Gravitational Anisotropy

GRAVITATIONAL ANISOTROPY

What is gravitational anisotropy? If there is a main body of mass
around which are situated many far less massive bodies then the
physical shape of the main body should have an effect on the
distribution and evident gravitational relationships of the lessor
bodies to the main mass. For example, if the mass of the sun were truly
concentrated into a sphere then the gravitational field produced by
such a physical geometry should be a spherically symmetric field that
would be ruled only by the inverse square law and there would be no
preferred orientation of the planes upon which other bodies should
collect in orbits around the sun. In other words, the planes of orbits
should have no preferential orientation. This non-preferential
distribution means that the 'field' would be isotropic (with
respect to the planar orientation of orbits). A non-isotropic or
anisotropic 'field' would have a preferential orientation of the
planes of orbits and this exactly the case with respect to our solar
system. If the central mass of our solar system was concentrated in a
compact torus of high density then the lowest energy state for other
masses distributed in the solar system would be on the plane of the
toroidal axis of that torus. Remember, a central law of the universe is
that all matter and energy obtain to the lowest energy state available.
The gravitational field of a compact dense toroid would be a toroidally
symmetric field and the distribution of matter in the solar system
would follow that symmetry. The fact that the distribution of objects
in regular orbits around our sun follows such a symmetry is a strong
argument for the existence of that symmetry in the first place. An
Isaacium ring in our local star (the sun) produces the gravitational
anisotropy of the solar system that is plainly evident in the
distribution of matter that is primarily along the ecliptic. Isaacium
rings are a major feature of all stars and galaxies and they are the
cause of the very evident gravitational anisotropy of galaxies that is
prominently displayed in the form and distribution of matter in a
galaxy. SATURN'S ANISOTROPIC GRAVITATIONAL FIELD For a very evident
example of gravitational anisotropy in our own solar system one only
needs to look at Saturn's rings. The rings are made of many millions
or billions of chunks of matter that range in size from that of
mountains to the size of grains of dust. All these ring components are
distributed in a very flat plane around Saturn. This distribution
argues strongly for a disk or toroidal compact mass in the core of
Saturn. The rings of Saturn and its spherical oblateness are strong
evidence of the gravitational anisotropy produced by the Toroidal
Central Mass Which Produces a Gravitational Anisotropic Gravitational
Field With Preferrential Low Energy State Located on the Plane of the
Toroidal Axis

A Spherical Central Mass Produces Spherically Symmetric Gravitational
Field That Demonstrates Inverse Square Relationships with Masses and
Orbits But No Preferrential Orbital Plane Spherical Central Mass
Produces Spherically Symmetric Gravitational Field That Demonstrates
Inverse Square Relationships with Masses and Orbits But No Preferential
Orbital Plane.

Toroidal Central Mass Produces Gravitational Anisotropic Gravitational
Field With a Preferential Low Energy State Located on the Plane of the
Toroidal Axis

ASKING THE RIGHT QUESTIONS

I believe that science, ultimately, is about asking the right
questions. It isn't or shouldn't really be simply about providing
explanations but rather about asking the right questions. People can
provide the most complex and even convincing explanation and even have
won a Nobel Prize for an explanation (a theory) that later was found to
be wrong. A true scientist isn't interested in 'explanations' but
rather in the truth of the matter. If you accumulate a certain amount
of diverse data and then get the cart before the horse and are more
intent on providing explanations for the data than you are concerned
about the truth then you are likely not acquiring knowledge but rather
generating pseudoknowledge. Many people who call themselves
'scientists' do this all of the time and often one cannot actually
differentiate the work product of such pseudoscientists, who are
considered mainstream scientists in good standing, from that of a
clever pathological liar. When this happens then what we have called
'science' has really become pathological science. Much of what
passes today for 'scientific fact' is in reality neither
'scientific' nor factual. What you think you know for sure may
prevent you from ever being able to ask the right questions. There is
quite a lot of evidence of the gravitational anisotropy of stars but
one can hardly convince so-called 'scientists' involved in that
arena to begin to ask the right questions, especially when they think
that they already have the answers.

ONE CAUSE - MULTIPLE PHENOMENA

Suppose that we have five or more phenomenon that really all emerge as
functions of some one underlying cause. Now suppose we accept a
separate explanation for each of them none of which ever touches upon
the basic underlying cause. The question that we have to ask ourselves,
if we were somehow taken aside and secretly apprised that all of these
phenomenon could be reduced to a single cause, would we want to know
the single simpler cause? Would we be disposed to abandon five or more
well developed theoretical explanations for a simpler cause, even if we
haven't a clue as to how this simpler cause could be explained to
exist itself? I believe that stars display a number of different
features or phenomenon which can all be traced to or dealt with by a
single cause which cause happens to be gravitational anisotropy. If you
believe there is no evidence at all of gravitational anisotropy then
I'm not sure that I would want to disturb your belief because it may
be that you have accepted five or more other explanations which
altogether prevent you from even examining the question of whether or
not stars show gravitational anisotropy. You may be so married to those
other explanations that you may be unwilling to give up any or all of
them. Nevertheless, I'll share with you the reasons that the
gravitational anisotropy of our own local star is blatantly obvious to
me. But the term 'blatantly obvious' may seem offensive to those to
whom it is not obvious particularly so if the reason that it is not
obvious to them is if they have accepted alternative explanations for,
say, the origin of the structure and dynamics of the solar system.

1. If they believe that the solar system evolved as an accretion disk
and that the planets were spun off from a central rotating mass then
they believe that they already understand why all the planets are
within a few degrees of the ecliptic and they might not even see the
obvious solution which is extreme solar gravitational anisotropy that
suggests that the overwhelming bulk of the solar mass lies along a
plane. Of course, the 'Accretion Disk' theory has no observational
data to demonstrate that the left over remnants of a supernova
explosion would form into such a disk. In fact there are no mathematics
that can even deal with such a many body problem let alone come to any
conclusion that the eventual end would be a disk of material that then
could collect into planetary bodies. The popular theories with respect
to the formation of the solar system has it that the entire solar
system formed in about a 100 million year period. Most people don't
realize that this suggested 100 million year period is just a hand and
arm waving conjecture from a pseudoscientist. There is absolutely
nothing to back these ideas up. So, why believe in them unless you are
a pseudoscientist yourself or are so gullible that you can be taken in
by such unscientific and unsupportable nonsensical suggestions?

ENTIRE MOVIE FROM ONE FRAME?

We've been able to observe things that might be believed to be disks
around massive objects for perhaps only 20 years at the most. Is it
reasonable to extrapolate our observation time which is only about one
five millionth of the length of the alleged process? At 30 frames a
second a movie lasting 5 million frames would take 46 hours. Is it
reasonable to extrapolate the end of an entire 46 hour movie based upon
one frame? But this is exactly what scientists are telling you that
they have done if they believe that their observation of distant
objects that they have conjecture to be disks of matter are protosolar
systems in the process of formation.

2. If they believe that solar rotation adequately accounts for solar
oblateness then they have decided in advance that there is no reason to
call upon any notion of gravitational anisotropy as an explanation. Yet
the gravitational anisotropy of a toroid disk of heavy matter would
produce the same solar oblateness.

3. If they suppose that the longitudinal advance of the perihelion of
Mercury is perfectly accounted for by GR then they would have no reason
to consider gravitational anisotropy which could also account for it.
4. If they believe that gravitational anisotropy cannot or would not
produce a differential rotation rate between the equator and the poles
of the Sun (The sun rotates faster at the equator than at the poles)
then it may be that they have not considered that possibility at all
even though gravitational anisotropy accounts for it quite well.

4.a Considering that there are numerous papers reporting evidence of
differential rotation of a variety of stars from Sol type to cool
dwarfs, the most straightforward explanation is gravitation anisotropy
of stars in general.

5. If they believe that a solar wind latitude gradient is not evidence
of gravitational anisotropy but perhaps an artifact of differential
rotation, then they are already satisfied with 'explanations' that
only end up begging more questions that are more difficult to answer.
Scientists shouldn't be willing to accept several complex
explanations which are based upon a variety of dependent conjectures
some of which cannot be shown to be true because the alleged data that
they rely upon is no longer present (or never existed). That they do
accept such unverifiable processes will preclude them from exploring a
simpler general solution and will also prevent them from investigating
the cause or origin of stellar gravitational anisotropy. Yet, evidence
of gravitational anisotropy exists all over the cosmos, from our own
solar system (and Saturn's rings, treated as a separate system) to
stellar jet systems to supernovae.

6. And moreover, the evidence, I believe points to the existence of a
super dense matter ring near the stellar core. When we see a supernova
like 1987A produce an expanding ring of heavy nuclei material
containing iron and cobalt we can wonder why or how such a ring evolved
- but the simplest explanation is that a fissioning ring of heavy
elements started as a ring of even denser material. It doesn't matter
if we don't have an immediate answer to the question of "How could
a ring of heavy matter form in the first place?", because if we are
on the right track then the answer cannot be far away. But as I
indicated above, I believe that true progress in science depends upon
asking the right questions. If you could never come to the intellectual
point of asking how a ring of super dense matter could form in a star
if they actually do, then you'll never get to the truth of the matter
simply because you were unable to ask the right question.

By the CD-ROM Book "When Shiloh Comes" it is all in there.

http://www.singtech.com/Unification.html

Charles Cagle

I guess the commercial success of The Final Theory will bring a rash of
get rich by selling a million online books schemes. I for one would
like to read before I would pay at least a review by a trusted name in
physics. You can send me a copy of the book and I will give you a
honest open minded opinion and review.

Fusioneer wrote:

GRAVITATIONAL ANISOTROPY

What is gravitational anisotropy? If there is a main body of mass
around which are situated many far less massive bodies then the
physical shape of the main body should have an effect on the
distribution and evident gravitational relationships of the lessor
bodies to the main mass. For example, if the mass of the sun were truly
concentrated into a sphere then the gravitational field produced by
such a physical geometry should be a spherically symmetric field that
would be ruled only by the inverse square law and there would be no
preferred orientation of the planes upon which other bodies should
collect in orbits around the sun.

Not true on several counts: Frame dragging and other mass-current
effects from the (differentially) rotating body. Dicke addressed
solar mass distribution vs. Mercury's perihelion advance, as did
others following. It doesn't make a difference compared to other,
larger effects.

A body orbiting in a divergent gravitational field will preferentially
align with its longest axis radial to the barycenter of mass. If it
is spherically symmetric it will still suffer quadrupole tidal
distortions, re the Roche limit.

In other words, the planes of orbits
should have no preferential orientation.

This is not true.
[snip 180 lines]

Christ you puke a lot of text without saying anything.

6. And moreover, the evidence, I believe points to the existence of a
super dense matter ring near the stellar core.

and so the **** appears.

Charles Cagle

Ha ha ha.

--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/qz.pdf

Well, you're like the fellow who wants to sample his bride's charms
before he marries her. This book is likely not for you. It shows
how to derive the unit charge from first principles, then the unit
gravitational charge but prior to that I show how to logically derive
the 'General Case' (with regard to the interactive behavior of
elementary charged particles) that shows Coulomb's law to be a special
case. I prove that the so-called strong force is entirely
electromagnetic in nature. Oops! There goes gluons and quarks out the
window!

I then spell out the dynamics of flux loop systems and show how they
oscillate between modes where Del X E mode demonstrates the properties
of a magnetic dipole structure and Del X H mode demonstrates the
properties of an electric dipole structure. You won't find this in
any text book. Yet once it has been pointed out to you then you
shouldn't have any problem realizing that the Sun acts just like it was
a giant flux loop system oscillating between modes and that such
oscillation between modes is exactly the solar cycle. HH30 as a
stellar jet system oscillates between modes and creates copious amounts
of mass in a non-conservative process which it ejects in solar system
sized blobs along its poloidal axis. Other stellar jet systems do the
same thing. I've worked out the details and the mechanics of mass
generation. I've worked alone for 33 years on these things. I've
discovered the basic mechanism that the universe uses to introduce new
geometry and hence new matter into the universe ex nihilo. In unifying
electromagnetism with gravity I've deduced a property of gravity (a
strong charge separation effect) that hitherto has been unknown yet
becomes obvious once you know the secret. The charge separation effect
leads to the formation of heavy dark matter and to gravitational red
shifting.

When the Earth's own EMT (electromagnetotoroid) which is the underlying
physical phenomenon that produced the mass of the Earth goes through
mode changes it, too, produces mass in the form of neutrons at the rate
of several hundred billion tons per second. This leads to the cyclic
expansion or growth of the planet. How long does it take for the
Earth's field to go down once it has been stimulated properly by the
impact of a CME or two along with the impact of a large solar flare or
two? How about 15 days! Coe and Prevot (sp?) published twice in
Nature citing evidence of extraordinarily rapid field changes during a
dipole reversal event.

This book would be the best buy you ever made but I'm not so deparate
that I'm going to satisfy your curiosity for nothing or at my expense.
If you pay nothing - you will value it along the lines of your expense
of obtaining it. I spent 33 years working on these things. I have
given away copies to certain people but the cost is not so much that
you can't afford it. Only in America could it be that a homeless man
has unified electromagnetism and gravity. Ironic, eh?

If I said that over the years that the Almighty God revealed these
things to me then you'd want to reject it anyway just because of that.
So, what have I to do with you? Do you believe in the Living God?
Probably not. So - even if my book was filled from end to end with
truth (which it is) - if the truth isn't in you then it will be worth
nothing to you because you won't be able to hear it.

Peace to all men of Good Will

Charles Cagle

"Fusioneer" wrote in message
oups.com...

Chaz,
If you actually want folks to read your contributions, you would rduce
them to about a quarter or less of the one I have just snipped.
Surely you understand that the danger is that folk will just recognise
your offerings as word slads just by the sheer wright of them.

[snip]

--
Franz
"The great tragedy of science -- the slaying of a beautiful hypothesis
by an ugly fact."
T.H. Huxley

"Franz Heymann" wrote in message
...
Chaz,
If you actually want folks to read your contributions, you would rduce
them to about a quarter or less of the one I have just snipped.
Surely you understand that the danger is that folk will just recognise
your offerings as word slads just by the sheer wright of them.


I would like to add that if you want this tome to be read, you should learn
the rudiments of sentence and paragraph structure. Dense collections of
text are hard to decipher.

But then again, if you made it easier to read,
people would be able to discover the
flaws in your thesis at an earlier stage.

regards,
Dar7yl

Frame dragging, eh? Amazing that you jump on every band wagon that
comes around. People would rather evoke a half dozen different
mechanisms for what is obviously one thing which is gravitational
anisotropy. And the anisotropy is caused by the formation (in rings)
of heavy dark matter along the toroidal axis of the Sun's primary EMT
(electromagnetotoroid) which is a large scale flux loop that oscillates
between modes.

You'd rather believe the complex and transparent lie of the Emperor's
New Clothes than the simple truth that a child can see. Alan Schwartz,
you have a dark heart. Lighten up. Quit coming out like a barking
Chihuahua. Your responses are typical fear responses. You fear and
hate anything you don't understand. You can understand reams of
nonsense because your heart is so dark and so filled with falsehood.
But the truth - Well, you bark at the truth. But you're not
consistent - you also bark at nonsense. Hell, you'll bark at anything
you don't like. :-)

I'd try reasoning with you but you're often so vile that I have no
inclination but for the sake of other readers it will appear like I'm
attempting to reason with an unreasonable person.

Heavy dark matter - why do you suppose that it is dark? I'll tell you
why? No electrons. That's why its dark and that's why its heavy.
Good grief, a child could figure this out- but not Alan Schwartz.
Nope. Nosiree. He doesn't know and he doesn't care. He only barks.
Why no electrons? Well that's because a property of a gravitational
field is that it produces a charge separation effect, that's why? Why
does it do that or how does it do that? A gravitational field is a
time rate gradient field and so particles that are near the terminus of
a monolithic gravitational field will, to any outside observer, begin
to overlap in momentum space. This means that pairs of particles will
have a common de Broglie wavelength that is equal to or greater than
their interparticle distance. You geniuses should have been able to
figure this out without having to learn it from a simple commercial
fisherman (that was my occupation in my youth). By failing to follow
the rules of logic and continuing to accept Coulomb's Law as
descriptive of the general case with regard to the interactive behavior
of elementary charged particles when it first became obvious that it
didn't hold in the nuclei of atoms the pseudoscientists of the day
invented the so-called 'Nuclear Strong Force' and they made it out of
the same stuff as was woven the Emperor's New Clothes, i.e. their
imagination. Once you find an exception logic demands you demote the
general case to the status of a special case. But eschewing reasonable
epistemological principles these frauds invented the 'Strong Force' and
then foisted it off on their unwitting and likewise intellectually
incompetent peers. That's how it happened folks. Honest. No big
mystery. People couldn't bear to admit they didn't understand why
multiple protons were residing all snuggled up next to each other in
the nuclei of atoms (except hydrogen) so they simply invented a lie and
stuck to it and then believed it. Then they taught it to everyone else
and people like Alan Schwartz simply lacked the wisdom to see the
fraud. It took a simple fisherman to see the deception. And they hate
me for it. Why? Because it means that they are all blind and have
been deceived and they don't like to have the world know that they've
been utter incompetent fools in such matters. They never worked out
the details. They had the facts in front of them but they were too
intellectually lazy to examine them properly.

When elementary charge particles don't have motion with respect to each
other then they behave like any other bird (birds of a feather flock
together, :-) ). Really, elementary charged particles (of the same
sign) that are at rest with respect to each other are strongly
attractively interactive. If they are oppositely charged then they
repel one another. Why should that be? Well, it is really simple and
all you have to do is apply the notion that charged particles produce
what we describe as a vector field (Del X H) when they are moving.
But such fields are never present in the rest frame of the particle
itself.

The intersection of such vector fields produces either null pockets or
flux density hills. Particles move towards the pockets or wells and
away from the hills. It turns out, if you work out the details that
two protons at rest with respect to each other will have a large number
of vector field emanating from their location but not local to them
because ot the motions of large numbers of other particles in the
universe. The intersection of such vast numbers of vector field
produces a very deep null motion pocket between the two particles.
They fall towards it and it appears they are attracted to each other
when in fact they are merely falling towards the local hole produced by
the large number of nonlocal fields that emerge from them due to the
motions of other particle in the universe.
Once you couple the new general case with the actual nature of a
gravitational field then and understand that any flux loop structure
produces a gravitational field along its toroidal axis. To that
toroidal axis will accumulate protons and neutrons but not electrons.
Hence you have rings of heavy dark matter existing in stars. For
crying out loud why do you suppose you get expanding rings of matter
from supernovae? Pay attention. Put things together people. Why are
you so dull of mind and of hearing? The Cosmos is screaming facts at
you and you ignore them for your damnable theories that you prize about
the truth.

Buy the book. Get enlightened

http://www.singtech.com/Unification.html

Peace to all men of Good Will

Charles Cagle

Fusioneer wrote:
[snip crap]

When the Earth's own EMT (electromagnetotoroid) which is the underlying
physical phenomenon that produced the mass of the Earth goes through
mode changes it, too, produces mass in the form of neutrons at the rate
of several hundred billion tons per second.
[snip more crap]

Charles Cagle

Ha ha ha.

--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/qz.pdf

Fusioneer wrote:
[snip crap]

Really, elementary charged particles (of the same
sign) that are at rest with respect to each other are strongly
attractively interactive. If they are oppositely charged then they
repel one another.
[snip more crap]

The perfect idiot.

Charles Cagle

Ha ha ha.

--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/qz.pdf

Maybe I don't want the likes of you to read it. What if you should
repent and then be healed of the darkness of your heart? The problem
is that you'll grab at any straw to put down what you don't really
understand or don't want to accept. What I've written I've written
and I won't change it for the likes of a person who hasn't even read
the whole thing and doesn't grasp why things have to be spelled out in
detail for them.

Peace to all men of Good Will

Charles Cagle