GRAVITY AND THE PHOTON

SUBJECT: GRAVITY IS NOT A FORCE

PLANETS ORBIT THE SUN TO CONSERVE TOTAL ENERGY
THE FORCE OF GRAVITY IS AN ILLUSION
Copyright 1984-2004 Allen C. Goodrich
ISBN 0-9644267,LIBRARY OF CONGRESS CAT.CARD
NO.94-90554

Gravitational effect is the result of an acceleration
of mass. Galileo demonstrated this. Newton assumed
that this was caused by a force of gravity between
all masses. Was this a correct assumption? Einstein
and many other scientists felt that there must be
more to gravitation than an attraction at a distance.
Action at a distance was considered to be impossible
in the absence of a transfer of energy at the speed
of light.

Hubble then showed that the distant Galaxies were
moving away from the earth and that the universe
was expanding in all directions. If this is true ,
What else must be true?

1. The potential energy of the rest of the universe
must be decreasing relative to the mass of the earth.

It has long been assumed that the first law of
thermodynamics, which says that the total energy of
the universe is a constant, was a fact of nature.
If this is true what then.

2. The kinetic energy of the universe must be
increasing at the same rate that the potential
energy is decreasing as the universe expands.

How is this possible? Masses must be accelerating,
because, kinetic energy change is the result of an
acceleration. But all orbital masses are
accelerating toward the center of the earth or
some other mass. Why would this occur otherwise?

3. Orbital motion could then be the result of the
expansion of the universe. The Gravitational
illusion could be the result.

Based on the first law of thermodynamics
The total mass energy of the universe is a constant.
(total kinetic (mass) energy plus total potential
energy is a constant).
m(2 pi L)^2 / t^2 + G (M-m)m / L = A constant.
m is any mass say that of the earth.

From this equation the equation
Delta m (2 pi L)^2 / t^2 = - Delta G (M-m)m/L
follows mathematically.
From this equation the equation
Delta m 4 pi^2 L^2 /t^2 = Delta - G (M-m)m / L
or the modified Newton equation for gravity can
be derived,but only when L is the orbital distance.
The earth orbit is a result of an energy equilibrium,
( the absence of a change of total energy )
and not the result of a force of gravity between masses.
Force of gravity is the resulting illusion
assumed by Newton to be a force.

If a planet (say earth) moved away from the sun
its potential energy would decrease as L increased.
Its kinetic energy would decrease because it is
no longer accelerating toward the sun in orbital
motion. Total energy would have to decrease. A very
great change of total energy would have to take place.

POTENTIAL ENERGY = G(M-m)m/L
KINETIC ENERGY = m(2 pi L)^2/t^2
m(2 pi L)^2/t^2 + G(M-m)m/L = A constant = M
G= Gravitational constant; M = total energy
of the universe (or effective universe) ;
m = mass in question.
t = time ; L = radial distance.

No mechanism exists for this to occur rapidly.
So it could not happen. The magnitudes of kinetic
and potential energies of planets and moons
travelling in orbital motion are equal and any
increase or decrease of orbital distance L results
in an equal change in magnitude of both.This is
the only value of L where no change of total energy
will occur if the value of L changes. At any other
distance L, an increase of kinetic energy will be at a
different rate than potential energy decreases.
Orbital motion conserves total energy.
Force of gravity isn't needed to explain orbital
motion or any other motion at a distance.



GRAVITY MECHANICS AND
RESEARCH ON ASTRONOMICAL OCEAN TIDES
Copyright 1984 to 2002 Allen C. Goodrich

An examination of United States Coast and Geodetic
Survey Tidal Data, which was gathered by extensive
measurements over long periods of time,was compared
with astronomical data showing the phases of the
moon at corresponding times for many years. This
correlation of the two sets of data revealed a
very interesting fact, in a manner that had never
before been mentioned in the literature.
It is invariably and exactly
the lowest tide that exists directly under the
full and new moons at deep ocean ports.

TABULATED co-op.nos.noaa.gov and
space.jpl.nasa.gov DATA:
OCEAN TIDES AND PHASES OF THE MOON
AT DEEP OCEAN PORT- MYRTLE BEACH
LOWEST TIDE (YEARS 1992 AND 1993)

1992 FULL MOON---1992 NEW MOON
(at moons highest point in the sky)
DATE---TIME(std)-DATE---TIME(std)
Mar.18--12:00Mid-Mar.3---12:00Noon
Apr.17--12:00Mid-Apr.2---12:00Noon
May.17--12:00Mid-May.2---12:00Noon
Jun.15--12:00Mid-Jun.29--12:00Noon
July.13-12:00Mid-July.29-12:00Noon
Aug.12--12:00Mid-Aug.27--12:00Noon
Sept.11-12:00Mid-Sept.26-12:00Noon
Oct.11--12:00Mid-Oct.26--12:00Noon
Nov.10--12:00Mid-Mov.25--12:00noon
Dec.10--12:00Mid-Dec.25--12:00noon

1993 FULL MOON---1993 NEW MOON
(at moons highest point in the sky)
DATE---TIME(sdt)-DATE---TIME(sdt)
Jan.8--12:00Mid--Jan.24-12:00Noon
Feb.6--12:00Mid--Feb.21-12:00Noon
Mar.8--12:00Mid--Mar.23-12:00Noon
Apr.6--12:00Mid--Apr.21-12:00Noon
May.6--12:00Mid--May.20-12:00Noon
Jun.4--12:00Mid--Jun.19-12:00Noon
July.3-12:00Mid--Juy.18-12:00Noon
Aug.2--12:00Mid--Aug.17-12:00Noon
Sep.1--12:00Mid--Sep.16-12:00Noon
Sep.30-12:00MId--Oct.15-12:00Noon
Oct.30-12:00Mid--Nov.14-12:00Noon
Nov.29-12:00Mid--Dec.13-12:00Noon
Dec.28-12:00Mid--Jan.12-12:00Noon

This was a very interesting discovery because
current physics,based on the gravitational theory,
discussed in the following U.S.Gov. documents:
PREDICT THE OCEAN TIDES
http://co-ops.nos.noaa.gov/restles1.html
SEE PHASES OF THE MOON FROM EARTH
http://space.jpl.nasa.gov/
,would lead one to believe that,except for many
possible reasons, the highest tides tend to be
under the full and new moons. The dictionary and
encyclopedia as well as physics texts predict this
with pictures of the earth and oceans bulging on
the side facing the full moon. Of course it never
happens as the gravitational theory predicts,
and many reasons are given for the discrepancies.

CONCLUSION:
No discrepancies were found in the occurence of
exactly the lowest tide directly under the full
and new moons, at deep ocean ports. A lowest tide
also occurs on the earth's ocean directly opposite
the new and full moons.

SIGNIFICANCE:
One must admit that this is beyond
question one of the most important discoveries
of modern physics research. It indicates that a
change must be made in the theory of gravitation.
One can no longer assume that a force between
the moon and the water of the earth's oceans,
is causing the ocean tides. The force of
gravity must be an illusion caused by some other,
more basic, reason. What would this be?
If the total energy ( kinetic and potential ) of
the universe is assumed to be a constant,from this
fundamental equation, many interesting things follow.
If the rest of the universe is expanding ( potential
energy decreasing) relative to masses, the masses
must be shrinking ( increasing in kinetic energy )
(gravitation) relative to the rest of the universe.

THE FIRST LAW OF MOTION-(GOODRICH)

Copyright 1984 to 2002 ALLEN C. GOODRICH

A body (m) continues in a state of rest (equilibrium)
or motion in a straight or curved line (equilibrium)
as long as no change occurs in its total (kinetic and
potential) energy, relative to the rest of the
effective universe (M-m),

Delta m(2 pi L)^2/t^2 = - Delta K(M-m)m/L

equilibrium = no change in the total energy
relative to the rest of the effective universe (M-m).

^ = to the power of.
Orbital motion complies with this equation.
This equation is derived from the fundamental
equation of the universe which states that
the total energy of the universe is a constant.
The sum of kinetic and potential energies is a
constant.
m(2 pi L)^2/t^2 + K(M-m)m/L = A constant.

INERTIA AND MOMENTUM are the properties of a mass
that evidence its reluctance to change its total
energy, or it is its need to maintain a constant total
energy. If it could more easily obtain or lose energy,
it would have less inertia or momentum.

SEE
THE UNIVERSE- A GRAND UNIFIED THEORY OF MASS ENERGY
SPACE TIME FRAME MECHANICS-APPEARING IN NEWSLETTER
"SPECTRUM" OF THE BUFFALO ASTRONOMICAL ASSOCIATION
INC. NOV.1996 TO FEB.1997
See http://ourworld.cs.com/gravitymechan.../business.html
FUNDAMENTAL EQUATION OF THE UNIVERSE
http://ourworld.cs.com/gravitymechan...e/profile.html
TIDES AND GRAVITY MECHANICS
http://ourworld.cs.com/gravitymechan...ge/resume.html

A new theory of gravitation is given, which
predicted, stimulated the above research,and is
consistent with, the new findings.
The universe has been found to be expanding at an
accelerating rate as predicted in 1984 by this new
theory.

THE VELOCITY OF LIGHT IS AN ILLUSION
Copyright 1984 to 2004 Allen C. Goodrich

The Nichelson - Morley experiment proved this.

An expanding universe of constant total mass-energy is
continually decreasing in potential energy and increasing
in kinetic energy. Any change of kinetic energy relative to
the rest of the universe,would be accompanied by an
equal but opposite sign change of its potential energy
relative to the rest of the universe.

LIGHT is a change of this rate of change of the potential
energy of the rest of the universe relative to a particular
part ,say the electron of the atom,as it changes kinetic
energy.
Only the part of the universe that is at the proper relative
energy density, direction, distance and frequency,relaive
to the rest of the universe will be effected by the light
(change of the rate of change of potential energy)..

Because the relative rate of expansion of the rest of the
universe, relative to the particle, say electron of the atom,
is the velocity of light, any particle at a distance from the
kinetic enery change must expand to the proper energy
density before it can sense, or be effected by,
the light ,change in the rate of potential energy change,
in this expanding universe.This presents the illusion of the
velocity of light.Time is required for the energy transfer to
take place at a distance because of the need for expansion.
The rate of volumetric acceleration,expansion, is a
function of energy density in a universe of constant
total energy.
A negative kinetic energy change of a mass,is a positive
potential energy change of the rest of the effective universe
relative to a mass of the proper frequency,direction
distance L and time change t (density), in the expanding
universe. This is consistent with the first law of
thermodynamics, which conserves total energy.
The L/t is currently falsly assumed to be a velocity of light.
This explains the T.R. Young two slit interference pattern.
Light is not a particle, it is a positive potential energy
change of the entire universe, that can become a positive
kinetic energy change of a mass such as the electron if the
frequency, direction, distance L and time change t
(density) are correct.

SEE
THE UNIVERSE- A GRAND UNIFIED THEORY OF MASS ENERGY
SPACE TIME FRAME MECHANICS-APPEARING IN NEWSLETTER
"SPECTRUM" OF THE BUFFALO ASTRONOMICAL ASSOCIATION
INC. NOV.1996 TO FEB.1997
See http://ourworld.cs.com/gravitymechan.../business.html
FUNDAMENTAL EQUATION OF THE UNIVERSE
http://ourworld.cs.com/gravitymechan...e/profile.html
TIDES AND GRAVITY MECHANICS
http://ourworld.cs.com/gravitymechan...ge/resume.html

A new theory of gravitation is given, which
predicted, stimulated the above research,and is
consistent with, the new findings.
The universe has been found to be expanding at an
accelerating rate as predicted in 1984 by this new
theory.

ELECTROMAGNETIC ,PHOTON AND CHARGE EFFECTS. ARE DEFINED
IN THE FOLLOWING BOOK.-- THE UNIVERSE:--Allen C. Goodrich

THE SOLAR SAIL
Copyright 1984 to 2005 Allen C. Goodrich

The Solar Sail, which is being tested by Russia and the United States,
for possible propulsion in interstellar space travel, is additional
evidence
that no change of potential energy to kinetic energy of the photon
takes place unless the potential energy is absorbed .The photon does
not have mass ( kinetic energy).
A change of direction of the photon's potential energy can occur at the
reflective surface but no potential to kinetic energy change takes
place there. A change of potential to kinetic energy takes place at the
black absorption surface.which has the correct frequency response as
well as
direction and density (time ) in the expanding universe.This is
evidence
that the photon is potential not kinetic energy.The light photon does
not have mass or kinetic energy.until the photon is absorbed by a mass
of the correct frequency response as well as direction and density
(time ), no
potential to kinetic energy change can take place.in the expanding
universe, in the absence of a mass..

ACE,
I can't but wonder why there's Usenet banishment as having been applied
to your research: "Gravity and the Photon", as it seems to be an honest
argument and perhaps as you say an extremely important issue, as
clearly having been given a great deal of consideration by way of your
research having indicated "gravity is not a force".

All that I can think of is that you must have created quite an
insurmountable dilemma for these all-knowing Usenet disinformation-R-us
rusemasters, thus entitled to be receiving their form of applied
damage-control via banishment is about all that they have to go with.
As such banishment seems to be in affect for both of us, I'd been
wondering if perhaps you couldn't give my ongoing research a little
independent input as to understanding the mutual gravity-well or
nullification zone (EM-L2/ME-L1) that's situated interactively between
us and our moon.

This task at first seemed simple enough, whereas even though this zone
is offering a continually interactive location that's influenced second
by second primarily as by Earth and the sun, along with another slight
19 month cycle of influence associated with Venus. Unfortunately, it
seems that there's no good set of numbers (such as a planet/moon tide
like chart of exactly where this zone is at any given moment), that's
officially established and/or least of all used by any two teams.

NASA and many closely associated with NASA keep informing us that in
general terms that this null-zone is supposedly 84% the distance from
Earth as headed straight towards the moon CG, thus equally 16% the
distance away from the moon as headed directly towards the CG of Earth.

The problem is that I can't seem to make that happen as based upon any
square of the distance which calculates the equal gravity or
nullification point as being somewhat different, whereas using 1.623
and 9.8 (9.798676) and the distance of 384,400 km is where it seems
closer to being 54.27r (346,134 km = 90.045%) and of the lunar side of
this same formula being 22r (38,236 km = 9.947%). Because my research
is equally banished and/or stalked and summarily bashed is what makes
myself wonder as to what all the mainstream status quo and usenet flak
is about?

I realize there's other forces involved (including the force associated
with the full spectrum photons that seem to atoms beat by a good
1e100:1, the vast majority of which we obviously can not see) but, I'm
not the least bit smart enough to realize what all of those forces are
that could manage to shift the ME-L1 point from my 9.947% estimate to
the 16% as based upon what has been officially published as supposedly
certified by our NASA.

Anything you can provide with regarrd to this interactive ME-L1/EM-L2
zone will be appreciated.

Brad Guth

ACE,
I've already posted this following reply as a request for information
at the other two listings sci.edu and sci.astro, so I might as well
include it here as well.

ACE,
Sorry for this update.
I can't but wonder as to why there's Usenet banishment as having been
applied to your research: "Gravity and the Photon", as it seems to have
been an honest argument and perhaps as you say an extremely important
issue, as clearly having been given a great deal of consideration by
way of your research having indicated "gravity is not a force".

All that I can think of is that you must have created quite an
insurmountable dilemma for these all-knowing Usenet disinformation-R-us
rusemasters, thus entitled to be receiving their form of applied
damage-control via banishment is about all that they have to go with.
As such banishment seems to be in affect for both of us, I'd been
wondering if perhaps you couldn't give my ongoing research a little
independent input as to understanding the mutual gravity-well or
nullification zone (EM-L2/ME-L1) that's situated interactively between
us and our moon.

This task at first seemed simple enough, whereas even though this zone
is offering a continually interactive location that's influenced each
and every second by second primarily as by Earth and the sun, along
with another slight 19 month cycle of influence associated with Venus.
Unfortunately, it seems that there's no good set of numbers (such as a
planet/moon tide like chart of exactly where this zone is at any given
moment), that's officially established and/or least of all used by any
two teams.

NASA and many closely associated with NASA keep informing us village
idiots in general terms that this null-zone is supposedly situated 84%
the distance from Earth as headed straight towards the moon CG, thus
equally 16% the distance away from the moon as headed directly towards
the CG of Earth.

The problem is that I can't seem to make that happen as based upon any
square of the distance which calculates the equal gravity or
nullification point as being somewhat different, whereas using 1.623
and 9.8 (9.798676) and the distance of 384,400 km is where it seems
closer to being 54.27r (346,134 km = 90.045%) and of the lunar side of
this same formula being 22r (38,236 km = 9.947%). Because my research
is equally banished and/or stalked and summarily bashed is what makes
myself wonder as to what all the mainstream status quo and usenet flak
is about?

I realize there's other forces involved (including the force associated
with the full spectrum photons that seem to atoms beat by a good
1e100:1, the vast majority of which we obviously can not see) but, I'm
not the least bit smart enough to realize what all of those forces are
that could manage to shift the ME-L1 point from my 9.947% estimate to
the 16% as based upon what has been officially published as supposedly
certified by our NASA.

Anything you can provide with further regard to this interactive
ME-L1/EM-L2 zone will be appreciated.

Brad Guth

ACE,
Sorry for this contribution update (perhaps my third time is a charm).
I can't but wonder as to why there's Usenet banishment as having been
applied to your research: "Gravity and the Photon", as it seems to have
been an honest argument and perhaps as you say an extremely important
issue, as clearly having been given a great deal of consideration by
way of your research having indicated "gravity is not a force".

All that I can think of is that you've managed to have created quite an
insurmountable dilemma for these all-knowing Usenet disinformation-R-us
rusemasters, thus entitled to be receiving their form of applied
damage-control via banishment is about all that they have to go with.
As such banishment seems to be in affect for both of us, I'd been
wondering if perhaps you couldn't give my ongoing research a little
independent input as to understanding the mutual gravity-well or
nullification zone (EM-L2/ME-L1) that's situated interactively between
us and our moon.

This task at first seemed simple enough, whereas even though this zone
is offering a continually interactive location that's influenced each
and every second by second primarily as by Earth and the sun, along
with another slight 19 month cycle of influence associated with Venus.
Unfortunately, it seems that there's no good set of numbers (such as a
planet/moon tide like chart of exactly where this zone is at any given
moment), that's officially established and/or least of all used by any
two teams.

NASA and many closely associated with NASA keep informing us village
idiots in general terms that this null-zone is supposedly situated 84%
the distance from Earth as headed straight towards the moon CG, thus
equally 16% the distance away from the moon as headed directly towards
the CG of Earth.

The problem is that I can't seem to make that happen as based upon any
square of the distance which calculates the equal gravity or
nullification point as being somewhat different, whereas using 1.623
and 9.8 (9.798676) and the distance of 384,400 km is where it seems
closer to being 54.27r (346,134 km = 90.045%) and of the lunar side of
this same formula being 22r (38,236 km = 9.947%). Because my research
is equally banished and/or stalked and summarily bashed is what makes
myself wonder as to what all the mainstream status quo and usenet flak
is about?

I realize there's other forces involved (including the force associated
with the full spectrum of photons that seem to have atoms beat by a
good 1e100:1, the vast majority of which we obviously can not see) but,
I'm not the least bit smart enough to realize what all of those forces
are that could manage to shift the ME-L1 point from my 9.947% estimate
to the 16% as based upon what has been officially published as
supposedly certified by our NASA.

Anything you can provide with further regard to this interactive
ME-L1/EM-L2 zone will be appreciated.

Brad Guth