during solar eclipses there is a change in gravity

So, the Earth is affected by the sun's gravity and it is also affected by the moon's gravity.
Doesn't take a dumbass to figure out that when the moon is directly between the Earth and our sun we will be affected by their combined gravity.

Thanks, did you also know that when you put your hand into water, it'll get wet?

reply to post by XPLodER


I am glad you picked up on this. I, being a doting father, just don't take time to compose meaningful threads. Used to, but the youngest got older and demanded more of my time. But the Allais effect is a subject worthy of discussion and study.

I would suspect the reason you really haven't heard of this is for the same reason Dr. Noevers decided to steal the Allais Experiment, pt2. Once he completed it, he disappeared for quite some time. When he was found he kept saying he was having to go over the data.

Seems like the data is pretty straight forward. Tell folks where the pendulum was during specific timeframes of the eclipse. Not like it should have taken him years, and it isn't his job to craft a theory for that data before releasing it.

Actually, that was the stated problem between Dr. Ron Koczor (Noevers "partner" on the Allais Effect Experiment) and Dr. Ning Li. Koczor wanted to pursue applications of the anti-grav effect, while Li wanted to work out the theory behind it so that they could actually maximize its capability. It is a VERY strange about face for Dr. Koczor and Noevers to change direction when it comes to the Allais Experiment, and decide that crafting the theoretical model must take precedent.

No, they stole the data. Plain and simple. All because of a coverup of some sort, I can only presume.

Originally posted by manontrial
So, the Earth is affected by the sun's gravity and it is also affected by the moon's gravity.
Doesn't take a dumbass to figure out that when the moon is directly between the Earth and our sun we will be affected by their combined gravity.

Thanks, did you also know that when you put your hand into water, it'll get wet?

Hmm...if this is so "common sense", then why has it been denied for years? I have seen Allais called some horrible things. I would say it is the fact that he won a Nobel in economics and not physics, and the known condescension of most physicists (look around ATS...physics is less about finding out truth, and more about e-peening to boost ones own ego).

BTW, you don't seem to understand what is going on in the experiment very well. What you state was discovered, was not what was really discovered. Try again.

A link to the NASA site discussing the "upcoming" experiment with Noevers:

science.nasa.gov...

What stands out at me (and something I had forgotten) was that Von Braun had difficulty setting up launch trajectories for US rockets due to some strangeness in the way the rockets reacted (vs. how they should have acted based on mathematical models). Von Braun believed the Allais effect was a solid explanation for why rocket trajectories were "off".

I would think that the work of Dr. Baker, et al, in China might help determine an answer (if the work isn't kept on the black books). They were developing high frequency grav wave detectors. Gravitational waves are one of the possible explanations for the Allais Effect.

reply to post by bigfatfurrytexan

Regarding the 1999 experiment:

In the most recent September 19 correspondence from Professor Allais, he indicated: "In these types of experiments one needs to proceed slowly. On the whole, the repetition of these experiments offers NASA an exceptional interest."

science.nasa.gov...
It sound like no unambiguous data or data which supported the existence of the effect may have been obtained and he chose finally not to publish.

It makes sense that Von Braun would have an interest in the effect in the early days of spaceflight because it would influence orbits if it were found to exist. It would have to be accounted for in orbital calculations.

The only rocket trajectory which was "off" was Explorer I. I hope you're not talking about that. It ended up in a higher orbit than planned but there wasn't really much of a mystery about it (except maybe in Hoagland's mind).

Van Allen was clearly not inclined for a post mortem on the point. He told the Des Moines Sunday Register: “There’d been just a slight error in our quick estimate of the satellite’s initial speed and period of revolution.”

www.thespacereview.com...

reply to post by Phage


Well, since he didn't publish or give reason for not publishing, one would expect at least a response to the multiple requests for the data.

With an experiment that covered multiple labs across the world, one would expect some kind of disclosure of results from someone, right? Not having it supports the assertion that Noevers "stole" the data.

reply to post by bigfatfurrytexan

Scientists are funny that way. When an experiment doesn't turn out the way they would like it to they have three choices.
1) Fiddle with the data. That wouldn't work in this case. Too many people were involved. This would also seem to cause problems with "stealing" the data.
2) Do the "right thing" and publish the results. "Nothing happened."
3) Just be quiet about it. "Don't bug me, I'm working on it."

Seeing that Allais was so deeply invested (I don't mean monetarily) in the theory and that he was 88 at the time, I think #3 is a more likely scenario than the stealing of the data. What about the others involved? If the data was stolen, why didn't they yell about it?

Originally posted by manontrial
So, the Earth is affected by the sun's gravity and it is also affected by the moon's gravity.
Doesn't take a dumbass to figure out that when the moon is directly between the Earth and our sun we will be affected by their combined gravity.

Thanks, did you also know that when you put your hand into water, it'll get wet?

Do you even understand what is going on in the initial thread? Sounds like you didn't even bother reading through all of it. The thread is about how the pendulum changes direction during an eclipse. Two objects' gravity combined does not account for the shift seen in the pendulum. Either some sort of distortion of gravity is in effect, or maybe some of the other poster's theories are correct

reply to post by Phage

While relativists have always been partial to the curved space-time explanation of gravity, it is not an essential feature of GR. Eddington (1920, p. 109) was already aware of the mostly equivalent “refracting medium” explanation for GR features, which retains Euclidean space and time in the same mathematical formalism. In essence, the bending of light, gravitational redshift, Mercury perihelion advance, and radar time delay can all be consequences of electromagnetic wave motion through an underlying refracting medium that is made denser in proportion to the nearness of a source of gravity. (Van Flandern, 1993, pp. 62-67 and Van Flandern, 1994) And it is now known that even ordinary matter has certain electromagnetic-wave-like characteristics. The principal objection to this conceptually simpler refraction interpretation of GR is that a faster-than-light propagation speed for gravity itself is required. In the context of this paper, that cannot be considered as a fatal objection.

source

right lets get hypo here
consider forget the answer for the question "has this been observed and verifyed"

and lets asume for the moment that the effect has been confirmed and the mecanisms for it are not understood
for the sake of progressing the theory

what would the results imply,
for one the fact that gravity can be Focused of "lensed" by interveing mass (moon)
that gravity travels and effects the earth before the light from the sun can travel the distence
there would seem to be an offset effect that if you use light speed where you "see the sun" (apparent) and where the earth is attracted too (acual position)are two different locations.

so gravity is focused where we acually are, from the sun where it acually is, while light is curved from where the sun WAS to were the earth is going to be

so if this was a temperature induced event there would be the offset of influence by the 8.3 minitues light takes to reach us from the sun (i realize the moon is closer)
but for light to travel to us it must travel through the 8.3 minutes to the future location of the earth and be eclipsed by the moon
this would "follow" after the moon has started transit in a matter of seconds
where as the gravitational effects would be encountered before the moon started to transit

hope this makes sence guys cause my head hurts

i will continue to read up on this

xploder

reply to post by XPLodER

The shadow of an eclipse does not originate at the Sun. It originates at the Moon, about 1.3 light seconds away. The shadow takes 1.3 seconds to reach Earth.

But an eclipse is not a fixed, instantaneous event. The umbra moves across the surface of the Earth. Flandern & Yang propose that the atmosphere above the location of the experiment is influenced by the approaching (and departing) eclipse.

If the shadow were static or slowly moving, air would flow deep into the eclipse zone until pressures equalized again for the higher density of air mass present. The greatest density would be found in the center of the shadow where the eclipse is total. However, reality is far from a static situation...

The result is that warmer air from outside the eclipse zone is continually trying to rush toward the cooler regions just inside the shadow, increasing the total mass of air over the ground below.

www.eclipse2006.boun.edu.tr...

reply to post by Phage


i dont know how to explain this is tech terms so i will try in my own words

for a lense to increase the distence an object can be seen, refraction over gravity allows objects too far away to see to be visable. in this example

there are two angles of incidence to an object
the first angle of incidence is direct to the object, light travels to the observer through non bent space time.
the age of the image is the distence in light years that is between observer and object

the second angle of incidence travels through a density/gravity lense and then on to the observer.
the age of the object is younger because of the effect of the lense
the distence between the object and observer is the same

but the "age" of the image with the lense is younger but the distence is the same

the object gives a short pulse, and the image from the lense shows this pulse first
following by the direct line of sight

in this example is the light pulse acually travelling faster than the speed of light?

or is the gravity conducting the pulse faster throught the lens? (time frame not pulse rate)

so in the moon three body equation eclipse

is the light from the sun 8.3 minutes away being lensed by the moon at 1.3 light seconds away
and altering the "time" for light at the surface of the sun to reach earth?
would this explain the jump in the moons "appairent" positoin ?

planetary micro lensing in a strange way

is this at all making sence?

xploder

reply to post by XPLodER

Sorry. No, it isn't.

First you were talking about gravity being lensed (focused) by mass and now about light being lensed by gravity and somehow being accelerated in the process. You are speaking as if light behaves the same way as gravity does.

Mass bends space time which causes light to "bend". Gravity is the result of that bending.

Well while I'm wrapping my head around this I do wanna say this is an excellent topic for discussion...I can't wait to see where this one goes!

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by XPLodER

 

Sorry. No, it isn't.

First you were talking about gravity being lensed (focused) by mass and now about light being lensed by gravity and somehow being accelerated in the process. You are speaking as if light behaves the same way as gravity does.

Mass bends space time which causes light to "bend". Gravity is the result of that bending.

edit on 6/4/2011 by Phage because: (no reason given)

ill try again
lets asume three things first
before eclipse the moon is microlensing the sun
but it is micro lensing the "apparent position" of the sun 8.3 mins ago
as the moon gets closer to full eclipse the microlensing shortens the time for light to go from the sun to the earth,
in this case, with these conditions

the light source changes from "apparent" to "acual" location of the sun
this would present as a jumping of "apparent" position of the earth aginst the micro lense and backround light source

is there such an observation?
edit to ask
is there any lunar eclipse anomoloies with transit time of "appairent" motion or increase/decrease in observed length in transit?


xploder

reply to post by XPLodER

Gravity doesn't affect the speed of light. In fact, it would increase the time it takes light to reach it's destination a bit. A curve is longer than a straight line and requires longer to traverse.

The mass of the Moon is too small to produce any appreciable effect on light.

reply to post by Phage


a brief aside...but the way you put that is interesting.

So the space between the observer and the observed could, in theory, be nearly infinitely long even if the appearance is that they are relatively close from the perspective of the third person, standing off to the side.

In my thoughts, the only way i can reconcile this concept is for gravity to be moving towards tetradimensional space. Moving "in", to so speak.

reply to post by bigfatfurrytexan

A brief but way too interesting aside to pass up.

The only observer who doesn't see the distortion is the one within the bent frame of reference. All outside observers see the longer path no matter what their perspective is.

But that does bring up an interesting exception. If the distortion lies in a single plane and an observation directly along the plane perpendicular to the distortion is made, would the observer see a straight path? It seems that for that observer, light would appear to slow down since the curve would not be apparent.

I wonder how that could be tested.

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by XPLodER

 

Gravity doesn't affect the speed of light. In fact, it would increase the time it takes light to reach it's destination a bit. A curve is longer than a straight line and requires longer to traverse.

The mass of the Moon is too small to produce any appreciable effect on light.

bingo
the moon is to small a mass with to short a distence to allow for the micro lensing we are talking about
but the sun is in the backround
so the moon does not have the ability to lens with the suns potential untill in "acual" alignment
with the "acual" location not the "observed location"

i cant beleive im about to say this but............................
the eclipse is an image artifact of lensing
the eclipse acually hapens at a different time then we acually observe the "appernt" eclipse
and this means that the gravitaional effects are in "acual" time and the eclipse happens in "apparent" time

this would have the effect of displacing the gravitational effect from the optical effect
and making direct corrilantion between timing very difficult

i have found recent results that show this effect in controlled tests with both sensor type and pendulum type experiments.

The detailed behavior of both pendulums over the eclipse period shown in
Fig. 8 was remarkable. During the period before the eclipse no particular
disturbance was detected, and the 10-minute precession amounts of both
pendulums generally exhibited the same behavior. After the local eclipse
maximum the precession amount of the automatic pendulum started to
increase steadily, while that of the manual pendulum started to decrease
steadily. This trend continued unabated until about forty minutes after
fourth contact, when the sense of change of the precession of the manual
pendulum changed to be the same as that of the automatic pendulum.
After this both pendulum precession amounts marched together in almost
perfect lockstep, decreasing until about 12:15, then executing an abrupt
spike upwards and back downwards which ended at about 13:15, and then
increasing until about 14:20, at which point the manual pendulum
precession again reversed its trend. It is clear from the calmness of the
environmental data that these phenomena were not linked to any variation
of meteorological conditions.

link to experiments conducted with controls
from different locations with "blind" results individually
and then a conclusion drawn from all the results

source with different locations and sensors accross the planet

General. The outstanding feature of the results is that, although the types
of apparatus used by our three independent teams were quite different, in
all three cases, for each apparatus, the most outstanding peculiar effect
was seen after the visible eclipse had ended. This was not the pattern that
might be expected beforehand: a priori one would suppose that, if any
anomalous effect were to be observed, it would occur during the visible
eclipse, when (from the point of view of the experimental apparatus) the
body of the Moon partly covers the Sun and intercepts any influence
- 14 -
progressing linearly from the body of the Sun. Of course, a third possibility
is that an anomalous effect might be observed before the visible eclipse
starts, and actually that was part of the pattern seen during independent
gravimeter

source 2008 eclipse data

very interesting reading and from 2008

xploder

reply to post by bigfatfurrytexan


found some more recent data to add to the thread

still, three completely independent experiments were
conducted in three separated locations, and the result of each was that the
most significant deviation occurred substantially after the visible eclipse. If
the observed deviations of all three sets of equipment were random events
due to faulty equipment or poor operation and thus were not attributable to
any common external factor,

PDF source

so im not sure weather this is reveiwed but it does deepen the mystery


xploder

reply to post by XPLodER


Regarding the "torsion balances".

The sealing of the housings rules out any possibility of interference due to air currents or humidity variations, and improves the thermal stabilization.

www.allais.info...
Yet, as seen in the image of the apparatus, the wire used to provide electrostatic protection wraps under the glass enclosure, creating a gap large enough for air flow. The devices were apparently set on a table top, subjecting them to physical shocks.

Regarding the results:

The results show two devices (F11 and F15) with no significant variation during the eclipse.

F6 shows a sharp "drop" approximately two hours before first contact, another 30 minutes before, followed by a gradual "rise" until midway between totality and last contact, followed by another sharp drop, even lower than the first.

F3 shows a gradual "rise" starting about 30 minutes before first contact. The change levels off then sharply rises at totality then a drop to "normal".

F12 shows a little activity until 15 minutes before first contact, erratic activity before totality, a drop at totality, then a rise back to "normal".

The results are completely ambiguous. All the devices show a sudden drop two hours after the eclipse ended. How that can be atributed to the eclipse (even by the "delay" you are talking about) is beyond me. Since the devices were not sealed against atmospheric influence, something like someone opening a door in the building could cause the deflections. A heavy footfall while entering the room.

The pendulums. They say it themselves, there were problems with ambiguous results.

Ambigous results, no matter how they are interpreted, are ambiguous.