Bjarne

Do anybody know

1. How fast i the ion moving ?
2. And are there similar and more precise devices nowadays ?

During the summer 2017, an article [1] as well as an Erratum  [2] was published in the International Journal of Astronomy and Astrophysics , claiming that the Allais Effect was Solved and that the cause of this mystery was due to Dark Flow Acceleration (hereafter DFA). 

The same was discussed at this forum ....

The claims were:

• The relative gravimeter would measure only ADG of the Earth.
• The absolute gravimeter would measure ADG of the Earth and DFA
• The anomaly was predicted to increase until maximum eclipse and then decrease again.
• The lunar eclipse on 7 August 18.20 UTC was predicted to be the best possible event to test the above-mentioned claim in 2017 and several years to come

Several universities (on the northern hemisphere) was encouraged to measure ADG on 7 August as recommended in the two above-mentioned articles.
Unfortunately, only DTU (Denmark) promised to see what they could do as they had a gravity measurement project going on in Greenland anyway (measuring how fast the inland ice is melting). 
At the time of contacting DTU, the measurement teams had already scheduled the 2017 summer measurement missions to Greenland as well as the time to arrive at and leave various measurement places.   

Early in the morning on 7 August (the day of the Lunar Eclipse), the team had scheduled to fly (by helicopter) from an inland measurement station and to Scoresbysund airport and then to continue measuring ADG near that airport - 12 hours before and after the lunar eclipse - starting in the morning of 7 August and until morning on the following day, 8 August.

However, bad weather delayed the flight to the airport, and the gravity measurement (the day of the eclipse) was not started until 21.50 UTC. This was 3.5 hours after the culmination of the lunar eclipse.

Fig.1  Absolute and relative gravity measurement near Scoresbysund airport
Starting 7 August at 21.50 UTC and ended 8 August at 09.08

Fig. 1 shows that from the start of the measurement (at 21.50 UTC) and all night during which the measurement went on, the absolute (blue) curve was gradually decreasing (“depressed”) relative to the (red) relative measurement curve.  This result was exactly as the theory had predicted earlier that summer. 

The data used for figure-1 is completely unfiltered for tidal and other influences.
The temperature variation (during that day and night) was recorded to 8 °C. - [3]
The night temperature variation therefore must have been much less than 8 °C. 
Such insignificant temperature variation is far from enough to explain the cause of such a significant anomaly that was measured that day. 

There is no doubt that the two gravimeters reveal a remarkable mysterious anomaly between 40 and 50 µGal. 
The cause of this anomaly is, of course, unknown.

To speculate, one can suspect a few different causes, for example that something was wrong with one of the gravimeters etc.   However, even though this measurement so far must be considered an unsolved mystery, there is no doubt that the above mentioned theory [1] and [2] predicted exactly such a strange behavior / anomaly a few months earlier that summer.

It is, of course, regrettable that the DTU team could not manage to start measurement 12 hours before the maximum lunar eclipse as this was (and still is) required to test the full range of the predicted anomaly [1] and [2]

If such a full set of data would have been available today, we would had seen that the (blue) absolute gravity meas-urement curve;

1. would have increased gradually about 50 µGal twelve hours before the lunar eclipse
2. would peak exactly by the maximum lunar eclipse,
3. then, after the lunar eclipse, would gradually decrease (relative to the relative measurement) - as we have now seen by figure-1.

This would, of course, (in addition to what has now been revealed) have shown a perfect cause effect coherence, underlining that the position of the Moon (from time to time) is, in a very predictable way, responsible for exposing Dark Flow Acceleration in a way so that DFA can be measured by much more effective and precise methods / devices than pendulum measurement.

Anyway, the measurement taken 7 on August 2017 should be a big hint showing that a significant aspect of science could very well have been almost entirely overlooked. Time must now have come for the scientific society to take the Allais effect much more seriously.

The next options to measure exposed DFA are 

12 hours measurement before and after one of these eclipses is a minimum. 
To get an even better overview, it is recommended to measure 36 hours before and after one or several of the eclipses mentioned above. In these cases, it is possible to compare measurement data taken the day before and the day after the eclipse (that will show no anomalous behavior) in contrast to the day of the eclipse when anomalies must be ex-pected. 

Also note the duration of eclipse anomalies are sometimes shorter or longer than 12 hours before and after the eclipse culmination. This can easy be calculated.

REFERENCES

1.Bjarne Lorenzen (2017), The Cause of the Allais Effect Solved https://www.scirp.org/journal/PaperInformation.aspx?PaperID=76756
2.Bjarne Lorenzen (2017), The Erratum to “The Cause of the Allais Effect Solved” http://file.scirp.org/Html/3-4500675_77930.htm
3.Temperature recorded Scoresbysund 7 of August 2017 https://www.wunderground.com/history/station/04341/2017/8/6/DailyHistory.html?req_city=&req_state=&req_statename=&reqdb.zip=&reqdb.magic=&reqdb.wmo=
 

Note.
Please read reference. 1 and 2. 
If any question can be answered by these references, I will only refer to these. 
There are no reason to repeat what already has been answered here at this forum, or by the references.

I'm still gathering the datum on the conditions at the event Allais had measured. Mainly looking for the required angle and momentum terms required to cause the anomoly.

 

Most people think Dark Flow is caused by the pull of a nearby universe. I belive it is the pull from the barycenter of our own universe.

 

You've presented an equation or a graph of the predicted pendulum frequency as a function of time?

Pendulum measurement is much more limit, because of much lower elevation of measurement is possible.

The 4 factors responsible for the Duration & Magnitude of the anomaly

1.) The moon elevation higher as the measurement device, weakens the anomaly. (8-9 μGal per 1000 km)

2.) The lower the moon is, the less DFA will be exposed. (8-9 μGal per 1000 km)

3.) Pendulum measuremnet have several more limitaion factors, and is really a bad device to use.

4.) The "rotation" of the 2D force component triangle (discussed above) - due to the change of the orbit related angle between the Moon and Earth

We don't know the maximum possible DFA, the gravimter experiment can measure maximum 50 to 55μGal (pendulums can only meassure about 35μGal)

To my opinion the magnitude is about 40μGal , - could be little more or less. Only the new Measurement method can reveal it.

Let’s say the Moon is frozen at its position, only earth is moving, and therefore the force component 2D triangle (as a whole) is rotating

The blue and red spot shows where the resulting vertical force points to

Excel here

 

I think it is the OP's own website - and yes, I agree with your characterisation

Yes, it is my webpage.

This theory was discussed here at the forum and the thread was closed, because nothing is so far was found wrong with the theory of relativity

Well fine, - no problem with that.

So fare I know the theory of relativity is right now tested on board ISS.

I made a prediction of the outcome, - until then it’s OK to call me whatever you want.

But carefully even a blind chicken can find a grain of gold.

You have asserted a number of times that it is only the vertical acceleration that matters.

One of the requirement to measure Allais Effects is that the Earth must accelerate upwards, it really doesn’t matter how much, what matter is that the upwards accelerating force not affect the testing body, - and that, - the second requirement, - depend on high the moon is on the sky.

The upwards component is an integrated vector of a 2D triangle.

You can rotate that 2D triangle in a 3D universe, and you can always claims that the vertical component always is vertical component.

However, we already rotated that triangle 180º today, - and suddenly the upwards component had change to a downwards component.

Upwards and downwards component are therefore suddenly the same and not the same confused concept.

You can also rotate the triangle 90º, now the vertical component is suddenly "a horizontal component", pointing parallel, - the same direction as the horizontal ecliptic axis.

Therefore, the concept “vertical component” is a relative 2D concept, in a 3D universe.

It seems that you are missing one factor; - the earth, - as part of the 2D triangle , so soon you will freeze the Sun and the Moon, you will see that the motion of the earth is causing the 2D triangle and therefore also what you say is a vertical component, - to rotate.

Not only can the opposite position of the moon cause the triangle to “rotate”.

Also change of position of the Earth can cause the triangle to rotate, simply because of Earth is a integrated part of the 2D triangle.

If the earth is changing position, the way it does by eclipse, - the 2D triangle is simply rotating in a 3D universe, not easy when concepts can have 2 different meaning.

The Moon orbits the sun,"more than orbiting the earth"

 

Those two statements contradict each other. If you can track it for 24 hours then it does not have a 2 hour duration.

If the force takes 12 hours to drop in half, why would the duration of the effect be just 2 hours for a pendulum? Why does the graph of the original Allais results have such a sharp increase and decrease?

 

When lucky 24 hours, ( gravimeter experiments)

Even from an overall perspective the anomaly can be much shorter.

Some Allais effects is measured; few hours anomaly, some 4 hours , some 7 hours.

There are several reasons:

1.) The testing device is brought to a position too high or too low relative to the Moon due to the rotaion of Earth

2.) Change of the DFA interacting axis due to the rotaion of Earth.

3.) A very low moon (0,2º) at the moment of max eclipse + declining moon.

4.) A very high moon (1º) at eclipse + inclining moon

5.) If the operator of the pendulum don’t know and choose a wrong swing direction this too can weaken the ability to meassure the anomaly, or having the pendulum to change anomaly-direction.

Best swing direction is east west, never completely east west and never north south.

Better read the article, it’s all explained and illustrated at page 4. here

To keep it simple, I am saying that when you rotate the triangle, you will also rotate the point where the resulting force is pointing

Yes.

It is important where exactly the resulting force is pointing, at least if we want to know whether the earth is accelerated upwards, downwards or horizontal.

The more the resulting force points above the ecliptic, the more the moon will exert an upwards pull of the earth.

The day of eclipse (and always when the moon is crossing the ecliptic) - the change of where the resulting force is pointing happens very rapidly.

This is one of two reason to why the duration of the Allais Effect is as it is.

 

Tha Allais effect takes a few hours, so what relevance does this have?

 

As discussion before, the 2 hours duration is a local phenomenon.

The duration can be tracked almost 24 hours (if lucky) (by the gravimeter experiment) without you need to move location.

However when measuring with a pendulum, it is more complicated because the rotation of the Earth can bring you too much above or below the perfect place of measurement , as well you will change the perfect interaction axis, that we discussed before. To solve this you can have pendulum measurement taken on the path of the moon, around the earth.

Responsible for the duration seen from an overall perspective, is partly the "rotation of where the resulting force is pointing" and the change of the location of the Moon (0, 4º per 12 hours)

For example let us say that the moon is 0, 8º above the ecliptic. 12 hours later it is only 0, 4º above. - Now you have 2 factor both weakening the anomaly duration length

Therefore, you have to look at each specific episode to be able to predict the impact of these to factors.

The triangle rotation does not measure the vertical force, which is what you are interested. If you think it does, you need to conclusively demonstrate that. i.e. use it in a calculation that gives you a value that's useful in the discussion.

I already calculated that, and have shown it here, left is to agree how rapidly the rotation of the resulting force really happens by eclipse.

 

You said the force was moving higher. Much higher.

To keep it simple, I am saying that when you rotate the triangle, you will also rotate the point where the resulting force is pointing

This would be an example of going lower.

Thats right and such triangle "rotation" takes about 2 weeks

And there is no 180º in that diagram, so what is rotating 180º? Y

Just to figure out whether we could agree that this happens in the real world also.

You never explain these details.

Well I tried too.

You know them, but people reading the page cannot read your mind.

True, it is naturally, - space is very spacy, can be difficult to explain what I mean, and English is not my first language. Furthermore, I was very lazy in school.

It's especially confusing when you start making new stuff up instead of continuing the current discussion.

 

Remember I lean all about resulting force etc. here at the forum. I was force suddenly to implement that in the theory.

You never answered my question about how much higher it moves. How much does the moon move, vertically, and how long does that take?

I would be happy to get deeper into specific details, however it is necessary first at all to be sure whether you understand what I really mean.

An important point here is that the "triangle rotation” I speak about" - happens in the real world.

It is very important to notice that the larges "rotation” of that triangle happens the day on eclipse.

Do you agree to that?

That triangle has nothing to do with the vertical component of the force. If you would learn some basic physics you would understand this.

I agree that if , - let us say the position of the Earth, Moon and sun and therefore the triangle is frozen, - the vertical component and the resulting force is always the same angle and magnitude.

Now rotate the triangle (fig 10a) 180°

Do we both agree that after this 180° rotation of the triangle (fig 10a) - (which mean only the moon have change position, and now is below the ecliptic instead of above) - the vertical component / force - is now pointing south, Not north ?

No, you just wrote rotation, and the only thing of consequence rotating here is the earth. The moon's movement is revolution, not rotation. (The moon's rotation takes an entire orbit)

The triangle connecting the Moon, Earth and Sun can rotate, depending on where the Moon is

Because of that, - the RF will also rotate

Red line = RF (0,0034°) based on 0,6° angle to the Moon

I think that 100% of the daily rotation of the earth happens in that 24 hour span (or 50% in a 12 hour span). What I don't see is how rotational motion has any direct effect here.

 

Who wrote "rotation of the Earth", except you?

The resulting force is rotating, - was that not what I wrote?

Right, implied after all what have been written.

 

And the implication that somehow the sun matters to the force the moon exerts? (This configuration will happen with every new and full moon, regardless of an eclipse)

 

What do you mean ?

 

I have been serious this whole time. As you have not changed your argument in the face of multiple areas of valid criticism, I think it's you who are not taking others seriously.

I am also learning my friend, nothing wrong with that, - or ?

Now I am changing my mind again.

This is how science is, and always should be. Never get stucked in the same old mud hole.

I checked the data tonight, and can see that the Moon only will be 0,4° above ecliptic by solar eclipse 21 of August (USA) this will only exposed about 22μGal of the DFA, but enough to measure the anomaly with pendulum as well as with the 2 gravimeter experiment near artic.

However by lunar eclipse the 7 of August this year the moon will be 0,8° above the ecliptic that day and moment, measurement with pendulum will of course also be an option, the best result by using a pendulum will be between the 40° and 50 ° latitude (much higher than by the solar eclipse)

In both cases these anomalies can be measured by the gravimeter experiment, which under all circumstances is a better , more precise and trustworthy option.

However the lunar eclipse will reveal a much larger exposed DFA - Certainly near 40μGal.

The only problem is that the gravimeter cannot be at the best position all the time, due to the tilt and rotation of earth.

However this small deviation from expectation is really peanuts compared to the significant anomaly that we certianly will see.

Next time meassurement is possible will first be January 2019

And finnally, the moon is changing position almost 1° degree per 24 hours, not 0,34° like you wrote before, - this too is very important. The moon can reach + or - 5,15° within 7 days

 

 

The answer to how much requires a comparison of one value to another. Giving one value doesn't answer the question. Further, since rotation is not part of the inquiry, as you were talking about how much above the ecliptic the force is, and discussion of rotation does not address the question.

 

I'm asking you to quantify how much the force moves, in the direction perpendicular to the ecliptic. What is its angle at the eclipse, and what is it some time later? You claimed it was much higher. Or better yet, what is the vertical component at these two times.

First, at all try to understand that 90 % of the rotation (in the case above the ecliptic) happens 12 hours before and after solar eclipse.

The closer you (the earth) get to eclipse the more that rotations speed up.

So the day of eclipse is where the max upwards pull is a geometric / mathematical fact.

To pinpoint that further in decimals can only be after my holidaying the meantime you should think a little serious about what I just wrote

 

 

 

How does it do this? You said "much higher (above the ecliptic) as for example 4, 8 or 12 hours before (and after) eclipse." The only way for the force to be higher is for the moon to be higher. And you claim it's higher both before and after the eclipse. You also say "much higher". How much?

The triangle connecting the Moon, Earth and Sun can rotate, depending on where the Moon is

Because of that, - the RF will also rotate

Red line = RF (0,0034°) based on 0,6° angle to the Moon

 

Then all I can conclude is that you don't understand what "above" means.

RF will hit "a point" above the ecliptic, - if the moon is above the ecliptic.

But hit a higher point above the eliptic, - by eclipse

PS

we assume that the moon is at the same angle above the earth, let’s just say the moon is 1° above the ecliptic - in all these cases, - relevant for this example

The force cannot be in a direction any higher above the ecliptic than the moon is.

No one ever said so

Here is the latest paper included the latest updates http://science27.com/allais.pdf

Not the angle above it, which is what's relevant.

The angle in the perpendicular direction, sure, but how does that matter?

It matter because by eclipse RF (the Resulting Force from the Moon and sun ) will "hit" that perpendicular line, - much higher (above the ecliptic) as for example 4, 8 or 12 hours before (and after) eclipse.

Do you agree to that?

Do you understand what i mean by particular constellation?

If so please explain me what I mean by that ?

Just to figure out where the chain went of ?

OK, let me tell you what I mean.

Now freeze all episode from 2017 where the Moon was (and will be) exactly 1° above the ecliptic.

Question

Which one of those 12 new moon/solar eclipse episodes (frozen images), will RF points to the highest point above the ecliptic ?

I mean Hit that perpendicular direction (perpendicular line) we both agree can show us a point above ecliptic.

I am not asking which epsisode that RF will point vertical

But I am asking ...

Which one of the 12 frozen episodes (frozen images), will RF points to the highest point above the ecliptic ?

The correct one you pick is what I mean by a, "a particular constellation".

Why ?

Because if the moon is (about) 1° (in fact a little less) above the ecliptic - it is in fact that angle that can provide the best possible Allais Effect , but only ; "by a particular constellation"

Why?

Because

• We do NOT only need upwards acceleration of the earth
• We also want NO vertical force acting on our test body
• So soon the moon is 1° above the ecliptic that exert enough upwards acceleration of Earth to fully expose DFA.
• We do not need more force than exactly this.
• So soon the moon exceed that 1° the moon will also pull the test body upwards, and this is PROHIBITED

However what I wrote is ONLY true if you haves chosen the correct frozen constellation.

I mean ONLY if you have chosen the correct particular constellation.

If still any doubt what I mean; - this is 21 of August USA

We can do the exact same exercise with lunar eclipse/full moon episodes, and again freeze by 1° due to the same reasons as mentioned above.

I am going for holyday for a few weeks, to celebrate that the Allias Effect is solved, - its not sure I have time to reply. Thanks for the dicussion.

"8 hours before eclipse the RF is pointing 22,5° vertical.

4 hours before eclipse the RF is pointing 45° vertical

4 hours after eclipse the RF is pointing 45° vertical

8 hours after eclipse the RF is pointing 22,5° vertical"

 

The moon is never more than 5 degrees vertical.

 

Do you agree that an object above ecliptic can have angle relative to ecliptic that = 90°

If not, lets discuss something else.

If yes, now let the point above ecliptic be the point where RF point ONLY by eclipse.

That would be a minimum vertical acceleration on the test body. i.e. the opposite of what you have been saying.

Do you understand what i mean by particular constellation?

If so please explain me what I mean by that ?

Just to figure out where the chain went of ?

The moon crosses the ecliptic twice every orbit. New moon, and full moon. The "half a year" is not in a row. It's half of each orbit.

 

Yes but most of the time the moon is to high or too low relative to ecliptic

, and the moon never gets more than 5º above the ecliptic.

 

Why mention that? - noone claims anything else

Since the moon needs to be ~1º above, it can't be at its highest point and exert the maximum force (i.e. "as vertical as possible").

 

Off course not, and this is also not what I say..

I am saying: we need to maximum upwards pulls based on a certain configuration, which include no vertical pull in the test body on Earth.

Edit

Ups, - Bad english, - I mean, - we need to maximum upwards pulls based on a particular configuration, which include no vertical pull in the test body on Earth.

So then you have to realize that the statement below is incorrect.

 

 

During an eclipse the moon is very close to the eliptic, making the force very small. It is much larger a week later, when the moon has gotten to its maximum distance from the ecliptic.

 

Further, you have said elsewhere that you do not want the force to be its maximum. It's hard to figure anything out when you cotradict yourself like that.

 

Since the moon's position relative to the ecliptic is all that matters, there is nothing special about an eclipse. The moon will exert the same exact force at any new or full moon, when in the same relative location. If the angle is the same, the force is the same. The sun is irrelevant.

Half of the year the moon is too low, and therefore useless.’

If the moon is above the ecliptic, - the moon shall not exceed 1° elevation (by pendulum measurements) -Max 1,5° by the gravity experiment measurement in the artic.

If the moon elevation is between 1° (1,5°) and 5° above the ecliptic such constellation is useless.

This mean you have to be lucky if you have 2 times, each year where either new moon/solar eclipse fulfill the requirements, or 2 times lunar eclipse / full moon does so.

Eclipse will always be the best option.

As I said, the moon shall not be above the test body..

But well, yes the effect can be meassured by some few new and full moons,

 

 

So I'm talking about the moon's position relative to that plane. If the moon is on the ecliptic, it exerts zero vertical force, since that would be perpendicular. The moon has to be above or below the ecliptic to exert a vertical force. The higher it is above the ecliptic, the larger the force is. The sun exerts no vertical force whatsoever. It can be ignored.

Yes off course

 

 

Do you understand what the plane of the ecliptic is, that I've been referring to this entire thread?

the path of the Sun across the celestial sphere (DFA is so far I see it excactly angular to the ecliptic)

 

None of that matters, since you are claiming this effect is due to the vertical component of the force. The sun exerts zero force in that direction. If that component is responsible, it only matters where the moon is, relative to the ecliptic.

 

I am not sure I understand what you mean by that the moon is "relative to ecliptic" ?

Do you mean , - the most significant vertical acceleration of the Earth, is by eclipse ? - If so I agree

I am claiming that the upwards acceleration is due to the resulting force. It can't be anything wrong with that..

The resulting force is pointing to the sun, and in addition to that the resulting force is most of the time also pointing just a little horizontal.

Exactly (and only) by solar and lunar eclipse the resulting force points so much vertical as possible, and this makes eclipse special, in this context

The Resulting Force (RF) (due to attraction from the Sun and Moon) acting on Earth, - must point so much vertical as possible (Fig.10a) to be able to accelerate the Earth fast enough upwards, in order to expose DFA.

• Before solar eclipse the RF is pointing mainly horizontal (relative to ecliptic). (To the X - Y axis)
• Twelve hours before eclipse the angle of the RF begin to incline (relative significant)
• Eight hours before eclipse the angle of the RF is 22,5° vertical
• Four hours before the angle is 45° vertical (Fig.10b),
• Finally by eclipse the angle of the RF is completely 90° vertical (Fig 10a) ( the Z axis)
• In oppesite order the same happens after solar

Imaging a circle (radius 8km) at the center of the Sun

• 8 hours before eclipse the RF is pointing 22,5° vertical.
• 4 hours before eclipse the RF is pointing 45° vertical
• 4 hours after eclipse the RF is pointing 45° vertical
• 8 hours after eclipse the RF is pointing 22,5° vertical

The required vertical upwards acceleration of the Earth is unique only by solar and lunar eclipse.

The 8000 km radius abstract circle (on the Sun) shows where RF is pointing. (this radius can easy be calculated based on the RF angle that is 0.0034° in this case.

The red points shows where on the Sun, RF is pointing, - 8 - 4 hours before - eclipse - and 4 and 8 hours after.

 

 

The sun is on the ecliptic, so it doesn't exert an upward force. It can be ignored. You only have to look at the influence of the moon to find the vertical component of the force. According to what you've claimed, this is what matters.

 

Right

But still the resulting force is hitting / pointing to the Sun, not to the moon

You know that the force of the Sun / Moon is factor 174 to 1, - right?

Therefore the resulting force angle only deviate less than 1 degree from the force vector of the Sun, due to the force of the Moon

 

 

The force is directed at the moon.

No the illustration shows the resulting force pointing to the Sun

 

 

The force can't point further north than the moon is.

Its not

The 8000 km íllustrated altitude in on the Sun

 

Since the moon isn't 8000 km above the ecliptic, the force is not directed there.

No its not the moon that is 8000km above, please read the post agian

You misunderstood agian

The red line shows the resulting force pointing to the Sun

This cirkel, is on the Sun, it have not much with the moon to do

If the effect is real.. (I have only done minor reading around it on the net and most of what I know is from wiki and reading/following this thread... wiki said that it was speculative and there have been mixed results in trying to replicate it)... I liked the interference of gravitational waves from the 2 sources speculation as an explanation of the effect (touched upon on the wiki page). I am not buying this 'dark flow acceleration' explanation - it seems unrelated to me. The interference pattern in the waves could explain why sometimes you can measure it and other times you cant... depending upon where the measurement system is set up (on a peak or a trough of the gravitational wave).

 

As we now 'know' that gravity waves are a real thing (or at least have been detected), would it be better to assume that this effect has something to do with interference of these waves? Rather than some 'dark flow'... what does that even mean? - I must have missed something somewhere... I'll go back and read this through again if I get the time.

 

Sorry if I am missing the point - I don't want to disrupt your conversation... I'll sit out and keep following the thread. I am none the wiser as to what this Dark Flow is supposed to be though, I will re-read and look it up some more sometime.

In the end of the day it is not what most people believe or believe they know, but the scientific methods that counts.

The good thing here is that this theory have a unique and powerful prediction, - the mentioned relative and absolute gravity test near artic.

So this theory is very dangerous and I am sure that many don’t like it. But science should not (always) be about what most people like to hear, sometimes someone have to dare to think new thoughts.

 

The triangle responsible for the upward force consists of a vector pointed toward the moon, and the vertical and horizontal projections of that vector. The vertical component is the upward force. The angle is found using the distance the moon is above the ecliptic divided by the distance to the moon.

 

F_vertical = F_moon*(d_vertical/d_moon) so that's 4000 km/384,000 km, which is about 0.01 IOW, the upward component is about 1% of the total force. This will be true whenever the moon is 4000km above the ecliptic.

 

There is no part of this geometry that includes a distance of 8000km. The moon moves a total of 5 degrees above the ecliptic in about a week, meaning it takes almost a day to move that much. There is no part of this triangle that includes a 45, 22.5 or 90 degree angle.

You still haven’t understood the point, - the 8000 km is where the resulting force (based on the force of the moon + the force of the sun), is pointing,

that force is pointing.......

• 8000 km above the equator of the Sun by eclipse
• 4000 km above the equator of the Sun, - 4 hours before eclipse
• 2000 km above the equator of the Sun, - 8 hours before the eclipse
• 4000 km above the equator of the Sun, - 4 hours after the eclipse
• 2000 km above the equator of the Sun, - 8 hours after the eclipse

Maybe you had better understand the point by looking at the image below. - It’s the exact same point.

This tells you that you only get maximum upwards acceleration of the Earth, - by solar (and lunar) eclipse

And it tells you a lot oabout how fast the anomaly inclines and declines.

Excatly that is what the "Shoot circle" below, - situated on the central sun, - also illustrate