The Allais Effect Solved

[Bjarne]

 

 

How short? Why for a short period?

 

Because the moon is only about 1 degree above the earth for a short period. Few hours twice the year so fare I remember.. I will calculate that later.

Why for such short period ?, well it have to follow its own (inclined) orbit (up and down)

------------

Yesterday when writing this here at the forum I suddenly discovered an important aspect I have overlooked. It must be a much smarter way to confirm the Allais Effect once and for all.

Simply by using free fall gravimeters and relative gravimeters simultaneously (in combination) near the polar area. (Greenland, island, Canada, Northern Russia, N-Norway etc.)

 

It is today surprising easy to predict that these 2 gravimeters not will agree, when the test takes place at the right time (and place)..

The absolute gravimeter will measure DFA, while the relative gravimeter will not.

Such combination is good because it illuminate all kind of speculatation; - whether noise, calibration, or ocean tide have played an invisible role.

The expected data will be so significant that Allais Effect never again can be ignored.

The advantage is also I think many scientist have some kind of pendulumfobi. Gavimeters (working in combination) is a better “scientific solution” too, - I believe this what really is what many have been waiting for.

Furthermore, the moon can in this case be much higher on the horizon. At least 1,5 degree, maybe 2.0 degree. (I have to calculated it.).

 

I have already years ago pay for gravity measurement, in both Denmark, Australia and Russian, (but blindfolded like all other), its good to have this expirience now,.

Edited June 13, 2017 by Bjarne

[swansont]

 

Because the moon is only about 1 degree above the earth for a short period. Few hours twice the year so fare I remember.. I will calculate that later.

 

 

No, this is quite wrong. The moon goes from passing the ecliptic and returning to it in ~2 weeks. The inclination is a little over 5º

[Bjarne]

 

No, this is quite wrong. The moon goes from passing the ecliptic and returning to it in ~2 weeks. The inclination is a little over 5º

 

 

You are right, most of the time the strong vector-force of the sun will dominate and prevent / more or less oppose (strong enough) upwards acceleration of the earth. I never tought about this..

This is true most of the time when the moon is 1 degree (or more) above the Earth.

However by solar eclipse (and situation very much like these) the moon will be able to accelerate the earth enought upwards , to expose DFA

 

 

Edited June 13, 2017 by Bjarne

[swansont]

You are right, most of the time the strong vector-force of the sun will dominate and prevent / more or less oppose (strong enough) upwards acceleration of the earth. I never tought about this..

This is true most of the time when the moon is 1 degree (or more) above the Earth.[/size]

However by[/size] solar [/size]eclipse (and situation very much like these) the moon will be able to accelerate the earth enought upwards , to expose DFA[/size]

 

 

I don't understand. Do you want to maximize or minimize the moon's vertical pull? This sounds like you are trying to maximize it.

 

In any event, the moon will not have changed its angle much over the course of 24 hours. Why is the Allais effect short-lived?

[Bjarne]

I don't understand. Do you want to maximize or minimize the moon's vertical pull? This sounds like you are trying to maximize it.

 

In any event, the moon will not have changed its angle much over the course of 24 hours. Why is the Allais effect short-lived?

In each single case the upwards pull of the earth have to be calculated, based on the vector and angle, I was shown in the beginning of this thread.

 

The moons position; 1 degree above the (center) of earth (mentioned several times) correspond to about 4000 km.

This mean the moon is only near the "perfect position" - few hours, - not 24 hours.

Within 24 hours the moon travels about 360 degree / 29 = 12 degree , far much more than the mentioned1 degree.

The moon moves about ½ degree per hour.

This is why the Allais Effect is short lived.

Edited June 13, 2017 by Bjarne

[swansont]

 

In each single case the upwards pull of the earth have to be calculated, based on the vector and angle, I was shown in the beginning of this thread.

 

The speed of the moon is about 1 km/h .

The moons position; 1 degree above the (center) of earth (mentioned several times) correspond to about 4000 km.

This mean the moon is only near the "perfect position" - few hours, - not 24 hours.

Within 24 hours the moon travels about 360 degree / 29 = 12 degree , far much more than the mentioned1 degree.

The moon moves about ½ degree per hour.

This is why the Allais Effect is short lived.

 

 

 

 

What is 360/29 supposed to signify?

 

The 360º motion of the moon is about the orbital axis, which has little effect on the upward component of the force. You are citing motion for almost orthogonal factors (IOW, the moon is never above the north or south pole). The motion in the upward/downward direction is limited to the inclination of ~5 degrees. So a total of 10 degrees in 29 days, or 0.34 degrees per day. So it takes ~3 days to move 1 degree higher or lower with respect to the ecliptic.

[Bjarne]

 

 

 

What is 360/29 supposed to signify?

 

The 360º motion of the moon is about the orbital axis, which has little effect on the upward component of the force. You are citing motion for almost orthogonal factors (IOW, the moon is never above the north or south pole). The motion in the upward/downward direction is limited to the inclination of ~5 degrees. So a total of 10 degrees in 29 days, or 0.34 degrees per day. So it takes ~3 days to move 1 degree higher or lower with respect to the ecliptic.

You have a point here.

 

Which force me to suspect the increasing angle between the moon and suns force-vectors to be responsible for fast loosing the upwards acceleration grip on earth, even though it not is much that the angle is changing. This have to be calculated.

 

So could it be true that the upwards acceleration of the Earth is short lived, due to relative small change the vector influence, - ? it must be

 

Who want to bet ?

 

Edited June 13, 2017 by Bjarne

[swansont]

 

You have a point here.

 

Which force me to suspect the increasing angle between the moon and suns force-vectors to be responsible for fast loosing the upwards acceleration grip on earth, even though it not is much that the angle is changing. This have to be calculated.

 

So could it be true that the upwards acceleration of the Earth is short lived, due to relative small change the vector influence, - ? it must be

 

Who want to bet ?

 

 

 

It's your hypothesis. You need to model it and then compare it to experiment

[Bjarne]

 

 

It's your hypothesis. You need to model it and then compare it to experiment

Right, and one thing more, by solar eclipse the earth is slightly accelerating until it have passed the moon, right after that, the Earth will decelerate and the Moon will begin to accelerate. - The sudden acceleration and deceleration of the Earth will also affect the upwards aceleration (and deceleration) of the Earth . This is geting more and more complicated

Edited June 13, 2017 by Bjarne

[Bjarne]

After a good night sleep, the solution to “this should be a long lived anomaly” I think is cracked.

Not only based on a postulate, but based on a new postulate already supported by observation / meassurement (and on logic).

I will get back later..

Yes, the anomaly is really long lived, (and can be detected up to +/- 24 hours) and this is a very good point, and the best question in this thread, that will contribute to get the beast out of the cave.

So a total of 10 degrees in 29 days, or 0.34 degrees per day. So it takes ~3 days to move 1 degree higher or lower with respect to the ecliptic.

 

Correct, - the inclination of the moon is only about 5 degree, It is true that it takes the moon 24 hours to reach 0,34mm higher or lower altitude, the anomaly must be long lived. Not few hours as I claimed.

Experience shows that the Moon must be about 1 degree ((4000 km) above the horizontal ecliptic axis, in order to have maximum strength to accelerate the Earth enough upwards, so that a significant Allais Effect can be measured.

Whether the perfect position is exactly 1 degree , or 0,75 or 1,25 is not certain.

However it is certain that the perfect position is where the maximum anomaly is possible to meassure. - Any position lower or higher than this will weaken the anomaly

If the moon moves 0,34 degree (as mentioned by swansont) lower or higher, relative to the perfect position, this will off course serious weaken the anomaly.

Based on all the experience we have , - it is reason to conclude that it must be possible to trace a tiny rest of the anomaly even within a range +/-24 hours.

Whether the anomaly live 17 hours or 32 hours is also too early to say, at least it its certain that the anomaly is not so short lived as I claimed yesterday (stupid me).

Measurement have been done allready trying to uncover this question, but the problem is the rotation of the earth, takes a testing object away from the perfect position

Plenty meassurements the day of eclipse world wide is required to do a proper test.

 

Data and grahp Sourse Here Here (B2 in the image should have been B1)

Measurement in 2008 took place in Ukraine and Romania, - far away from the shadow of the moon.

The image (small graph inside the image) shows, that the onset of the 2008 August Allais anomaly was several hours delayed.

The anomaly was measured several hours after the Solar Eclipse was finish.

The cause of this delay is that the test bodies A1 and B1 (in Romania and Ukraine) , first should be brought to the "perfect position, - (to position A2 and B2).

The tilt of the axis of the Earth can bring a test object lower or higher, until the perfect position is reached

Another point is that test body B was more delayed than A

 

Conclusion

It is no doubt that if there would have been meassurement taken between A1 and A2 , these too would have measured the anomaly, like a chain reaction. - But not so delayed than in Ukraine and Romania..

Due to the fact that worldwide coordinated research never have been executed, we can only guess what would have been happening if there also would have been meassurement taken ready further West, - in Northern Italy, - France, few places in the Atlantic sea and in America.

Would the anomaly also had been measured here as well ?

The answer is YES, - but the answer is also that only one place on earth the maximum effect would have been measured.

If worldwide measurement would have taken place, it would have revealed a anomaly increasing and then fading out.

The theory is back on the track, - but well much more can be done.. MUCH more.

Edited June 14, 2017 by Bjarne

[swansont]

After a good night sleep, the solution to “this should be a long lived anomaly” I think is cracked.[/size]

Not only based on a postulate, but based on a new postulate already supported by observation / meassurement (and on logic).

I will get back later..

Yes, the anomaly is really long lived, (and can be detected up to +/- 24 hours) and this is a very good point, and the best question in this thread, that will contribute to get the beast out of the cave.

 

Can be? Why isn't it detected for this long in the picture you uploaded. If it depends on the moon's position, there should be a gradual increase and decrease of the effect over a predictable time period. Predictable if you had an equation, which I don't think you've provided.

 

 

Correct, - the inclination of the moon is only about 5 degree, It is true that it takes the moon 24 hours to reach 0,34mm higher or lower altitude, the anomaly must be long lived. Not few hours as I claimed. [/size]

Experience shows that the Moon must be about 1 degree ((4000 km) above the horizontal ecliptic axis, in order to have maximum strength to accelerate the Earth enough upwards, so that a significant Allais Effect can be measured.[/size]

 

What are the durations of the effect in the 21 measurements you cited?

 

Whether the perfect position is exactly 1 degree , or 0,75 or 1,25 is not certain.[/size]

 

That needs to be something you can predict, or determine, if this is a geometric effect as you claim.

[Bjarne]

The Ultimated test

 

 

 

This illustrate a completely new kind of measurement experiment

 

1. P1. Illustrate the moon 1000 km above the Earth, - this Is not the perfect position, because the test bodies (inside the 2 gravimeters) are pulled upwards, and hence not totally free to interact with DFA.. However still the Allais Effect can be measured, but not the full force of it.
2. P2. Illustrate the moon at the same level / altitude as the 2 gravimeters (2 test bodies) - this Is the perfect position, because the test body inside the 2 gravimeters is at same level, and hence totally free to interact with DFA. The full effect of the Allais Effect can be measured
3. P3. Illustrate the moon lower as 2 test bodies - this is not the perfect position, because the test body inside the 2 gravimeters are also pulled downwards by the lower moon. Still the full effect of the Allais Effect can be measured.
4. P4. Illustrate the moon lower as 2 test bodies - this Is not the perfect position, because the test body inside the 2 gravimeters are also pulled downwards by the lower moon. Furthermore the moon cannot pull the Earth enough upwards, the result must therefore be expected to be significant weaker compared to P3, and P2.
5. P5 + P6. The moon is too low, no effect will be measured.

Anomalies / deviation between the absolute gravimeter and relative gravimeter must be expected, in fact increasing to about 30μGal.

This is a relative huge anomaly no one will expect.

As already mentioned, a free fall test body is free to interacted with DFA from that experimental position, but a relative gravimeter (or a pendulum) will not, because the test bodies in these cases are connected with Earth, whereby kinetic energy / upwards accelerating of the Earth , will affect these suspended test bodies.

 

In this case it is expected that the anomaly can be traced several days (by the frefall gravimeter) , from it is increasing and to it again is decreasing and vanishing, all without moving the gravimeters.

The reason is that the anomaly is so long lived, in this case, - is that it is possible to use the full range of the radius of the Earth, due to the experiment takes place so much north. This is just the perfect experiment, that must be executed.

 

1.) Can be? Why isn't it detected for this long in the picture you uploaded. If it depends on the moon's position, there should be a gradual increase and decrease of the effect over a predictable time period. Predictable if you had an equation, which I don't think you've provided.

2.) What are the durations of the effect in the 21 measurements you cited?

3.) That needs to be something you can predict, or determine, if this is a geometric effect as you claim.

 

1.) I am not sure I precise understand what you mean ?

2.) Normally the duration of an pendulum anomaly measurement takes 1 to 2 hours, sometimes a little more. - It is the rotation of Earth that is responsible for the "illusion" that the anomaly is short lived.

The short lived experience is only a local experience. If you put several measurement together, you will see the anomaly in a much more larger perspective, and discover, yes it is really long lived, in a overall perspective. Sometimes it is difficult to see the forest because there are too many threes.

3.) Yes, but it will take time, it is also a question of priority. I prefer to use my time on the experiment you can see above. If possible, it must be done this year in August, and as you see, i do not need to travel to USA. In the end of the day it is experiments that shows us the path to follow.

Edited June 14, 2017 by Bjarne

[Bjarne]

Edited June 22, 2017 by Bjarne

[swansont]

But at what rate does the acceleration vary?

 

How does it explain this?

https://2ai9u93bg0gn4e99nu2g8mbj-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/wp-content/uploads/Allais.jpg

 

Why does it require an eclipse, rather than just having a certain relative location of the sun and moon? (IOW, why doesn't it happen a day earlier or later? Every new moon?)

 

[Bjarne]

1.) But at what rate does the acceleration vary?

2.) How does it explain this? https://2ai9u93bg0gn4e99nu2g8mbj-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/wp-content/uploads/Allais.jpg

3.) Why does it require an eclipse, rather than just having a certain relative location of the sun and moon? (IOW, why doesn't it happen a day earlier or later? Every new moon?)

 

1.) So fare only few gravimeters meassuremnet have measure acceleration ""directly"", - it is difficult to convert the swing of a pendulum to DFA-acceleration, because it depend on many factors, for example how is the DFA interaction axis, - how is the swing angle of the pendulum relative to DFA , - where is the perfect position to measure exactly, - and a lot more. Right now, we have only rough estimations etc....

The suggested gravimeter measurement , will be a much more powerful tool, that will lead to much more direct and much more precis data..

 

 

2.) The way a pendulum is affected depend on the swing angle of the pendulum relative to DFA.

This image illustrates (a huge, exaggerated) pendulum swinging on Earth.

• The green line illustrates the expected path that a pendulum will follow the entire time.
• The red line illustrates the (unexpected) path the pendulum follows when DFA is exposed.
• Figure 4, - If the pendulum swings exactly 90° east-west (between A and B) relative to the DFA axis, an insignificant anomaly will occur. Allais researchers must pay attention to that
• Figure 5, - If the swing angle relative to dark flow is a little larger or smaller than 90°, for example as illustrated by fig.5 (motion from C to D), remarkable anomalies can be detected. Due to the pull of DFA, the path that the pendulum follows will (in this case) rotate anticlockwise, and the pendulum will increase its kinetic energy.
• Figure 6, - When the pendulum moves from D to E the upwards acceleration of Earth will also force the pendulum to rotate as well as continue to increase its kinetic energy.
• However, when following the path from E to F, the opposite influence is expected

 

3. Eclipse are not necessary, but just the best option.

Both the Moon and the Sun periodically accelerate the Earth upwards and downwards relative to DFA.

Periodically opposite influences more or less cancel each other out, and periodically (especially by - some - solar eclipse) the force from the Moon and the Sun reaches maximum unification and the Allais Effect is significant easy to measure.

But not only be eclipse the Allais Effects must be possible to measure.

Sometimes right before , - and sometimes right after the Moon is crossing the ecliptic, (and the Earth is just a little above the ecliptic), the Allais effect must also be possible to measure, - although the effect must be expected to be (much) weaker compared to eclipse measurements.

 

Its too early so say a lot more exact, - the best thing to do not is combine relative and absolute gravity measurement near the 60°and 70°latitude, especially by solar eclipe. – Not important whether it take place in N- Scandinavia, Alaska N-Russia , Island, - Important is just to take these 3 days, /by solar eclipse, - to get the best possible anomaly perspective.

Already such deviation is known (Greenland 10μGal- cause unknown) – So soon the right experiment is done, we will see at least 30μGal, and who know maybe 50μGal deviation.

Edited June 22, 2017 by Bjarne

[swansont]

3. Eclipse are not necessary, but just the best option.

Both the Moon and the Sun periodically accelerate the Earth upwards and downwards relative to DFA.

Periodically opposite influences more or less cancel each other out, and periodically (especially by - some - solar eclipse) the force from the Moon and the Sun reaches maximum unification and the Allais Effect is significant easy to measure.

But not only be eclipse the Allais Effects must be possible to measure.

Sometimes right before , - and sometimes right after the Moon is crossing the ecliptic, (and the Earth is just a little above the ecliptic), the Allais effect must also be possible to measure, - although the effect must be expected to be (much) weaker compared to eclipse measurements.

 

 

 

Then do the measurement whenever, if it doesn't depend on the eclipse. Or better yet, point to experiments that have already been done. And include them all, rather than cherry-picking the occasional measurement that agrees with you and ignoring the ones that don't.

 

Nothing you've said explains why an eclipse is the best option. If you are looking for maximum "upward" acceleration from the moon, then you should be doing this halfway between full and new moon.

[Bjarne]

 

 

1.) Then do the measurement whenever, if it doesn't depend on the eclipse. Or better yet, point to experiments that have already been done. And include them all, rather than cherry-picking the occasional measurement that agrees with you and ignoring the ones that don't.

 

2.) Nothing you've said explains why an eclipse is the best option. If you are looking for maximum "upward" acceleration from the moon, then you should be doing this halfway between full and new moon.

 

1.) Will be done, - and no cherry-picking, all Allais effect I could get my hand on are analyzed.

 

2. Remember that

• the upwards pull from the Moon can also be too strong , - if the Moon pull the test body too much upwards, the test body is not free to interact with DFA.
• and remember half of the year the moon is simply too low, and prevent the Earth from upwards acceleration,

   

This mean that in the end of the day there are in fact only few (OK) options (elliptic crossings) left each year, and to my opinion the best option is - some - solar eclipse, - not all.

I will make it clear to Allais researcher (and I will consider when I will arrange gravity measurements) - that there are more options than only eclipse, - but as I see it anomalies will be weaker compared to solar eclipse anomalies.

Edited June 22, 2017 by Bjarne

[swansont]

• the upwards pull from the Moon can also be too strong , - if the Moon pull the test body too much upwards, the test body is not free to interact with DFA.
• and remember half of the year the moon is simply too low, and prevent the Earth from upwards acceleration,

   

 

Can you precisely define and quantify the effect, and what geometry would give rise to it?

[Bjarne]

The calculation shown earlier today, - (based on a Earth angle 0,6°) shows that the resulting effect according to a eclipse example was 0.0034° ((this correspond to that the resulting force is "hitting" the Sun about 8000 km higher due to the pull of the Moon) - see ref A in the image below.

 

The resulting force, - if the moon not is aligned with the sun and earth, - but pull the earth upwards from a 90° angle, - is "almost" the same, difference is 0.33° - less than 1 degree, and not enough to to accelerate the Earth significant upwards, in a way that can compared with the solar eclipse example I gave you.

The resulting force will hit, - ref B in the image, this is much lower than the Moon (4000 km above) and also lower as the 8000 km mentioned above that apply for ref A.

The 3 D image illustrate that by eclipse the resulting force is hitting the Sun 0.0034° higher as the force only from the sun is capable to.

The new 90° angle example shows an insignificant resulting - altitude gain.

Which mean the higher moon, is really not accelerating the Earth upwards at this point.

Correct me when I am wrong..

Edited June 22, 2017 by Bjarne

[Bjarne]

Edited June 23, 2017 by Bjarne

[swansont]

It would help if your diagrams were drawn accurately. The sun is always in line with the earth — that's what defines the ecliptic, and we're measuring the moon relative to that. When you draw the sun off-line as well it brings in an unnecessary complication.

 

When you say "not enough to to accelerate the Earth significant upwards, in a way that can compared with the solar eclipse example I gave you." you should be able to quantify this. It's the moons attraction multiplied by the sine of the angle. If the moon is at 0.33º, that's a factor of 0.0058. But if the moon is at 3º, that increases to 0.0523 — almost ten times bigger.

 

Which mean the higher moon, is really not accelerating the Earth upwards at this point.

Correct me when I am wrong..

Of course it is, according to your model. The higher the moon gets the larger that component of the force is. It's zero at 0º and maximum at 90º. It doesn't matter where it is in the orbit. Only the vertical component matters.

the upwards pull from the Moon can also be too strong , - if the Moon pull the test body too much upwards, the test body is not free to interact with DFA.

 

You still haven't explained this. How big is this alleged DFA?

[Bjarne]

1.) It would help if your diagrams were drawn accurately. The sun is always in line with the earth — that's what defines the ecliptic, and we're measuring the moon relative to that. When you draw the sun off-line as well it brings in an unnecessary complication.

2.) When you say "not enough to to accelerate the Earth significant upwards, in a way that can compared with the solar eclipse example I gave you." you should be able to quantify this. It's the moons attraction multiplied by the sine of the angle.

 

3.) If the moon is at 0.33º, that's a factor of 0.0058.

 

4.) But if the moon is at 3º, that increases to 0.0523 — almost ten times bigger.

 

4.) Of course it is, according to your model. The higher the moon gets the larger that component of the force is. It's zero at 0º and maximum at 90º. It doesn't matter where it is in the orbit. Only the vertical component matters.

 

5.) You still haven't explained this. How big is this alleged DFA?

 

 

 

1. Noted

2. Give me some time, now I have to learn 2D trigonometry it is easy, - 3D is more difficult; in the meantime look at this….

Only by (some) solar eclipse, the upwards resulting acceleration of Earth is (can be) 100%.

In the configuration above you can see that 4 hours after eclipse the Earth have moved 4000 km away from the moon, (towards right) and the upwards acceleration is now at image A only 45° (only 50% compared to solar eclipse)

8 hours later the upwards acceleration is reduced to 25%

The same thing happens before solar eclipse.

In addition to that also the upwards or downwards motion of the moon must off course also be taken into consideration, - not only the change of angle du to the orbit motion of the the Earth / Moon

3.However the angle off acceleration ( the resulting acceleration) is almost horizontal, the acceleration is therefore useless. This is what I demonstrated in the image in the previous post (above).

 

4. Right, but first at all consider what I wrote above, furthermore if the moon is 3° above the Earth, the moon is also about 2.5° above the test body, which then is not free to interact with DFA

 

5. Only combined absolute and relative acceleration due to gravity measurement, - near the 60° and 70° latitude, - by (some) solar (or some lunar eclipse) is able to fine-tune the magnitude.

This can take several years, after such measurement have started.

Until then we have to live with estimations, based on how much upwards pull the moon have to excert in order to have the maximum Allais Effect anomaly.

Pioneers in this area of science have only reach the foot of the mountain so fare.

Edited June 23, 2017 by Bjarne

[swansont]

1. Noted

 

 

And yet your diagrams are still wrong

Only by (some) solar eclipse, the upwards resulting acceleration of Earth is (can be) 100%.

In the configuration above you can see that 4 hours after eclipse the Earth have moved 4000 km away from the moon, (towards right) and the upwards acceleration is now at image A only 45°, 8 hours later the resulting force and hence the upwards acceleration is reduced to 25%

The same thing happens before solar eclipse.

 

So where are the data that agree with this? The Allais graph I linked to has a total duration of ~2.5 hours (or maybe half that; it's not clear what the time is referencing) with a very sharp rise and fall of the excursion. But you're admitting it should take much longer. The theory disagrees with the data.

[Bjarne]

 

 

And yet your diagrams are still wrong

 

Yes I wrote moon, instead of Sun, its fixed

[swansont]

 

4. Right, but first at all consider what I wrote above, furthermore if the moon is 3° above the Earth, the moon is also about 2.5° above the test body, which then is not free to interact with DFA

 

 

So what's the equation that tells you the size of the effect?

 

Yes I wrote moon, instead of Sun, its fixed

 

You have the sun at angles other than 0º with respect to the earth. That's not fixed.