea are just an aid.

 

The math is the meat. Every claimed effect must be mathematically modelled. Then compared to measurements. No paper will get far in the professional community without that predictive ability.

 

Yes it is work, however the Newtonian/Keplar formulas are not that complex. The diligence to proper methodology will be reflected in math. Not images and words.

Edited June 24, 2017 by Mordred

[Bjarne]

I have a question. Do you truly wish to convince the professional community you have solved the alias effect?

If your answer is no then ignore this post.

 

If your answer is yes then apply what is stated in this post.

 

1) Do the math

2) show the math

3) graph the math and compare to the alias measurements.

 

Without those steps your done.

 

When I read a proof of a kinematic dynamic. I don't bother even reading the words or bother with the pictures.

 

I immediately start looking for the formulas and graphs etc. If that paper has none.

 

I literally ignore it as incomplete and not properly examined.

 

Any physicist would do the same. The words have little meaning. The images provided to help explain the idea are just an aid.

 

The math is the meat. Every claimed effect must be mathematically modelled. Then compared to measurements. No paper will get far in the professional community without that predictive ability.

All you need is upwards acceleration of the Earth, and not of the test body

It is there

[Mordred]

Then mathematically show it applies for the required duration as well as the required force on the pendulum that demonstrates the alias effect.

 

Hence the graphs.

Edited June 24, 2017 by Mordred

[Bjarne]

Then mathematically show it applies for the required duration as well as the required force for that duration.

 

Hence the graphs.

[Mordred]

Great now what formulas did you apply for force and the vector summation rules and why are they not included in the paper ?

 

You have a 3 body problem, you need to show the details behind your posted calculations for your acceleration term.

 

If I am examining a paper. I want to do the calculations myself and be able to confirm your values given for acceleration. For that I would need to see your methodology of how you arrived at those numbers.

Those are the details that must be in your paper. Obviously I know the related formulas. As a publisher you cannot assume every reader does.

I question those values given so I wish to confirm them. I should have the ability to do so from the provided details in your paper. The methodology I would use, would not reflect the methodology your paper uses. Without knowing your mathematical methodology and values used ie distance and mass etc and the specific formulas you applied we cannot arrive at the same values.

 

I as the examiner/reader cannot confirm the values you provided unless you provide the essential details.

 

(Including those details also allows the reader to judge your knowledge on the subject and give greater trust in your mathematical accuracy). You need to establish that you have correctly applied Keplers laws in the above 3 body problem.

 

Lets make this simple... I am some random reader. Which paper would I place more trust in. Yours are one that includes the formulas on alias and eclipses. Ie example below.

 

https://www.google.ca/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=http://www.faidherbe.org/~foucault/fichiers/pdf/theorie_allais_articles_Flandern_Yang.pdf&ved=0ahUKEwiProSzgdfUAhXjxYMKHbZVDT0QFgghMAI&usg=AFQjCNExnNGD1cV0h1Zy_1_dLEtJQ8YU4A

 

Do you believe your paper meets the standards set in this random googled searched pdf that took less than 30 seconds?

 

I for one would trust this paper over yours without question. Then I would look to confirm the paper I just posted. To me as the reader your paper is now forgotten.

 

(keep in mind your claiming you solved the problem) So you better meet or exceed the standards of good examination of competing solutions already out there.

 

Here is what I would call a good paper in terms of proper methodology.

 

https://www.google.ca/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=http://cds.cern.ch/record/999051/files/0610197.pdf&ved=0ahUKEwie_NeEjdfUAhWo6oMKHYD-D_g4FBAWCCIwAQ&usg=AFQjCNF35cISQHSYXgFinLycPmV8E-ArNg

 

This last paper is in competition with yours. So you need to be more convincing in detail and proofs to compete against such papers.

Edited June 24, 2017 by Mordred

[Bjarne]

Great now what formulas did you apply for force and the vector summation rules and why are they not included in the paper ?

 

You have a 3 body problem, you need to show the details behind your posted calculations for your acceleration term.

 

If I am examining a paper. I want to do the calculations myself and be able to confirm your values given for acceleration. For that I would need to see your methodology of how you arrived at those numbers.

Those are the details that must be in your paper. Obviously I know the related formulas. As a publisher you cannot assume every reader does.

I question those values given so I wish to confirm them. I should have the ability to do so from the provided details in your paper. The methodology I would use, would not reflect the methodology your paper uses. Without knowing your mathematical methodology and values used ie distance and mass etc and the specific formulas you applied we cannot arrive at the same values.

 

I as the examiner/reader cannot confirm the values you provided unless you provide the essential details.

 

(Including those details also allows the reader to judge your knowledge on the subject and give greater trust in your mathematical accuracy). You need to establish that you have correctly applied Keplers laws in the above 3 body problem.

 

Lets make this simple... I am some random reader. Which paper would I place more trust in. Yours are one that includes the formulas on alias and eclipses. Ie example below.

 

https://www.google.ca/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=http://www.faidherbe.org/~foucault/fichiers/pdf/theorie_allais_articles_Flandern_Yang.pdf&ved=0ahUKEwiProSzgdfUAhXjxYMKHbZVDT0QFgghMAI&usg=AFQjCNExnNGD1cV0h1Zy_1_dLEtJQ8YU4A

 

Do you believe your paper meets the standards set in this random googled searched pdf that took less than 30 seconds?

 

I for one would trust this paper over yours without question. Then I would look to confirm the paper I just posted. To me as the reader your paper is now forgotten.

 

(keep in mind your claiming you solved the problem) So you better meet or exceed the standards of good examination of competing solutions already out there.

 

Here is what I would call a good paper in terms of proper methodology.

 

https://www.google.ca/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=http://cds.cern.ch/record/999051/files/0610197.pdf&ved=0ahUKEwie_NeEjdfUAhWo6oMKHYD-D_g4FBAWCCIwAQ&usg=AFQjCNF35cISQHSYXgFinLycPmV8E-ArNg

 

Please read this thread from the beginning, few post is about how to calculate the acceleration, it take less than 10 minutes to check the calculation if you know how to do it, if you are used to it maybe only 2 minutes. Just use a calculator. All the data to enter is in the image. I am sure that these are correct. You are welcome to check

[Mordred]

I think you missed the point. Look at the detail of applied examination of the two papers I posted.

 

Then ask why believe yours is more accurate? How do you show it is more accurate than the two above papers?

 

You are stating you have the solution, the two papers are competing solutions.

 

So compete with them. Show greater accuracy.

 

Secondly if you had these details Swansont would not be asking the questions he/she has been asking.

 

 

How short? Why for a short period?

for example

 

Can you replicate the the precise characteristic in figure 1 of the last link? or the measured variation in figure 1 of the first link. What dataset of readings can you simulate?

 

These are some datasets that are applicable. As such you need to either apply or compete against them. Particularly as you have referenced both of them.

 

Lol I would find it lacking that you had in your references a measured pendulum motion dataset but cannot show how your model could predict that particular graph.

You don't even reference any hydrodynamic equations as per the first article. Yet your describing dark flow but do not mathematically describe this dark flow.

Edited June 24, 2017 by Mordred

[Bjarne]

I think you missed the point. Look at the detail of applied examination of the two papers I posted.

 

Then ask why believe yours is more accurate? How do you show it is more accurate than the two above papers?

 

You are stating you have the solution, the two papers are competing solutions.

 

So compete with them. Show greater accuracy.

 

Secondly if you had these details Swansont would not be asking the questions he/she has been asking.

for example

 

Can you replicate the the precise characteristic in figure 1 of the last link? or the measured variation in figure 1 of the first link. What dataset of readings can you simulate?

 

These are some datasets that are applicable. As such you need to either apply or compete against them. Particularly as you have referenced both of them.

 

Lol I would find it lacking that you had in your references a measured pendulum motion dataset but cannot show how your model could predict that particular graph.

A relative gravimeter was used in China, and the wrong place, therefore the anomaly was so weak

[Mordred]

Oh I see so which dataset of pendulum anomoly are you using? Can your model predict that measured dataset.

 

Lets see the pendulum will have an slight inclination toward the moon. Of course it will I don't your tide data to know that.

 

Where are you defining the specifics of the Allais effect and your simulation of such? As in the measured variations at those points in your paper being simulated by your data over time.

 

However throughout your paper not once have you described the Allais experiment as done by Allais. Where do you correlate the difference in movements between a Foucalt and a paraconical pendulum?

 

 

Here.

 

https://www.google.ca/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=http://www.allais.info/alltrans/nasareport.pdf&ved=0ahUKEwiA6KLqwNfUAhXI6YMKHVBQBDcQFggmMAI&usg=AFQjCNFgdGggLseSailGDty2lfMAyrV8ig

 

here is a paper on it by Allais.

Edited June 24, 2017 by Mordred

[Bjarne]

I have a question. Do you truly wish to convince the professional community you have solved the alias effect?

If your answer is no then ignore this post.

 

If your answer is yes then apply what is stated in this post.

 

1) Do the math

2) show the math

3) graph the math and compare to the alias measurements.

 

Without those steps your done.

 

When I read a proof of a kinematic dynamic. I don't bother even reading the words or bother with the pictures.

I immediately start looking for the formulas and graphs etc. If that paper has none.

I literally ignore it as incomplete and not properly examined.

Any physicist would do the same. The words have little meaning. The images provided to help explain the idea are just an aid.

 

The math is the meat. Every claimed effect must be mathematically modelled. Then compared to measurements. No paper will get far in the professional community without that predictive ability.

 

Yes it is work, however the Newtonian/Keplar formulas are not that complex. The diligence to proper methodology will be reflected in math. Not images and words.

I have nothing to add to Marius Allais paper. I think based on the explained DFA all behaviors of different pendulums are very logical. If there still is anything specific, you believe still is a mystery you are welcome to mention that specific problem and I will do what I can to answer you.

My mission is mainly to show you:

• the direction of the responsible force / acceleration
• the estimated magnitude based on today’s data
• how to measure the the total magnitude of the force / acceleration (given that it less than 55μGal)
• the duration of the anomaly
• how fast the anomaly inclines and declines
• how to measure it without being blindfolded
• the most effective experiment of measurement
• where measurement not should be taken
• why the (full force of) Allais Effect only can be detected by (some) solar , and (some) lunar eclipse, - notice (some) Lunar Eclipse will give same result as (some) Solar eclipse, (if the angle to the moon is the same) - except the force is just 0.88% weaker compared to solar eclipse
• why several times gravity measurement failed to detect the Allais Effect while pendulums did not..

The test body inside a relative gravimeter is connected to the gravimeter and therefore also connected to the Earth; therefore, such test body is never free to measure an acceleration different from the acceleration frame of the Earth. The best position to measure DFA is exactly opposite DAF, with mean Artic, - and this is the place where a relative instrument included the test body inside, (almost) 100% follows the upward acceleration of Earth. – The exact opposite ( can by the correct Earth Moon configuration) be the case with free fall test body inside an absolute gravimeter (in Artic). There are relative few absolute gravimeter in the world, these are very expensive (and heavy) .

Edited June 25, 2017 by Bjarne

[swansont]

 

My mission is mainly to show you:

 

• the duration of the anomaly
• how fast the anomaly inclines and declines
• ...
• why the (full force of) Allais Effect only can be detected by (some) solar , and (some) lunar eclipse, - notice (some) Lunar Eclipse will give same result as (some) Solar eclipse, (if the angle to the moon is the same) - except the force is just 0.88% weaker compared to solar eclipse

 

 

When are you going to get around to these? I've been asking about them.

[Mordred]

Really I don't see those values you mentioned at all. Why do you think we mentioned showing them?

 

However now I am curious what you are defining as the Alais effect if you are not using any data measuring the Allais effect.

 

What exactly is the duration and characteristics of the Allais effect according to you if your not using any of the commonly known datasets measuring this effect?

 

I've now posted several datasets asking if you can model those measured values.

 

Your answer is no you can't so how how can you possibly claim to have solved the problem????? when you cannot show how your model leads to the measurements taken...

 

 

Its amazing how you missed one major issue. Each paper I posted included an Allais effect graph. Each graph shows variation in values over time. Yet your paper only provides a single value.

 

Why? and how is that even possible? Do you even understand the Allais effect??? Your paper and responses on this thread tells me no you don't understand the Allais effect.

 

Rather amazing that you didn't even understand the papers you referenced. Though don't ask me why you would reference papers on dark flow (universe) when your paper is discussing the Allais effect on Earth. What did you do look for key words and figure that is good enough?

 

Your conclusion in your paper doesn't even describe your findings in the paper. It literally has unsupported conclusions (unsupported as per your paper).

[*]the direction of the responsible force / acceleration

 

Yippee so you give us a single value that supposedly explains a graph with varying values over time. Why would I need your paper to apply Newtons gravitational law, and a basic single force vector calculation when you cannot show how it produces any known dataset measuring the Allais effect?

 

Alright fine you included tide data, which you used to calculate the 35 Us gal value you gave and stated this value represents the Allais effect.

 

 

I as the reader isn't asking how much water is displaced. I as the reader is asking how much the pendulum moved yet your solution contains a value of water displacement. How does does that apply to the pendulum?

How is that single value pertain to pendulum movements over time.?

 

If I am A researcher looking for detailed information on the Allais effect. Your paper does me absolutely no good. I already know the formulas you applied. I already know the moon affects tides.

 

You claim to predict where the effect occurs yet cannot simulate the dynamics of the effect. Sorry doesn't work for me.

 

Fine lets skip over this. Prove to me you understand the experiment itself.

 

Provide me the Airy effect formula that Maurice Allais refers to in his paper for a paraconical pendulum.

 

Yes this formula exists. What type of velocity movement on the pendulum does this describe linear or rotational?

 

Use your model and demostrate you can simulate the paraconical pendulum motion described by

 

[latex]\omega=\Omega_{foucalt}+\Omega_{airy}(\frac{1}{2}sin(2\omega T+\chi)[/latex]

 

which is the empirical pendulum motion described by Allais.

 

If you cannot generate that empirical relation you have effectively proven you have NOT SOLVED the Allais effect.

Edited June 25, 2017 by Mordred

[Bjarne]

 

 

When are you going to get around to these? I've been asking about them.

If there were no solar (or lunar) eclipse, you would not get enought upwards acceleration of the Earth to expose DFA.

Fig. A and B, - shows that four hours after a solar eclipse the Earth has moved 4000 km whereby the angle to the moon and therefore also the upwards acceleration has declined 50% compared to the solar eclipse position of Earth. Eight hours later angle and upwards acceleration is reduced to 25%. The same thing happens before solar eclipse. In addition to that the moon is also either declining or inclining during that period, this will also effect the anomaly and must also be taken into consideration.

In short, - the resulting force will only point 100% upwards exact when the max solar eclipse take place, after that the angle of the resulting force will decline, - tilt

ONLY by solar eclipse, you will have straight upwards resulting force. By (almost) all other similar configuration, the force will not be pointing upwards, - but much more vertical than upwards. This is why (some) solar (and lunar) eclipse are unique to expose DFA, and why many other configurations (where the moon also is about 4000km above the Earth) , - is bad.

This image also illustrate the moon 4000 km above the Earth, but the resulting force is almost 100% horizontal, - not vertical , - and therefore such configuration is useless.

[Mordred]

Where is the duration of the effect, what is the value of [latex]\chi[/latex] Allias effect offset on the Airy precession. during each second of the eclipse. How are you isolating the Coriollis precession?

 

How are you isolating the Foucalt precession?

 

How does what you just posted apply to [latex]\chi[/latex]

 

I think you have already answered my concern. You have absolutely no clue what is actually being described as the Allais effect.

 

Instead you are trying to use that experiment to support your dark force acceleration without understanding the Allais experiment.

 

Particularly since it specifically describes the effect on a pendulum.....which at no point in time do you describe.

 

What your paper is really about is DFA not the Allais effect. Hence your conclusion in your paper.

 

"Much evidence (including Dark Flow) is pointing to an anisotropic acceleration (and motion) of (at least) a large part of the Universe being a reality. Although one might think that such significant acceleration is utopia, because everything then must reach speed c, then keep in mind that we also know that it requires ever more energy to maintain constant acceleration (in empty space). There may very well be a few more lessons to learn. "

Which has very little to do with the specifics behind the Allais effect.

 

Nice try on the cover up with your article title. "The Allais effect solved" when you don't even describe the Allais effect within your paper.

 

For shame how dishonest.

 

tell me did the statement "anistropy of space" That Allais refers to not have any meaning to you??? Or did you simply think that somehow supports your DFA model attempt?

 

If so then tell me how your 35 Us/gal value gives a rotation of movement (angular momemtum not linear) in the Allais experiment. Which specifically describes the velocity of ROTATION along the plane of oscillation.

 

Show how your model will generate the required rotation. of the Allais experiment.

 

Call me a stick in the mud but when someone states " Allais effect solved" That is precisely what I expect to see.

 

Not Allais effect might or might not have anything to do with dark flow. You advertised a solution. So deliver the solution. Show how dark flow generates the Allais effect.

Edited June 26, 2017 by Mordred

[swansont]

If there were no solar (or lunar) eclipse, you would not get enought upwards acceleration of the Earth to expose DFA.

Fig. A and B, - shows that four hours after a solar eclipse the Earth has moved 4000 km whereby the angle to the moon and therefore also the upwards acceleration has declined 50% compared to the solar eclipse position of Earth. Eight hours later angle and upwards acceleration is reduced to 25%. The same thing happens before solar eclipse. In addition to that the moon is also either declining or inclining during that period, this will also effect the anomaly and must also be taken into consideration.

 

 

Your figures are bogus. The moon is never more than ~5º above or below the ecliptic. Yo have it at almost 90º in "A". The moon is also not 4000 km nor 8000 km away from the earth under any circumstances. These diagrams are meaningless.

 

What is true, however, is that the moon can be at whatever angle it has at an eclipse, during *any* new moon or *any* full moon, since it crosses the ecliptic twice during each orbit, and the angle will have changed only a small amount each day before and after those days. If the effect is due to the vertical component of gravity from the location of the moon, it means that you have not shown that an eclipse need be involved.

 

plus, your math is of course wrong. sin45 = .707. sin22.5 = .3827. The ratio is 1.84. Close, but not a factor of 2. If you can't apply simple trigonometry here, you are always going to be wrong, even if your idea had any merit. Perhaps you should spend some time learning the basics.

 

 

In short, - the resulting force will only point 100% upwards exact when the max solar eclipse take place, after that the angle of the resulting force will decline, - tilt

 

How are you defining upwards? Is that north, or directly overhead for someone on earth?

 

If it's the former, it is never the case. If the latter, then it's true anytime the moon is directly overhead, meaning you should be able to do this experiment anytime, if you are in the right location.

 

ONLY by solar eclipse, you will have straight upwards resulting force. By (almost) all other similar configuration, the force will not be pointing upwards, - but much more vertical than upwards. This is why (some) solar (and lunar) eclipse are unique to expose DFA, and why many other configurations (where the moon also is about 4000km above the Earth) , - is bad.

 

This image also illustrate the moon 4000 km above the Earth, but the resulting force is almost 100% horizontal, - not vertical , - and therefore such configuration is useless.

 

If the moon is 4000 km above the ecliptic, the angle is the same in all cases. In this case, you aren't even measuring with the same coordinate system. Very sloppy. More trigonometry fail.

[DrKrettin]

 

If there were no solar (or lunar) eclipse, you would not get enought upwards acceleration of the Earth to expose DFA.

Fig. A and B, - shows that four hours after a solar eclipse the Earth has moved 4000 km whereby the angle to the moon and therefore also the upwards acceleration has declined 50% compared to the solar eclipse position of Earth. Eight hours later angle and upwards acceleration is reduced to 25%. The same thing happens before solar eclipse. In addition to that the moon is also either declining or inclining during that period, this will also effect the anomaly and must also be taken into consideration.

In short, - the resulting force will only point 100% upwards exact when the max solar eclipse take place, after that the angle of the resulting force will decline, - tilt

 

 

Surely figure A is total nonsense on any level, unless I'm missing something. Primary School logic: if the moon orbits the Earth in 28 days, then it moves 360/28 = 13 degrees per day. At an eclipse, the angle between the Earth-Sun and Earth-Moon lines is zero. So one day later that angle is about 13 degrees. How the hell can it be 90 degrees after 4 hours?