DoblFrcPar Oct. 14, 2011 Rev. 6/3/2016 A public domain article
Danish version by E Solbakken
Russian Translation by Prof. Alexander Nikiforov
Hindi translation of this page provided by How to become a Technician Team
French version .pdf version English
Radiation Sys Force Interactions False Constant Lite Spd Double Force Paradox
Grav. Constants > 8-2016 Create Energy Grav. Links Review Letters>
Abstract: A public domain article.
This paper compares three concepts for modeling the cause of gravitation:
* Radiation Pressure * General Relativity Attraction * Mass Attraction
The argument is presented that the radiation pressure model of gravity is the only model that produces the correct values for the forces acting upon orbiting bodies. All competing "attraction" models produce values that are double the actual force which is required to maintain orbit. This force doubling paradox as detailed in this paper indicates that the Mass Attraction and General Relativity Attraction concepts are not viable models for the cause of gravity and inertia.
In a radiation and shadowing model of remote force all forms of matter: (atoms, particles, electric charge, and magnetic fields), are subjected to "apparently" attractive and repelling remote force. However, the isotropic prime radiation is the seat and source of the relative forces, in the same manner that it is the seat and source of inertial force. Attraction and repulsion at a distance can not exist in a radiation and shadowing model of remote and local forces.
Dr. Louis Essen's, FRS, critical review of the Special Theory of Relativity circa 1970 provides an authoritative disciplined study that concludes that SR is not a scientific theory. This paper should be required reading for all advocates and authorities responsible for propagating the disproven concepts of SR and GR to our young students.
Our past and current dictionaries, dominant encyclopedias, Wikipedia and university physics books  define and refer to gravity as; an “attractive” force “inherent” to the mass or warped space of a body. Applying any "attractive" force model to the Earth Moon dynamic forces, we obtain this system:
At first this may seem like an orderly and balanced attractive force system; however,... the following paradox exists. If the seat, source and cause of the "apparent" attraction forces are "internal" to each of the bodies...the attraction concept produces twice the force that is necessary to balance the centrifugal orbital forces of a planet moon system. The concept of "attraction" between bodies requires that the force “from” each separate body acts on the remote body,-- and equally on the originating body. Another example of a balanced system is a rope under tension; each end has an equal amount of opposing force. As noted by Newton's third law of motion, " To every action there is always an opposed equal reaction".
This double force paradox is directly applicable to the "mass attraction",... the General Relativity “attraction” and all other attraction type concepts of gravity.
This example may help visualize the double force issue.
Let there be two rafts ( x and y ) freely floating on a
clear calm lake with a rope between them.
Both rafts are still and are a rope length apart.
The man on (raft x) pulls on the rope which is attached to raft y.
Raft x will move toward raft y,… and raft y will move toward raft x.
Both rafts will receive equal and opposite force and motion.
It is not possible for (raft x) to remain still and be the source of the force.
Rebuttals and suggested corrections and/or clarifications to this paper are requested and may be posted on this site with the contributor's permission. The goal is to obtain the ultimate transparency, clarity and simplicity for this double force argument.
The attraction concepts  accept Newton's inverse square equation of gravity's force between two bodies as:
F = G x (M1 x M2) / r squared .
The surface gravity ( g ) for each of the bodies can be derived from the gravitational constant ( G ) and the mass and radius of the bodies. Using Newton's equation the g forces, allegedly "seated" in each of the "two" bodies acting on the other at a distance, can be calculated.
Within the "attraction" concepts:
Using: 1 ) Newton’s equation as given above, 2 ) basic arithmetic, 3 ) common logic and 4 ) the mechanics of force, it is shown that the assumed Earth and Moon seated forces are equal; and as a result;…"all attraction models" produce twice the force that is required to balance the centrifugal forces of orbit!
The exact same paradox arises with the General Relativity (GR) concept of gravity. It postulates that Mass warps a hypothetical "fabric of spacetime" and the warped fabric of spacetime causes “attraction” of other masses. Since in the GR theory the seat of the attractive force is anchored within the center of the planet’s and moon’s positions, we would again have twice the force required to balance the orbital forces of the Earth Moon system.
This paradox only arises within "attraction" type models and it also raises the following question: If this paradox is true and important, why was it not addressed by Newton, the author of our gravitational math? The following quote from a letter by Sir Isaac Newton should answer the above question. This quote expresses his firm opinion opposing the concept that gravity (attraction) acted through empty space as an “inherent” property of matter.
Quote "...that one body may act upon another at a distance through a vacuum without the mediation of anything else, by and through which their action and force may be conveyed from one to another, is to me so great an absurdity that I believe no man, who has in philosophic matters a competent faculty of thinking, could ever fall into it." Unquote
Since Newton considered the attraction concept "so great an absurdity"; it seems reasonable to assume that he would not have spent time contemplating the detailed mechanics of an absurd attractive system. Therefore he may not have encountered or addressed the double force paradox. People do not normally study hypothesis that they believe are not correct, or hypothesis that they do not have an interest in.
It also appears certain that Newton would never have believed that for one hundred plus years our Twenty and Twenty First Century Natural Philosophy Societies, learned professors, authors and students would fall into believing, teaching and propagating the concept “that one body may act upon another at a distance through a vacuum without the mediation of anything else”.
Sir Isaac Newton's laws of motion, circa 1600's, gave the description of how the force of gravity varied with distance, following the inverse distance squared equation, but he did not propose a cause for gravity or inertia in any of his publications. Although, the following quote, from a private letter to Robert Boyle, shows Newton did conceive of a cause for gravity that is essentially the duplicate of this radiation and shadowing model of remote forces. If Newton's term "ethereal spirit" is replaced with the term "prime radiation" in the following quote, the similarity of the concepts becomes obvious.
Quote: "so may the gravitating (apparent) attraction of the Earth be caused by the continual condensation of some other suchlike ethereal spirit (prime radiation),. . . in such a way . . . as to cause it (this spirit) (prime radiation) from above to descend with great celerity (speed) for (from) a supply; in which descent it may bear down with it the bodies it pervades, with force proportional to the superficies (surfaces) of all their parts (atoms) it acts upon." Unquote
The terms in above brackets have been added to the original to aid in the comparison. It is satisfying and important to note that Newton's concept, as stated above, does not propose an Aether consisting of the vibration or flow of particulate material, nor does it propose attraction through a distance as a cause. In this author’s opinion the above quote shows that Isaac Newton did frame a non-particulate radiation and shadowing system as a cause for gravity, circa late 1600’s.
In an isotropic radiation pressure system of gravity , the seat of the force is not in the mass of the objects. Each atom of the object shadows the radiation flow, causing an "external" unbalanced radiation pressure force “pushing” the objects toward each other. There is “no attracting” tension involved, which would require the doubling of the calculated force. The gravitational radiation pressure is an attribute of the Universe’s prime isotropic radiation,...in the same manner that Inertia, E fields, EM radiation and all remote forces are mediated by prime radiation. In a radiation pressure model, planets and objects do not “have” gravity; they are “subjected” to gravity by screening a portion of the prime radiation flow of the Universe.
Gravitational Attraction does not exist.
The following quote from Wikipedia gives the commonly held erroneous description of how the false gravitational "Attraction" causes the disintegration of asteroids when their orbit is to close to a planet. Britannica Version click here.
Quote The Roche radius, is the
distance within which a celestial body, held together only by its own
gravity, will disintegrate due to a second celestial body's
tidal forces exceeding the first body's gravitational
In Summary If the Earth is “attracting” the Moon and the Moon is “attracting” the Earth,...this would produce twice the actual force that is required to maintain the bodies in
their current orbits.
It would cause your scale to display twice the value of your actual body weight.
This double force result demonstrates that the seat of force does not reside in the planets or bodies, nor their positions.
The seat and cause of the forces are “external” to the planets,… as predicted by a radiation pressure model of remote force. With the disqualification of the two attractive force models, the isotropic radiation and shielding model is the only known one remaining which correctly predicts the actions and forces of gravitation and inertia. A detailed study of the radiation and shielding model is available on the web,  and titled, Radiant Pressure Model of Remote Forces.
The logic of this article does not imply that there is anything wrong with Newton's gravitational equation;...the double force error only arises when it is “assumed” that the force is attractive and that the cause and seat of the forces are within the mass or position of the planets or bodies. Newton's equation works perfectly for a radiation and shadowing system, since the seat and/or source of the force is external and applied locally to the planets and moons,...and attraction or tension through a distance are not required and cannot exist within a radiation pressure and shielding system of remote and local forces.
There is nothing in this article that changes the known number values of gravitational forces. Numerical comparisons are not required to realize that the calculated value is double the natural value. Applying the laws of basic logic excludes the possibility that matter could be the seat of attractive force. Primary school students and laymen will understand this message and realize that the Universities that are still advocating relativity have not done this simple homework on this double force issue. The following numerical comparisons are provided as suggested by some reviewers.
|Givens from NASA data; MathCad 15|
|Earth's surface Gravity|
|Moon's surface gravity|
|Moons distance to Earth||
|Moons distance to barycentre||
|Moon's orbital velocity|
|Double Force Paradox Accounting|
|Moon's orbital force||
|Moon's "Attractive" force for Earth||
|Earth's "Attractive" force for the Moon||
|Adding the Moon's and Earth's
"Attractive " force produces twice the force required to balance the
Moon's orbital force, Fc_mn. Stable orbits would not be possible.
Gravitation cannot be an inherent "Attractive" force seated in the center of mass ! !
|Newton's equations do not produce a double force when used with a radiation and shielding system of gravitation.|
Public Domain Statement. This article,
Force Doubling Paradox of Gravitational Attraction, authored by Stanley V Byers,
is granted to be in the public domain. October 14, 2011
It is this author's belief that this Double Force Argument is so elementary and logical that peer review is not required prior to publishing in journals or to the public.
The following list of papers and articles present additional support for the dis-qualification of the mass attraction and General Relativity attraction concepts.