The Allais Effect Solved

[Mordred]

 

No the illustration shows the resulting force pointing to the Sun

 

 

 

Its not

The 8000 km íllustrated altitude in on the Sun

 

 

No its not the moon that is 8000km above, please read the post agian

You misunderstood agian

The red line shows the resulting force pointing to the Sun

This cirkel, is on the Sun, it have not much with the moon to do

 

 

In the end of the day it is not what most people believe or believe they know, but the scientific methods that counts.

The good thing here is that this theory have a unique and powerful prediction, - the mentioned relative and absolute gravity test near artic.

So this theory is very dangerous and I am sure that many dont like it. But science should not (always) be about what most people like to hear, sometimes someone have to dare to think new thoughts.

Feel free to follow the full chart ie hypothosesis to experiment.

 

why do you think I kept asking which Allais effect dataset you are using to claim you solved it ?

 

For example "Provide the angle and amount of variation of force, to induce the required torque on the panaconical pendulum "?

 

 

Can your model at least answer this question? If not how can you state its due to DFA?????

 

You have never done step 4 "experiment" which is fine if you wish to use someone elses experimental dataset. Ie Allais measurements. However when asked you could not provide an answer.

Its exactly such pattern Allais research reveals.

How do you know what the pattern is, if you cannot answer my questions specifically on this pattern?

Gravitational waves are way too small of an effect to be noticed here.

I believe he is referring to acoustic gravity waves of our atmosphere when he was looking into the related articles. Though may or may not have realized the differences.

 

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravity_wave

 

There are competing papers for Allais effect that look into this possibility. They are already linked in this thread. There are numerous atmospheric studies during an eclipse that are related.

 

equation 2 of this paper or study relates to numerous of the Allais effect papers.

 

https://www.google.ca/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=http://www.ufa.cas.cz/html/climaero/Petra/AGWStructures.pdf&ved=0ahUKEwiXtryTqN_UAhVOwWMKHX-tBAQQFggjMAE&usg=AFQjCNG0xvcqXdN8Ub3B1LL9CoMfpkiZGg

 

which describes the acoustic-gravity wave propogation. Have no idea how generic it is, Atmospheric studies isn't my field.

 

Been studying this in regards to this thread. Going through references related to the topic. Familiarizing with the competing models for Allais effect. (which obviously includes the differences in terminology and related formulas)

 

http://rsta.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/374/2077/20150222.

 

From what I have studied as time allows, is that if you want a change in Earths gravity this is definitely one that counts. Lol its also a force via density changes that corresponds to the Allais experiment. (including direction of applied force, (Wang paper in the Ops references if I recall correct) China test.

 

Found it a good coverage of accoustic gravity waves. Equation given in 40 and 41.

 

https://www.google.ca/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://www.ecmwf.int/sites/default/files/elibrary/2002/16926-atmospheric-waves.pdf&ved=0ahUKEwim2duhtt_UAhVR92MKHaRiC-YQFggtMAQ&usg=AFQjCNG9BSGMOiG5WCZlVW9i2Cj5NrmlCw

 

After I study this I'm going to reread the paper by Allais and his experiment.

Hey Bjarne I bet ya didn't know the blue lines in your figures 17 to 20 are Rossby dispersion waves. Lol then again neither did I.

 

 

edit: the last link definitely provides the needed details to understand the mathematics in the Yang paper. Which applies atmospheric gravity waves to the Allius experiment.

Edited June 28, 2017 by Mordred

[Bjarne]

 

 

The sun is on the ecliptic, so it doesn't exert an upward force. It can be ignored. You only have to look at the influence of the moon to find the vertical component of the force. According to what you've claimed, this is what matters.

 

Right

 

But still the resulting force is hitting / pointing to the Sun, not to the moon

 

You know that the force of the Sun / Moon is factor 174 to 1, - right?

 

Therefore the resulting force angle only deviate less than 1 degree from the force vector of the Sun, due to the force of the Moon

Edited June 28, 2017 by Bjarne

[swansont]

 

Right

 

But still the resulting force is hitting / pointing to the Sun, not to the moon

 

You know that the force of the Sun / Moon is factor 174 to 1, - right?

 

Therefore the resulting force angle only deviate less than 1 degree from the force vector of the Sun, due to the force of the Moon

 

 

 

None of that matters, since you are claiming this effect is due to the vertical component of the force. The sun exerts zero force in that direction. If that component is responsible, it only matters where the moon is, relative to the ecliptic.

 

I believe he is referring to acoustic gravity waves of our atmosphere when he was looking into the related articles.

 

 

I have seen the two confused so often I assumed the same thing was going.

 

Apologies to DrP if that's the case.

[DrP]

No apologies needed, I was just wrong.... it isn't my field and I was speculating/repeating something I read on wiki. Maybe the page meant acoustic gravity waves (not that I know what they are either). I just wanted to ask/speculate. I just don't like the idea of jumping to a conclusion as to the cause of the effect just because it has been measured (if it IS even a real measurement and not experimental error or something... it is odd that others have only reproduced it with mixed results).

 

I realise they are too weak to have any effect.. is there a way they might be amplified through resonance with something else? I realise I am showing my ignorance of the topic, but it is just interesting to me. I know that resonances can cause huge increases in wave amplitudes. I am just not buying/not understanding this DFA. How significant is this observed Allais effect anyway? I was under the impressions that the anomalous readings were only a slight change to the expected weight measured. It was mentioned that not everyone can reproduce and that made me think the effect could be intermittent (or experimental error). If it was intermittent then this made me think of the lines of a diffraction pattern which could have been amplified for some reason or another.. As the earth passes through the amplified diffraction pattern you would see fluctuations in weight (if they were amplified enough).

 

As mentioned before - it doesn't matter what I think about it.. it is what it is, but it just looks to me as if it is unexplained (if it is real) and I hate it when people jump to conclusions about the explanation of an effect just because it is unexplainable within our current understanding.

 

Thanks for your patience.

Edited June 28, 2017 by DrP

[Bjarne]

 

None of that matters, since you are claiming this effect is due to the vertical component of the force. The sun exerts zero force in that direction. If that component is responsible, it only matters where the moon is, relative to the ecliptic.

 

I am not sure I understand what you mean by that the moon is "relative to ecliptic" ?

Do you mean , - the most significant vertical acceleration of the Earth, is by eclipse ? - If so I agree

 

I am claiming that the upwards acceleration is due to the resulting force. It can't be anything wrong with that..

The resulting force is pointing to the sun, and in addition to that the resulting force is most of the time also pointing just a little horizontal.

Exactly (and only) by solar and lunar eclipse the resulting force points so much vertical as possible, and this makes eclipse special, in this context

 

 

The Resulting Force (RF) (due to attraction from the Sun and Moon) acting on Earth, - must point so much vertical as possible (Fig.10a) to be able to accelerate the Earth fast enough upwards, in order to expose DFA.

• Before solar eclipse the RF is pointing mainly horizontal (relative to ecliptic). (To the X - Y axis)
• Twelve hours before eclipse the angle of the RF begin to incline (relative significant)
• Eight hours before eclipse the angle of the RF is 22,5° vertical
• Four hours before the angle is 45° vertical (Fig.10b),
• Finally by eclipse the angle of the RF is completely 90° vertical (Fig 10a) ( the Z axis)
• In oppesite order the same happens after solar

Imaging a circle (radius 8km) at the center of the Sun

• 8 hours before eclipse the RF is pointing 22,5° vertical.
• 4 hours before eclipse the RF is pointing 45° vertical
• 4 hours after eclipse the RF is pointing 45° vertical
• 8 hours after eclipse the RF is pointing 22,5° vertical

 

The required vertical upwards acceleration of the Earth is unique only by solar and lunar eclipse.

The 8000 km radius abstract circle (on the Sun) shows where RF is pointing. (this radius can easy be calculated based on the RF angle that is 0.0034° in this case.

The red points shows where on the Sun, RF is pointing, - 8 - 4 hours before - eclipse - and 4 and 8 hours after.

Edited June 28, 2017 by Bjarne

[swansont]

 

I am not sure I understand what you mean by that the moon is "relative to ecliptic" ?

Do you mean that there is only (significant) vertical acceleration of the Earth, by eclipse ? - If so I agree

 

 

Do you understand what the plane of the ecliptic is, that I've been referring to this entire thread?

[Bjarne]

 

 

Do you understand what the plane of the ecliptic is, that I've been referring to this entire thread?

the path of the Sun across the celestial sphere (DFA is so far I see it excactly angular to the ecliptic)

Edited June 28, 2017 by Bjarne

[swansont]

the path of the Sun across the celestial sphere

 

 

So I'm talking about the moon's position relative to that plane. If the moon is on the ecliptic, it exerts zero vertical force, since that would be perpendicular. The moon has to be above or below the ecliptic to exert a vertical force. The higher it is above the ecliptic, the larger the force is. The sun exerts no vertical force whatsoever. It can be ignored.

[Bjarne]

 

 

So I'm talking about the moon's position relative to that plane. If the moon is on the ecliptic, it exerts zero vertical force, since that would be perpendicular. The moon has to be above or below the ecliptic to exert a vertical force. The higher it is above the ecliptic, the larger the force is. The sun exerts no vertical force whatsoever. It can be ignored.

Yes off course

[swansont]

Yes off course

So then you have to realize that the statement below is incorrect.

 

I am claiming that the upwards acceleration is due to the resulting force. It can't be anything wrong with that..

The resulting force is pointing to the sun, and in addition to that the resulting force is most of the time also pointing just a little horizontal.

Exactly (and only) by solar and lunar eclipse the resulting force points so much vertical as possible, and this makes eclipse special, in this context

 

During an eclipse the moon is very close to the eliptic, making the force very small. It is much larger a week later, when the moon has gotten to its maximum distance from the ecliptic.

 

Further, you have said elsewhere that you do not want the force to be its maximum. It's hard to figure anything out when you cotradict yourself like that.

 

Since the moon's position relative to the ecliptic is all that matters, there is nothing special about an eclipse. The moon will exert the same exact force at any new or full moon, when in the same relative location. If the angle is the same, the force is the same. The sun is irrelevant.

[Mordred]

The other problem here is what direction of forces would be needed to cause a paraconical pendulum that was rotating in the clockwise position to rotate in the anticlockwise direction.

Then maintain this rotation for several hours before returning to a clockwise direction.

 

I cannot see how your DFA can possibly provide the right force conditions to generate that effect.

 

Claiming your model can account for this is not showing it can do so. That is what I have been requesting you do show.

 

After all we have not one but two changes to account clockwise to anticlockwise then several hours later the reverse. Each change in rotation must both be accounted for. Not just the first

Edited June 28, 2017 by Mordred

[Bjarne]

So then you have to realize that the statement below is incorrect.

 

 

During an eclipse the moon is very close to the eliptic, making the force very small. It is much larger a week later, when the moon has gotten to its maximum distance from the ecliptic.

 

Further, you have said elsewhere that you do not want the force to be its maximum. It's hard to figure anything out when you cotradict yourself like that.

 

Since the moon's position relative to the ecliptic is all that matters, there is nothing special about an eclipse. The moon will exert the same exact force at any new or full moon, when in the same relative location. If the angle is the same, the force is the same. The sun is irrelevant.

 

Half of the year the moon is too low, and therefore useless.’

If the moon is above the ecliptic, - the moon shall not exceed 1° elevation (by pendulum measurements) -Max 1,5° by the gravity experiment measurement in the artic.

If the moon elevation is between 1° (1,5°) and 5° above the ecliptic such constellation is useless.

This mean you have to be lucky if you have 2 times, each year where either new moon/solar eclipse fulfill the requirements, or 2 times lunar eclipse / full moon does so.

Eclipse will always be the best option.

As I said, the moon shall not be above the test body..

 

But well, yes the effect can be meassured by some few new and full moons,

Edited June 28, 2017 by Bjarne

[swansont]

Half of the year the moon is too low, and therefore useless.’

If the moon is above the ecliptic, - the moon shall not exceed 1° elevation (by pendulum measurements) -Max 1,5° by the gravity experiment measurement in the artic.

If the moon elevation is between 1° (1,5°) and 5° above the ecliptic such constellation is useless.

This mean you have to be lucky if you have 2 times, each year where either new moon/solar eclipse fulfill the requirements, or 2 times lunar eclipse / full moon does so.

Eclipse will always be the best option.

As I said, the moon shall not be above the test body..

 

But well, yes the effect can be meassured by some few new and full moons,

The moon crosses the ecliptic twice every orbit. New moon, and full moon. The "half a year" is not in a row. It's half of each orbit.

 

Since the moon needs to be ~1º above, it can't be at its highest point and exert the maximum force (i.e. "as vertical as possible").

 

 

The Resulting Force (RF) (due to attraction from the Sun and Moon) acting on Earth, - must point so much vertical as possible (Fig.10a) to be able to accelerate the Earth fast enough upwards, in order to expose DFA.

• Before solar eclipse the RF is pointing mainly horizontal (relative to ecliptic). (To the X - Y axis)
• Twelve hours before eclipse the angle of the RF begin to incline (relative significant)
• Eight hours before eclipse the angle of the RF is 22,5° vertical
• Four hours before the angle is 45° vertical (Fig.10b),
• Finally by eclipse the angle of the RF is completely 90° vertical (Fig 10a) ( the Z axis)
• In oppesite order the same happens after solar

 

Imaging a circle (radius 8km) at the center of the Sun

• 8 hours before eclipse the RF is pointing 22,5° vertical.
• 4 hours before eclipse the RF is pointing 45° vertical
• 4 hours after eclipse the RF is pointing 45° vertical
• 8 hours after eclipse the RF is pointing 22,5° vertical

The required vertical upwards acceleration of the Earth is unique only by solar and lunar eclipse.

The 8000 km radius abstract circle (on the Sun) shows where RF is pointing. (this radius can easy be calculated based on the RF angle that is 0.0034° in this case.

The red points shows where on the Sun, RF is pointing, - 8 - 4 hours before - eclipse - and 4 and 8 hours after.

 

The resulting force can never point to a position higher than the moon is, and the moon never gets more than 5º above the ecliptic.

[Mordred]

I wonder how long it will take before we look into the tidal acceleration with regards to the pendulum

 

Lets see

 

[latex]\Delta F=\frac{2GMmR}{r^3}[/latex]

 

using this formula the moon has tidal acceleration at roughly [latex]1.12*10^{-6} m/s^2[/latex] the Sun has [latex]a_t=5.05*10^{-7}[/latex] when aligned during eclipse

[latex]1.63*10^{-7} m/s^2[/latex]

 

seems I'm already in the ballpark for orders of magnitude for the torque on the Allais experiment.

Edited June 28, 2017 by Mordred

[DrP]

I have no idea whether you are right or not Mordred - but it sounds more feasible than this unproven dark flow stuff. Maybe I totally missed the point again - sorry if that is the case. I don't even know what it is supposed to be, even though I read about it briefly earlier. Further reading is probably in order for me.

Edited June 28, 2017 by DrP

[Mordred]

Well it is a force along the plane of oscillation to the paraconical pendulum.

Edited June 28, 2017 by Mordred

[DrP]

I get there is a force... other wise the pendulum would not react to it.... it is what causes the force that seems ambiguous from briefly reading around. It is the dark flow that I do not get. Simply moving the planets and the star about so they align or not will obviously have some effect on the forces felt by the pendulum... as you showed in the math above. (post#114)

Edited June 28, 2017 by DrP

[Mordred]

Well the Coriolis force is a tidal force. This is the force often attributed to whirlpool flow direction. So if our pendulum changed direction we are looking for a tidal acceleration in the opposite vector.

 

This includes atmospheric pressure changes.

 

Wiki covers how Corriolis force equates to the Foucalt and consequently the Allais pendulum.

 

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foucault_pendulum

Edited June 28, 2017 by Mordred

[Bjarne]

The moon crosses the ecliptic twice every orbit. New moon, and full moon. The "half a year" is not in a row. It's half of each orbit.

 

Yes but most of the time the moon is to high or too low relative to ecliptic

 

 

The resulting force can never point to a position higher than the moon is,.

 

Why mention that? - noone claims that

 

, and the moon never gets more than 5º above the ecliptic.

 

Why mention that? - noone claims anything else

Since the moon needs to be ~1º above, it can't be at its highest point and exert the maximum force (i.e. "as vertical as possible").

 

 

Off course not, and this is also not what I say..

I am saying: we need to maximum upwards pulls based on a certain configuration, which include no vertical pull in the test body on Earth.

 

Edit

Ups, - Bad english, - I mean, - we need to maximum upwards pulls based on a particular configuration, which include no vertical pull in the test body on Earth.

Edited June 28, 2017 by Bjarne

[swansont]

Why mention that? - noone claims that

"8 hours before eclipse the RF is pointing 22,5° vertical.

4 hours before eclipse the RF is pointing 45° vertical

4 hours after eclipse the RF is pointing 45° vertical

8 hours after eclipse the RF is pointing 22,5° vertical"

 

The moon is never more than 5 degrees vertical.

 

 

Why mention that? - noone claims anything else

You keep saying that the resultant vector points at a much larger angle in the vertical direction.

 

 

Off course not, and this is also not what I say..

I am saying: we need to maximum upwards pulls based on a certain configuration, which include no vertical pull in the test body on Earth.

 

It is what you say. It may not be what you mean.

 

Edit

Ups, - Bad english, - I mean, - we need to maximum upwards pulls based on a particular configuration, which include no vertical pull in the test body on Earth.

That would be a minimum vertical acceleration on the test body. i.e. the opposite of what you have been saying.

[Mordred]

Ups, - Bad english, - I mean, - [/size]we need to maximum upwards pulls based on a particular configuration, which include no vertical pull in the test body on Earth.

Umm not possible under GR. Nor Newtonian physics for that matter.

 

You will always have tidal forces with vertical and horizontal vector components with spherical bodies in particular. Add body rotation and it gets worse. Which is essentially how the pendulum reacts to for the angular momentum changes.

 

Simple consequence of a centre of mass system.

Edited June 28, 2017 by Mordred

[Bjarne]

"8 hours before eclipse the RF is pointing 22,5° vertical.

4 hours before eclipse the RF is pointing 45° vertical

4 hours after eclipse the RF is pointing 45° vertical

8 hours after eclipse the RF is pointing 22,5° vertical"

 

The moon is never more than 5 degrees vertical.

 

 

Do you agree that an object above ecliptic can have angle relative to ecliptic that = 90°

If not, lets discuss something else.

If yes, now let the point above ecliptic be the point where RF point ONLY by eclipse.

 

 

That would be a minimum vertical acceleration on the test body. i.e. the opposite of what you have been saying.

 

Do you understand what i mean by particular constellation?

If so please explain me what I mean by that ?

Just to figure out where the chain went of ?

Edited June 28, 2017 by Bjarne

[swansont]

Do you agree that an object above ecliptic can have angle relative to ecliptic that = 90°

If not, lets discuss something else.

 

Not the angle above it, which is what's relevant. The angle in the perpendicular direction, sure, but how does that matter? The upward force doesn't vary with that angle.

[Bjarne]

Not the angle above it, which is what's relevant.

 

You mean the angle between the object is not relevant?

Well its not a object above the ecliptic, it is only a "point", but the principle (I mean) is the same.

In short, - the angle to the perpendicular direction relative to ecliptic is 90° and thats just fine, that is excactly what we need to know.

(Lets better make it all correct so that nothing can be misunderstood. )

 

The angle in the perpendicular direction, sure, but how does that matter?

 

It matter because by eclipse RF (the Resulting Force from the Moon and sun ) will "hit" that perpendicular line, - much higher (above the ecliptic) as for example 4, 8 or 12 hours before (and after) eclipse.

Do you agree to that?

 

Do you understand what i mean by particular constellation?

If so please explain me what I mean by that ?

Just to figure out where the chain went of ?

 

OK, let me tell you what I mean.

Now freeze all episode from 2017 where the Moon was (and will be) exactly 1° above the ecliptic.

 

Question

Which one of those 12 new moon/solar eclipse episodes (frozen images), will RF points to the highest point above the ecliptic ?

I mean Hit that perpendicular direction (perpendicular line) we both agree can show us a point above ecliptic.

I am not asking which epsisode that RF will point vertical

But I am asking ...

Which one of the 12 frozen episodes (frozen images), will RF points to the highest point above the ecliptic ?

The correct one you pick is what I mean by a, "a particular constellation".

 

Why ?

 

Because if the moon is (about) 1° (in fact a little less) above the ecliptic - it is in fact that angle that can provide the best possible Allais Effect , but only ; "by a particular constellation"

 

Why?

 

Because

• We do NOT only need upwards acceleration of the earth
• We also want NO vertical force acting on our test body
• So soon the moon is 1° above the ecliptic that exert enough upwards acceleration of Earth to fully expose DFA.
• We do not need more force than exactly this.
• So soon the moon exceed that 1° the moon will also pull the test body upwards, and this is PROHIBITED

However what I wrote is ONLY true if you haves chosen the correct frozen constellation.

I mean ONLY if you have chosen the correct particular constellation.

If still any doubt what I mean; - this is 21 of August USA

We can do the exact same exercise with lunar eclipse/full moon episodes, and again freeze by 1° due to the same reasons as mentioned above.

 

I am going for holyday for a few weeks, to celebrate that the Allias Effect is solved, - its not sure I have time to reply. Thanks for the dicussion.

Edited June 29, 2017 by Bjarne

[swansont]

It matter because by eclipse RF (the Resulting Force from the Moon and sun ) will "hit" that perpendicular line, - much higher (above the ecliptic) as for example 4, 8 or 12 hours before (and after) eclipse.

The force cannot be in a direction any higher above the ecliptic than the moon is.