Cosmic Secrets
Gravity
Missing gravity near Canada's Hudson Bay

Program #5252 of the Earth & Sky Radio Series
with hosts Deborah Byrd, Joel Block, Lindsay Patterson and Jorge Salazar.

Scientists are talking about a strange case of “missing gravity” near the Hudson Bay area of Canada.

It’s just a tiny deviation from the norm, nothing that anyone could feel. But it’s large enough to be detected by NASA’s GRACE satellites in space. Gravity relates to how much matter something contains. And Earth’s crust is known to be thinner in Canada’s Hudson Bay area.

Scientists believe the reason was a huge ice sheet that covered Canada and the northeastern U.S. 20,000 years ago. The weight of the ice pressed on that region, much like a finger pushing on a spongy cake. When the ice melted, it left a huge depression in the Earth.

Jerry Mitrovica: It was sufficient to raise sea levels globally by about 60 meters, so that’s about 200 feet.

That’s Jerry Mitrovica, a professor of physics at the University of Toronto. He led a study that mapped Canada’s gravity field in detail, to understand what that ice sheet looked like 20,000 years ago.

Jerry Mitrovica: What we noticed was that the gravity field uplift indicated that there wasn’t a single dome that covered Canada and the northeastern U.S. There were two domes, two large domes.

Knowing what the ice sheet looked like back then lets scientists pin down variations in modern–day models of Earth’s climate.

Our thanks today to NASA, explore, discover, understand.

SOURCE: Earthsky.org and Radio Show

Comments Posted by Pari Spolter:

Jul 5, 05:15 PM #
Pari Spolter says:

I have presented evidence in my book GRAVITATIONAL FORCE OF THE SUN and in a recent article “New Concepts in Gravitation” published in PHYSICS ESSAYS Volume 18, Number 1. pages 37-49 that gravitational force is independent of the mass.

Jul 20, 04:32 PM #
Pari Spolter says:

Please see “Problems with the Gravitational Constant” in the INFINITE ENERGY Magazine, http://www.infinite-energy.com, Issue 59, 2005, page 39.


Forces and Related Subjects
A Communication Among Pari Spolter, Leon Feng and Bob Fritzius
http://www.aideas.com/Pari_Force.doc

[Abstract---] Pari Spolter is the Founder of  Spolter’s New Theory about Gravity ,  Leon Feng is the Leader of the 2nd Generation of International Pansystems School promoting pansystems theory founded by Pansystems Father Professor Wu Xuemou.   Bob Fritzius is the founder of the EAS Theory about the electric mechanics originated by Walter Ritz.

Recently there was an interesting discussion among  Pari Spolter , Leon  Feng  and  Bob Fritzius about forces and the related subjects.

This paper is just a collection of those original messages. 



About F = ma: 

In my book Gravitational Force of the Sun, it is shown that force is independent of mass. Weight is equal to mass times acceleration. Weight is not equal to Force.

It is shown, by analysis of data, that gravitational force is equal to acceleration times the area. This is the correct interpretation of Kepler's third law and has been verified to very high precision. 

Pari Spolter 

Orb Publishing Company

orbpublishing@msn.com 



Dear Leon, 

Thank you for your interest in my work. May I just clarify: I have also defined units of energy in chapter 12 of my book. In general, when we have mass in an equation, we are dealing with the concept of energy. Force is independent of mass. For example, it would take 10,000 times more work or energy to lift a 10 kg mass upward for one m than it would take to lift a 1 g mass. But if we drop these two masses from that height, neglecting the air resistance, they would both fall with the same acceleration. So, FORCE is not equal to ENERGY. 

Best Regards,

Pari Spolter 



Bob: 

It might be a technical problem leaving for Dr. Pari to explain. That's why I asked her about the Definition of HER NEW FORCES  However, for me this is NOT A FUNDAMENTAL PROBLEM if the Unit of the New Forces of DR. PARI HAS A NEW UNIT WITH WHICH PEOPLE ARE NOT YET FAMILIAR. 

However, the nature of her theory is VERY INTERESTING because She makes Newton's Theory even more delicate. An Analog might be that Newton's Theory is a Maxwell's Magnetic Circuits, and Dr. Pari's Might BE a
micro-magnetism if She could make her theory correct. 

For me, THERE IS NO CONTRADICTION at all from Newton to Pari---Different Forms of "YinYuan WILL BRING ABOUT A Change" AT DIFFERENT LEVELS. 

Therefore, Dr. Pari had better give us an explanation if she has time and interest. 

Best Regards 



Leon 

Date: Sat, 17 Aug 2002 13:17:33 -0500

To: pansystemsleon@yahoo.com
From: rsf1@ebicom.net 
Subject: Re: A Simple Pansystems Explanation to Dr. Pari's Theory

Leon and Dr. Spolter, 

With all due respect...

Force (Mass times Acceleration) has the units 

           M x ( L / T^2 ). 

Where 

M = mass
L = Length
T = Time 

Acceleration times Distance has the units 

    ( L / T^2 )   x  L

or       L^2 / T^2 

Those units are appropriate for velocity squared. 

  L^ / T^2     is not equal to    M x ( L / T^2 ) . 

I don't mind if somebody can't tell the difference between a turtle and a zebra. I prefer Newtonian zoo keepers. 

Bob Fritzius 



Sender Name: The MiniEPostOffice
Sender E-Mail: pansystemsleon@yahoo.com
Message: It was written that 

*Spolter argues that force is always independent of mass [4]. It is not force that is equal to mass times acceleration, but weight. Her equation for linear force is F = a.d (acceleration times distance). Her equation for circular force is the one given above: F = a.A. 

Per Dr. Pari, the linear force f = a.d which seems to say that the same force can only change the motion to the same extent, if the distance between the source of the force and the point being acted is the same , and if there is no other things' impact. 

We need to see how Dr. Pari's Theory could match the daily life of that we push a small ping-pang ball, and we could make it faster than the Ball of IRON with a diameter of 100 meters pushed by us---It will stay there. 

We cannot confine ourselves within Newton's frame of thinking  in order to have a free and fair look at Dr. Pari's Grand New Theory:  We might need to refer the so-called "Mass Effect" to the impact of other forces nothing to do with the ACTING FORCE under study---considering one of the 3 factors of force---the Acting Point---which is only a

POINT !!!!!!. 

In that way, Mass could be considered as a Set of Other Forces which work together with the External Force under consideration to have a strong impact to external force---OR MASS IS A COLLECTION OF FACTORS NOTHING TO DO WITH EXTERNAL FORCES BUT CAN WORK TOGETHER WITH the external force under study to determine the change of  the FATE---acceleration---of the point being acted. 

In other words Mass is a Set of Internal YinYuan working together with the External YinYuan to determine a Change----That  exactly matches Leon's Pan-Relativity Law (III)---YinYuan will bring about a change. Here YinYuan is defined as the cause and conditions. 

Best Regards 

Leon


Sender Name: The MiniEPostOffice
Sender E-Mail: pansystemsleon@yahoo.com
Message: ---

Dear Dr. Pari 

Thank you very much for your great help. I could feel the innovation of concepts in your theory because you have your own definitions of forces---A central concepts in Newton's Frame. I also agree with your points shown in your reply related with vertical weight. 

However, I still might be puzzled by the old systems--- I still could not but see that, the Mass as a factor could join the Pari's force to determine the acceleration in horizontal direction --Not the gravitation related acceleration. For example, if you want to produce an acceleration of 1m/s^2 horizontally which has  nothing to do with the weight, you might still see that for whatever same conditions, the ping-pang ball would run faster in the horizontal direction from at rest in the horizontal direction while dropping vertically. 

On the other hand, the friction is also an objective factor to change the initial acceleration for some other cases, which equals to "Normal Pressure" multiplied by the friction coefficient. 

Per the Old definition 

Work = Newton's Force * The distance passing by the body which is always under the action of the Newton Force.  However, in my thinking experiments, the old Newton Force does not move the ping-pang ball and the Ball of Iron horizontally by a large distance---The Ping-Pang Ball and The Ball of iron gain the acceleration horizontally in the same place. 

If you have time, you may clarify what's wrong with my above reasoning---I still feel that if Mass has nothing to do with Pari's External Force, Mass must be an internal factor changing the final acceleration horizontal acceleration---Another Pari's Force ?. 

I am impressed by that Kepler's 3rd law has been kept by your theory but Newton Modified it. The final judge for that will be the data. 

Best Regards 

Leon



Sender Name: The MiniePostOffice
Sender E-Mail: pansystemsleon@yahoo.com
Message: --- 

Dear Dr. Pari 

Let's do the thing as follows Multiply the Pari's linear force Sl with a very small distance ds 
Sl*ds = a*ds*Distance of action = dv*v*Distance of action = Old Work /Mass *Distance of action. 

Therefore, It seems that Pari's Force is still related with unit mass's energy---If the mass could have an impact on dv, the unit mass related energy will have a relation with mass so that Pari's force might still be affected by the mass. The key in this reasoning is if mass has anything to do with dv. 

Cheers 

Leon



 Cher Prof. Robert Vallee 

In my previous reply, I wrote by my intuition about some point related with Mass = 0 and forces. After that I have been puzzled with my answering to you for a whole day. 

I asked my friend Bob to help. At the same time, I also got a satisfied answer about why my reply to you might be correct within the pansystems frame. 

The following are the e-mails which I am sending you for your reference.

Best Regards 

Leon


Bob 

Thank you so much. I am going to forward your reply plus my new reasoning to Prof. Robert Vallee and see what he might respond with. After a whole day's thinking, I feel balanced within my systems of pansystems theory. 

I have looked at your very constructive reply. However, I still like to write down what I got from a whole day's thinking within my systems of pansystems theory. 

After one week as I promised, I am going to publish all the related e-mails centered around a very encouraging reply from Prof. Robert Vallee to what we are discussing. 

******Pansystems View of Mass******

From the Pansystems View, mass is a result of a motion following the cause-effect laws which results in a concentration, a center, and then an inertia. Therefore, mass = 0 means the motion causing the concentration, the center, and then the inertia does not exist or does not happen. 

On the other hand, the Pansystems View thinks that the force is closely related with motion or change. without motion or change, without force. So that mass = 0 changes any "Force" into zero. In this way, we agree with each at the point of without mass, without force. 

Newton's Law of F = ma  following the cause-effect law then only applies for the case where there is a mass, or Mass <> 0 so that there has been a motion or change. 

Best Regards 

Leon



rsf1@ebicom.net wrote:
At 06:01 AM 8/3/02 -0700, you wrote: 

******Leon's Letter to Bob******

Bob: 

As you knew, I am communicating with Prof. Robert Vallee.  I am puzzled by a looking like very simple question. I believe that you can help me.  The question is For a mass = 0,  Is there any Force, and Is there any a? 

From my intuition, any force has no effect on a body with m = 0. However From F = ma m = 0 can only lead to F = 0, and cannot guarantee a=0,  if there is really a working "force" on an entity with m = 0. 

I think that something like Motion = At Rest happens here. 

Please help. 

Best Regards 

Leon



******Bob's Reply to Leon******

Dear Leon,

I think you are on the right track. Please forgive me if I overdo the following comments.  I think "no mass" implies "no force."  But that idea needs qualifying. 

The way we deal with the concept of "force" is kind of like the issue of if a tree falls in the forest and nobody is there to hear it, is there any sound?

In my opinion, that is a "slimey" question!  It should be obvious that when a tree falls there will be atmospheric vibrations which move away spherically from the "site" at the "speed of sound."

Anything with what passes for a workable "hearing system," be it bug, bird, animal, or man, if sufficiently close by, can experience what we call "sound," but the vibrations are there regardless of any "accoustical" witnesses.

We say F = Ma  or F=Mg for gravitational effects. (I prefer F = d(MV)/dt  or M dV/dt + V dM/dt.)  Massive bodies, such as the Earth, are said to have a gravitational acceleration field characterized by "g" where   g = G Me/r^2 "g,"  for the sake of argument, can be thought of as analogous to the air vibrations associated with falling trees. It represents a "condition in space," or , maybe more properly "a kinetic process going on in space" which can interact with bodies having mass. 

The acceleration "field" is  present whether or not some secondary body is present to interact with it. No mass "M" (secondary body in this case) means no force "F"  But "g" is real! (This argument may be "null and void" if the rest of the universe is not in the picture. I posit that the hypothetical "kinetic" process which underlies the "acceleration" field is produced by the universe.

Fluxes of force carrying particles (neutrinos, gravitons (forbid), Ritz's fictitious particles, or even my EAS particles) converging on a massive body produces the acceleration  "field.") 

(Side note: Where massive bodies and "force carrying particles" are concerned, we might expect that "garbage out" is less than garbage in.  Presto! Gravity.)

So I think "no mass" (M) implies "no force," (F) but that does not mean that the potential for acceleration,  whatever you call it, i.e., "a" or "g" is zero. 

Sorry but I am not at peace with the expression  "Motion = At Rest."

Best regards.

Bob



From previous discussions, one could see that 

(1)I don't discuss any thing related with Dr. Pari's Forces for Circular Motion, because I have no rights to talk and consider that those forces are belonging to Dr. Pari. 

(2)When it comes to the Linear Forces, I think that Newton's law applies, and Dr. Pari might have added something in concept. 

My Thinking experiments are centered around the case as follows: 

A Ping-Pang Ball falls vertically from heaven toward earth, and then a Ball of Iron with a Diameter of 100 Meters falls vertically from heaven toward earth. A well controlled force pushes the Ping-Pang horizontally, and then push the Ball of Iron horizontally, one could see that for the same force, the Ping-Pang Ball will get a much larger acceleration so that F = ma. (This experiment basically has no relation with friction) 

(3) I have a question about Dr. Pari's linear force Fs = a.d because, from macro viewpoint d ---> 0 It seems to me that It's hard to establish a stable relation between Fs and acceleration for such a d--->0. 

Best Regards 

Leon 

FAIR USE NOTICE: This page contains copyrighted material the use of which has not been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. Pegasus Research Consortium distributes this material without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. We believe this constitutes a fair use of any such copyrighted material as provided for in 17 U.S.C § 107. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond fair use, you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.
~ MENU ~

 

Webpages  © 2001-2008
Blue Knight Productions