A SHIFTING THEORY OF GRAVITY
By Daniel
G. Emilio, Copyright 1998, 1999, 2000, 2001, 2006
Computer Simulation By Hans Wijntjes
Introduction
Shifting Theory is a particle-based gravity theory that proposes that random gravitons strike and are absorbed into a body, which then expels other gravitons - creating the gravity wave. Simultaneously, the body is "shifted" toward the direction from where the graviton came - creating the gravity attraction. Shifting theory is not LeSage Gravity. LeSage is also described as "push gravity" and is generally discredited because its interactions are inelastic, which tends to heat up and slow the body down. This would cause planetary orbits to decay and the planets themselves to heat up.
The viability of Shifting Theory will be determined by the results of Gravity Probe B, which is testing Einstein's theory. If the frame dragging (Lense-Thirring effect) is detected, Shifting Theory is invalidated and Einstein confirmed. If frame dragging is not detected, Einstein is invalidated, however, Shifting Theory will not be confirmed but remains viable only. The results of Gravity Probe B are expected about April, 2007.
April 14, 2007 - GRAVITY PROBE B RESULTS IN - AT LEAST HALF THE RESULTS.
I have said for a long time that Gravity Probe B would either confirm or repudiate my theory. And if repudiated, I would say so. However, Gravity
Probe B was measuring two predictions of Einstein. First was the geodetic effect, which is a warping of spacetime caused by the presence
of the Earth. The second prediction being tested was framedragging, which is caused by a combination of the geodetic effect (warping of space)
combined with the rotation of the Earth - like a spinning top in water causes the water to be pulled along with the top.
Gravity Probe B has now confirmed the geodetic effect. That effect is what causes time dilation, which requires us to recalculate GPS units to
conform to this geodetic effect. Shifting Theory explains the geodetic effect as caused by a change in density of gravitons near the Earth due
to gravitons grouped into bursts - creating a kind of graviton vacuum. Einstein explains the geodetic effect as a depression in space/time
caused by the mere presence of the Earth. Shifting Theory and Einstein both predict the geodetic should have been confirmed (for different
reasons), which it was. However, the real question is what causes the geodetic effect and Gravity Probe B does nothing in that respect.
However, the second prediction of Einstein that Gravity Probe B is testing is framedragging. Gravity Probe B has not yet confirmed this and
the results will not be released until December of this year. Framedragging is not predicted by Shifting Theory and if detected invalidates
Shifting Theory and confirms Einstein. It is disappointing that nothing was said regarding framedragging. We have to wait until December.
Assumptions
The Shifting Theory makes two assumptions.
Assumption 1 - All physical phenomena must have a particle-based cause.
Assumption 2 - Gravitons have the ability to mechanically stick to particles and to each other.
What causes gravity? More specifically,
(1) what is the gravity "wave" and how is it created (Mechanism 1), and
(2) how does the gravity "wave" attract matter (Mechanism 2)?
This theory proposes that these are two distinct physical mechanisms caused simultaneously
by the same interaction.
Note: The term "graviton" hereafter describes a particle of mass that makes up the gravity wave. Shifting Theory's graviton does not carry any charge, attractive force, or energy (except its own momentum). It should not be confused with the graviton of the Standard Model, which is defined as massless. The term "graviton" is used to avoid having to invent new terminology. The term "particle" hereafter describes the smallest particle of matter that is not a graviton. In the following drawings, RED represents gravitons, GREEN represents particles and YELLOW represents a gravity source.
MECHANISM 1 - The gravity "wave" is simply a steady stream of gravitons emanating from all particles of matter. Free gravitons, which move randomly through space, also randomly strike and are absorbed by particles of matter, which forces the particle to eject another graviton.
The light arrows represent randomly moving gravitons striking or missing the particle only coincidentally. The dark arrows represent gravitons that have previously been absorbed and are now being expelled by a new graviton strike. When particles expel gravitons, these expelled gravitons create the particle's "gravity wave." Gravitons have no charge or energy (except its momentum), and carry no attractive force. If a graviton coincidentally strikes a particle, it sticks to the particle and the impact forces out other gravitons - thus creating the gravity wave.
MECHANISM 2 - The secondary result of gravitons striking the target particle is that the target particle will actually shift toward the direction from where the incoming graviton came.
This seems counterintuitive. If I shoot a bullet at a tin can, the can is propelled directly away from me. Therefore, when a graviton is shot at a stationary particle, shouldn't that particle be propelled in the same direction as the graviton - away from the source? The answer would be yes, except that in the process, the particle also ejected a graviton. The Law of Conservation of Momentum requires that the target particle to actually move toward the source!
Imagine two stationary and touching billiard balls, "A" and "B" are located on the x-axis such that "A" is directly over x=0, and "B" is directly over x=1. An object ball, "C," of the same size is shot along the x-axis from right to left and exactly strikes "B" at velocity "V." The result is that "A" will be ejected to the left at exactly velocity "V," "B" will remain over x=1, and "C" will stop at exactly x=2. Unlike LeSage Gravity, Shifting Theory interactions between gravitons and particle are elastic - there is no loss of energy. The particle does not heat up and all energy (momentum) from the incoming graviton is transferred to the ejected graviton.
Momentum is preserved because "A" continues at the same velocity as "C." However, when "C" stops at x=2, the original two-ball grouping has now shifted to the right, from x=0,1 to x=1,2. We still have a two-ball grouping, but it has "shifted" toward the direction from where "C" was coming - toward the source of the incoming graviton.
For a demonstration of a single billiard ball example, see the following Java
Applet demonstration. Pay attention to the lower set, press "play" and notice the
ending position of the blue ball. (You may need to refresh the screen if error occurs.)
Java Applet demonstration.
If we now add a particle to the system, we end up with the same result - the particle shifts toward the source. In the following drawing, the relative size of the particle and gravitons is irrelevant to the principle. For our purposes, the particle plus two gravitons makes up the particle "unit" - that is, we assume that a particle always has a fixed contingent of attached gravitons. Then when a new graviton is forced into the "unit," one of the attached gravitons is ejected - to maintain the required contingent.
As to the switching of positions between particle P and the gravitons in steps 2 and 3 and then again in steps 4 and 5, the switch does not affect momentum because the center of gravity of the "unit" is maintained. In reality, the particle P is probably vastly larger than the gravitons and when a graviton is absorbed on one side and another expelled from the other side, there must be a redistribution of gravitons around the particle. The ejected graviton ("A") now forms particle P's gravity wave to affect other particles.
The following drawing gives a better representation of the mechanism. The green particle and the ten attached gravitons make up the particle "unit." I.e., the particle must always have its contingent of attached gravitons - no more, no less. In the first frame, graviton "A" approaches. In the second frame, "A" is absorbed into the particle "unit" - ejecting "B." But notice that because there is now more mass on the right side, the center of gravity (CG) of the particle "unit" has shifted to the right. Finally, in the third frame, the gravitons have redistributed themselves around the particle. But this means that the particle itself must shift to the right to maintain the center of gravity of the particle "unit" (Law of Conservation of Momentum).
It is clear that we cannot depend solely on the absorption and expulsion of gravitons from other particles to create the gravity wave. The system would shut down because there simply isn't enough matter in the universe compared to empty space to account for the number of gravitons necessary. The answer is that we are swimming in a sea of gravitons (graviton aether) that are moving in every direction throughout the universe. But remember that although "aether" is mentioned, Shifting Theory IS NOT LeSage gravity or an aether push theory.
The vast majority of gravitons in space never actually encounter matter, and further they have no effect on matter unless they actually strike a particle. However, when they do strike a particle, they stick to it and in the process, the particle ejects a graviton. Balance must be maintained. The particle is being continuously bombarded by gravitons, it absorbs gravitons and then ejects other gravitons, thus creating the gravity wave for that particle and, in the process, shifting the particle in the direction of the source - creating the gravity "attraction."
The
"Shadow" Problem
Assume we have a single particle A alone in the universe. Random gravitons will then strike A and gravitons will be emitted - creating the gravity wave. The number of gravitons striking A will then be constant and equal in number of strikes per unit time.
Next we introduce particle B. B will also receive strikes and will also create its own gravity wave. In fact B will receive exactly the same number of graviton strikes as A and will create exactly the same gravity wave. Then, some of B's gravitons will approach and strike A, just as some of A's gravitons will strike B.
A problem arises. When B was introduced into the system, B itself will actually block off some gravitons that would have otherwise struck A. B has effectively cast a shadow over A. And because of this, A is not being struck with gravitons that come from the direction where B is located. But then B's gravity wave will send its own gravitons which will strike A. (It is important to reiterate, this is not LeSage gravity and mention of a "shadow" does not imply that graviton strikes force the particles together.)
The question now is this. Will the number of gravitons coming from B and striking A be less than, the same as, or greater than the number of gravitons that B has blocked off?
If you do the math, you will find that the number is exactly the same. That is, if B blocks off X gravitons, then B's gravity wave will cause exactly X gravitons to strike A. And this is true no matter how far apart A and B are from each other.
Therefore, A will be struck with the same number of gravitons regardless if B is present or not. But this means A cannot sense B as a gravity source at all. The gravitons coming from B would appear to A to be the same as normal background graviton radiation. But then how would A be drawn to B?
BURST - The answer is that the system is not homogenous. That is, particles do not emit gravitons on a one-to-one basis and gravitons do not fly around the universe as individual gravitons. But this is also consistent with the concept that gravitons attach themselves to particles. If they can cling to particles, they should also be able to cling to each other - gravitons have sticky fingers!
When particles emit gravitons, they do so in bundles or Bursts. That is, the particle cannot release any gravitons until there is a critical number of excess gravitons attached to the particle, and then a large number of gravitons are ejected all at one time. Think of the problem like a droplet of water. No matter how hard you try, you cannot drip less than a single drop of water.
So what you have is a particle that is bombarded by gravitons without any gravitons coming off. Then when the number of absorbed gravitons reaches a critical number, a large number of gravitons come off all at once. You get a timed bursting of gravitons coming from the particle and then a period of silence. And the number of gravitons that are emitted will vary with the type of particle.
(Courtesy
Dany Bouchard)
So what we have are individual gravitons which are absorbed, but Bursts of gravitons are emitted. To be sure, the vast majority of gravitons fly right through the planet unaffected. But the gravitons that do come off the planet due to Mechanism 1 come off as Bursts.
But this begs the question - even if single gravitons combine to produce Bursts, doesn't the total number of gravitons emitted remain the same number as the total number entering - whether in bursts or singly? The answer must be yes - there cannot be any gain or loss. So it appears we are back with the same problem - we still don’t have attraction between the planets because of the shadow problem because the number of actual strikes remain the same. Stay with me.
BOUNCE - Assume that two planets are in close proximity (like the Earth and Moon). It is likely that some graviton bursts coming off one planet should strike the other. In fact, it is most likely that there should be a great number of bursts bouncing back and forth between the planets. And the closer they get, the number and frequency of bounces between each must also increase. There are two implications. First, with each bounce,the burst becomes larger because it strips off gravitons when it strikes a particle, and second,those same bursts or gravitons which are bouncing back and forth are repeatedly affecting each body.
The shadow problem is no longer a problem because we are effectively "adding" new gravitons between the planets because of bounce. We are not truly adding anything, but the number of strikes must increase, and that is all that matters. And as the burst continues to grow, the greater is the probability it will strike particles in the bodies. So with bodies in close proximity we are getting heavy concentrations of bursts bouncing back and forth.
NOTE:The idea of Bounce is a critical concept in the Shifting Theory which resolves the shadow problem. It can best be demonstrated in the computer simulation developed by Hans Wijntjes. The following screen shot demonstrates how graviton bursts continuously bounce back and forth between the planets - creating a strong attraction.
Download Computer Simulation Here.
The Shadow Problem, while no longer a problem for attraction, raises an entirely new issue. Going back to the two particles A & B alone in the universe, we saw that A could not sense B because B would block X gravitons from striking A, but then B would emit X gravitons, which would strike A. Now consider that A & B are the Earth and Moon. Next, assume that the Earth is directly between the Sun and Moon. Now if X gravitons from the Sun would have struck the Moon if the Earth was not between them, we now know that the Moon will be struck by exactly X gravitons that come from the Earth. Effectively, the Moon continues to sense the Sun exactly the same whether the Earth was in between or not. Consequently, normal matter can never act to shield gravitons - i.e., the gravity "wave" effectively passes right through matter, planets or stars without being diminished in the least.
PHOTON CREATION - While there will be some bouncing of bursts between planets, it is obvious that bouncing between the particles within a planet happens at a much higher rate because distances are closer. Particles are tightly packed and even though gravitons or bursts have a very high probability of not striking anything, the probability of strikes will grow as the body becomes larger in size. Therefore, bouncing of bursts within our Earth, for example, must be at a higher rate than in the moon, but Bounce within the Sun must be at a far greater rate.
This begs the question: how large can the burst become as it is bouncing within a Sun, and is there an upper limit? While there is no evidence to suggest it, I believe that at high enough levels, the burst ultimately becomes a photon. (My view is that photons have no heat or energy beyond their momentum. The energy of the photon is realized only when it strikes a particle or object and then transfers its momentum to the object.) If this is so, it would suggest that the light that comes from a star is just the bursts that grew from within. All this means that larger planets produce larger bursts. This also means that larger planets produce higher internal temperatures. This would explain why Jupiter and Saturn both emit heat faster than they receive from the Sun and why their internal core temperatures are hotter than can be currently explained. It further suggests that in a sufficiently large planet, the bursts that are emitted have become so large that they turn into photons and the planet becomes a star. This further suggests that stars would never burn out because there is a never ending supply of gravitons coming in.
Is Anti-Gravity Possible in
the Shifting Theory?
The issue is whether gravitons can be "blocked." Now, if whatever is blocking the gravitons is attached to some vehicle, then anti-gravity doesn't work because those gravitons would also "pull" on the material that is blocking and we haven't really blocked anything. On the other hand, if the "blocking material" is attached to the Earth, then we might have an anti-gravity effect but it would only be local and it couldn't move with a vehicle. On the other hand, if there would be some material that would create an inelastic interaction between gravitons and the material, then anti-gravity is possible. That is, it would require a material that only absorbs gravitons but not ejects them. Then we would truly have the "bullet shooting the tin can" hypothetical. The material would then necessarily move away when struck by the gravitons. Then if the material was attached to a vehicle, the vehicle would also be pushed away from the source - e.g., the Earth. In such an inelastic interaction, the material would then necessarily heat up. The only material that might qualify would be the mini-black hole (MBH) suggested by Stephen Hawking. If MBHs could be suspended and fixed in some type of material, then possibly, under Shifting Theory, incoming gravitons would be absorbed by the MBHs, but no gravitons would be ejected. This would create an inelastic interaction and the MBHs would be pushed "away" from the graviton source - and pushing whatever the MBHs were attached to - creating anti-gravity.
A far more interesting issue arises as a result of the above discussion. If the interaction was truly inelastic, it means that the MBHs would heat up. Now, the question is that if the MBH heats up, could the heat in the MBH dissipate? That is, could the MBH ever cool down? If it cools down, then that means that gravitons are truly ejected and raises the question of whether the interaction was truly inelastic in the first place - or perhaps the interaction was only "partially" inelastic. Finally, if the MBH heats up and then can dissipate its heat, then don't we have the possibility of an inexhaustible power supply?
On the Constancy of the Speed of Light
Why is light speed constant? Regardless of the direction or speed of the light source, the speed of light remains the same. We know this. Under Einstein's Special Theory of Relativity, the speed of light is constant because - well, just because. But this explanation doesn't work for the Shifting Theory where every physical phenomenon must have a particle-based cause. Shifting Theory's explanation is that light is a "self-propelled vehicle." That is, it travels under its own power like a rocket ship or fish. Once a rocket ship leaves the Earth's orbit, the rocket reaches its maximum velocity regardless of which side the of the Earth the rocket ship was launched. If I empty a bucket of fish from a boat in a lake, the fish will swim at their own speed regardless of the speed or direction of the boat.
But if light is a "self-propelled" vehicle, we need a mechanism to propel it and an endless supply of power.
Assume a single particle A is alone and stationary in the universe (like a photon, or any other particle for that matter) . Now assume A is bombarded on all sides uniformly by gravitons (more or less equal strikes from all directions). We can predict that A will be shifted one direction and then another depending on individual graviton strikes (or bursts). Essentially, the particle will remain stationary but vibrating.
Now assume that A is placed in constant velocity. Because of A's velocity, the front side of A will receive more graviton strikes per unit of time than the back side. Going back to the fundamental principle of the Shifting Theory, a particle will shift TOWARD the direction from where the graviton came.
If A is now receiving more strikes on the front side than the back, this means that A must necessarily shift more in the forward direction than the rear - the particle speeds up. This is opposite of what we expect in LeSage Gravity (where front side strikes would slow particles down). And now that it is going even faster, even more strikes will occur on the front side and consequently more shifting will occur in the forward direction. Therefore it can be said that A PARTICLE IN MOTION WILL ACCELERATE. The question becomes, do we have any physical evidence which would confirm this prediction? The answer is yes. In fact, all subatomic particles obey this principle.
The most obvious example is light. We know that the speed of light is constant - but only in a vacuum. When passing through a dielectric medium, light slows down (e.g., light passing through water, glass or air is significantly slower - in fact - that is what the index of refraction of light is measuring). But on exiting the medium, the light ACCELERATES - back to normal speed. But how can light speed up without expending energy or losing something in the process. The answer, under the Shifting Theory, is that light acts like a self-propelled vehicle - powered faster by the shifting effect when it is struck by incoming head-on gravitons. When a photon passes through a medium - like glass, for example - the medium itself interferes with gravitons that would have otherwise struck the photon (Bursts cause a less dense graviton "sea" and creates a kind of vacuum) - thus slowing the photon down. But on exit the graviton "sea" is again rich and the photon speeds back up.
Relativity states that light doesn't actually slow down when passing through a dielectric medium, but rather the photon strikes an electron field of an atom which then emits another photon, and this process is then repeated millions of times until the last photon leaves the medium at full speed (like a relay race). The apparent slow down, it is claimed, comes from the transfers which aren't instantaneous. This standard answer is essential to Relativity because any true slow down in the speed of light is a direct refutation of both STR and GTR.
But the problem with the textbook answer is that it doesn't address, let alone answer, a fundamental question - how does the emitted photon take on the precise direction of travel of the absorbed photon? This is important because if there is any deviation in direction at all, and this deviation is repeated millions of times, we would not be able to see the world around us - the light coming from a tree, for example, after passing through so much air, would become totally diffused.
The problem would be like trying to set up a million billiard balls in a three dimensional space, one inch apart, and then shooting a cue ball at the first, hoping that the millionth ball takes on the precise direction of the cue ball. And the relative sizes of the photon compared to an atom makes the problem astronomically worse and would be like changing the billiard balls example and spacing them at distances like the orbit of Pluto is to the Sun.
In rebuttal, the photon is claimed to not be a particle at all, but rather an electromagnetic wave which doesn't interact with the atoms at all, but with the bulk properties of the medium.
But they can't have it both ways. If the photon is a particle, then the drop in speed due to transfer is possible, but not the precise direction of travel. On the other hand, if the photon is a wave, then it doesn't have to interact with atoms, but then it DOES truly slow down. The relativists want it both ways - to argue that the light photon sometimes acts like a particle and sometimes like a wave - because arguing either position is untenable - a very convenient escape clause! They simply close their eyes to the issue and move on to other more "interesting" issues. But the relativists must argue from each position, and can never give in on this issue, because Relativity itself depends on it. And without Relativity, we're back one hundred years and still in the dark.
While the Shifting Theory has an explanation for light slowing down and speeding up, then why doesn't the light just continue to speed up forever - why the limit at all? The answer is that, just like an automobile engine, there are certain characteristics of the light photon "engine" that creates a limiting value for its speed (for example, the speed and density of gravitons and the graviton space, the transfer rate at which gravitons are absorbed and ejected from the photon, the size of the photon's shift relative to the photon's size, etc). And extending this thinking, every other type of particle would also accelerate, but their maximum speed is more limited than light, based on different characteristics.
This new model of light as a self-propelled vehicle is also consistent with the Michelson-Morley experiment and the resulting problems relating to light's speed. That is, this new concept of light is fully consistent with the observable fact that light, unobstructed, always flies at the same speed. It explains that after light slows down, while passing through a dense medium such as water, glass or air, it immediately resumes its original speed when it is again free. And it also explains why light emitted from a star always travels at the same speed regardless of the direction the star. The speed of light is independent of the speed or direction of the star that emits it - because light flies under its own power. Its speed is determined by the "graviton space" that it flies through.
This concept that particles accelerate is fully consistent with the observation that particles in the universe do not slow down - no matter how much time passes. For example, if neutrinos are truly particles with mass, then why haven't all neutrinos come to a stop (or at least slowed down) after countless collisions with each other over the eons? (In fact, if neutrinos have mass, why don't some neutrinos fly at slower speeds, e.g., 1000 mph?) Doesn't entropy demand that everything eventually come to a stop - or at least slow down? Relativists argue that light has no mass and therefore will never slow down. But what about neutrinos or other particles? They have mass so shouldn't those particles slow down over time or some of them fly at slow speeds? They all fly at the same rate.
For the Shifting Theory to work successfully, it is necessary that particles have an ample supply of gravitons available to strike it. But, if the density of particles per unit of volume rises to a sufficiently high level, then the number of gravitons available to each particle drops. This, of course, would never be a problem for matter in normal space, but in a black hole, the particles are densely compacted.
The generally accepted theory is that the matter in the black hole has crushed itself together so tightly, that all of the matter in the black hole is compressed to a single point, with virtually no dimension - the singularity. However, in that state the individual particles would be so densely packed that there would be no gravitons for the particles at all (too many packed particles for the density of free gravitons in unit volume of space). In such a case, a particle could not absorb any gravitons and, consequently, could not expel any, and the gravity wave for that particle would simply cease to exist. If this happens to all the particles in the black hole, the black hole would simply not be a gravity source at all.
But the fact is that as the black hole grows in mass, as more and more matter continues to fall in, the gravitational forces must continue to force the black hole into a smaller and smaller volume. What's the answer?
As the volume of mass continues to shrink, the distance between the particles becomes less and there are simply not enough gravitons to go around. But as the black hole continues to suck in more matter, and gravity continues to increase, the particles are squeezed even further. I am suggesting that in the black hole there is stratification - more densely packed particles toward the center. And the particles at or near the center are simply robbed of gravitons. Those particles then simply cannot create gravity waves. (But even more to the point, at the very center of the Big Bang black hole, particles are crushed into pure gravitons - unable to move because of the pure, ultimate density.)
This means that as the black hole continues to grow in mass, more and more of the particles within the black hole do not create gravity waves. And as new matter falls into the black hole to increase the overall gravity force, more and more particles within the black hole lose the ability to create their own gravity. This means that there must be a limit to the overall gravitational force of the black hole. It will approach a point of equilibrium where, even as more matter falls in, there will be no net increase in the black hole's overall gravitation, since there is also a corresponding loss of gravitation as more particles in the center are squeezed together. Therefore, there must be a limit to gravity. (In reality, the black hole would never fully reach the gravity limit, but rather will approach that value asymptotically).
There is another consideration. There is also the desire of matter to wish to expand when placed under such pressure. However, the expansion forces, which have been trivial up to this point in comparison to the gravitational forces, continue to grow as the overall mass of the black hole continues to grow. But since gravity has reached its limiting value and cannot grow any further, the expansion force will eventually grow to overtake the gravitational force. At that instant the black hole has reached its "critical mass" and the expansion force finally prevails over the gravitational force and the black hole expands, violently - the big bang! Because of the stratification within the black hole, it is the center particles that have lost the ability to produce gravity, and they are the ones that are pushing outwardly. The outer particles are holding tight - like the crust over a volcano - trying to hold back the inevitable explosion.
Of course, unless the gravitational force stopped growing at some point, the expansion forces could never exceed the gravitational force, and the black hole would continue to grow forever, and continue to suck up all matter in the universe. There never would be a big bang.
But if the center of the Big Bang black hole was composed of pure gravitons, then it reasonable to state that when the big bang exploded that all matter was formed from those gravitons. Just as gravitons combine to form bursts, they might also combine into larger units of matter. This wouldn't just happen because gravitons collide. Under normal conditions, the structures that gravitons combine to make are unstable bursts I describe. But at the time of the big bang, pressures and temperatures were so great that gravitons might have formed into crystal-type stable structures. These stable structures might be what we recognize today as quarks and leptons and perhaps other known or unknown particles. These formations would have happened only at the time of the big bang, and only those stable structures that were then created are what make up all the matter in the universe today.
Deriving Newton's Formula F=G(M1*M2)/D^2
Can Newton's gravity force formula be derived under Shifting Theory. That formula is: F = G * (M1* M2)/D^2, where F is the force between two bodies, G is a gravitational constant, M1 and M2 represent the mass of bodies 1 and 2 respectively, and D is the distance between the bodies. That is, the total force between the bodies is directly proportional to the product of their masses and inversely proportional to the square of the distance between them. The gravitational constant is an adjustment for units of measurement and is not relevant or necessary to the proof.
There are two basic assumptions necessary. The first is that all matter is composed of the same particles. We are not talking about atoms, protons, or electrons. When I refer to particles, I am referring to the smallest building blocks. Therefore, Uranium (atomic weight 235) would have 235 times as many building block particles as Hydrogen (atomic weight 1).
The second assumption is that the density of free gravitons in space is the same everywhere. Therefore, all particles in the universe will receive the same number of graviton strikes per second and therefore the number of gravitons emitted from all particles per second is also the same.
Now if bodies M1 and M2 are composed of only one particle each, and if we disregard distance for the moment, we can define the force between the two bodies as an arbitrary gravitational force of 1. The single line connecting the particles represents a force of 1. Think of the line as a stretched rubber band with force of 1. The inner circle is the particle and the outer ellipse is the body.
Now if we increase the number of particles in each body, we can calculate the force between the bodies by connecting all particles and adding up the number of lines or rubber bands. The total force would be additive. In the example below we have a gravitational force between M1 and M2 of 2 * 3 = 6.
And if M1=4 and M2=5, the total force would be 20. Therefore, we now have a formula for computing the gravitational force between any two masses under the shifting theory (discounting distance for the moment). F = G * (M1 * M2).
The next issue involves the effect distance has on the gravitational force.
Again consider that a body, such as the Sun is made of an enormous number of particles and that each particle is emitting gravitons. Then at time T=0, there are X number of gravitons (finite amount) leaving the surface of the Sun. At time T=1, those same X gravitons sit at distance R = 1 from the Sun and those gravitons can be described as sitting uniformly spaced on the surface of a SPHERE of radius R = 1 (discounting the sun's dimensions). The area of the surface of that sphere is therefore A = 4 * pi * R^2 = 4* 3.14 * (1)^2 = 12.64 sq. units.
At time T=2, the radius of the sphere has grown to R = 2, and the surface area of that sphere is A = 4 * pi * (2)^2 = 4 * 3.14 * 4 = 50.24 sq. units.
Those same X gravitons (now sitting at radius R = 2) must therefore occupy an area 4 times greater than at R = 1 and their density, per unit area of surface, is consequently 4 times less (the inverse square of the distance). That is, if bodies A and B have the same mass, and A sits at distance R = 1 from the Sun and B sits at R = 2, there will be 4 times more graviton strikes (and consequently 4 times greater force) applied to A than to B. And there will be 9 times greater force applied to A than to C (at R = 3). That is, we divide the force by the square of the distance. Therefore, F = G * (M1 * M2) / D^2.
How can Einstein's General Theory of Relativity be wrong when virtually all the math appears to confirm it? But we know that GTR doesn't have all the answers and that's why we keep hearing about strings, superstrings and more and more complex mathematics to try to unify GTR with Quantum Theory. Imagine you are standing behind me and I look at you with a mirror. I can get an almost perfect picture of your reality by looking at the mirror, but some things don't quite work. When you lift your right arm it looks to me like your left. Dimensions aren't the same as if I looked at you directly and I also can't get a three dimensional perspective. I can modify my theory of you by making certain adjustments, but my view through the mirror is not reality. To get the proper perspective, I need to give up on the mirror and make a 180 degree turn around.
To understand how Einstein can be wrong is to first ask, "WHY was NEWTON wrong?" The problem goes back to the fundamental assumption that the laws of nature were immutable. That is, matter exists, time exists, space exists, gravity exists, and these fundamentals were absolute and unchangeable. It wasn't until improved observation didn't coincide with theory that we recognized that something was wrong. Newton was wrong because his theories didn't allow for variability in the fundamentals. It took Einstein to recognize that something must not be absolute.
Einstein's answer was to alter (bend or warp)space/time when near any gravitational source. As implausible as this seemed, altering any of the other fundamentals - the speed of light, uniformity of gravitational fields, the non-variable nature of matter - seemed impossible. But allowing some of the fundamentals to vary would allow for a theory that conformed to observation. But there is clearly something missing in GTR because the numbers don't all work.
GTR states that matter (e.g., a star) creates a kind of depression in space. It is this depression, they claim, is the cause of gravity in that other matter wants to fall toward the star because of that depression (distance is shorter than going any other direction). But the threshold question is, how does the star cause the depression? The depression or warping must either be 1) caused by the mere presence of the star, or 2) that the star emits something (such as a gravity wave or graviton stream or something) which causes the effect. The problem with the first is that there is no rational explanation for the phenomenon, but further, what then would be the function of the gravity wave, which scientists agree exists? The problem with the second is that if a gravity wave or graviton stream causes the effect, then how does matter have the ability to continuously generate the wave or graviton stream without depleting itself of something - not to mention the question how would the wave or graviton stream cause a depression when no other wave or particle of matter has an equivalent ability?
The answer, under Shifting Theory, is that space and time do not vary, but the gravitational force itself does. That is, gravity varies based on the relative speed between the bodies. At rest, i.e. in a perfectly circular orbit, two bodies fully obey Newton's force law. But when bodies move relative to each other (in elliptical orbits), the instantaneous gravitational force will vary. For example, when Mercury is at a fixed distance from the Sun, it will be either moving toward the Sun or away from it, depending on which side of the orbit it is. When it is at that specific distance from the Sun, Mercury will be receiving more instantaneous graviton strikes from the Sun when it is on the side of its orbit when it is moving toward the Sun than it would if it was moving away. It's like sticking your head out the sunroof of a car. If the wind is blowing 30 miles per hour and you are driving 30 miles per hour into the wind, you "feel" that the wind is going 60 miles per hour. And if driving in the opposite direction, you "feel" the wind is not blowing at all.
The same thing happens with gravity. When Mercury is moving toward the Sun, Mercury senses the Sun is actually larger than it is and the gravitational attraction is greater than Newton's prediction. This will cause a greater gravitational force and will cause Mercury's orbit to shift (the Mercury Perihelion shift problem). The same thing happens for light passing by the Sun. When moving toward the Sun, the light photon "feels" the Sun to be larger than it actually is and it will deflect more than Newton's formula would predict (the light bending problem).
I welcome any comments on this theory sent to: danielemilio@earthlink.net. You are encouraged to link, pass along to others, and/or reprint these articles/pages electronically or on paper, understanding, however, that the information and theories contained in this paper are strictly proprietary, and no use or reference to any of the theories described herein may be used or published in any manner without full credit given to the author. © Copyright 1998, 1999, 2000, 2001, 2006 by Daniel G. Emilio. All rights reserved.
www.calcare.us