The Global Problem
Not "predictions". Projections can help us assess what is likely to happen if the course of the recent past is continued into the future. Then if the result is unsatisfactory, corrective action can be taken to produce a more acceptable future. The reason this chapter has been included is that the new theory offers new possibilities which need to be explored. It is particularly important at this time that any possibility, no matter how remote, be thoroughly investigated if it could help to save our planet.
The global population is now so high that the life support system is seriously overloaded. Yet numbers are still increasing fast. The overloading is all too obvious. In a desperate scramble to grow more food to feed starving millions in the so-called "Third World" forests are being destroyed at an alarming rate to create more arable land. And after about three years it decays to desert. As the population continues to grow and requires an ever greater food-supply, so the resource base declines as land is laid waste. Already millions have starved to death. Just think what is likely to happen as this scenario continues to develop, with a projected doubling of the population by 2030. What can be done to save the situation? That is the pressing question.
There is only one answer but it requires the simultaneous implementation of two quite different strategies. The effective resource base needs to be increased whilst at the same time the birth-rate is drastically reduced. The latter means that, overall, the birth-rate must be brought down to a level where it does not exceed the death rate within a time-scale of about twenty years. Both strategies need to be implemented simultaneously. The effective resource base can be increased in two ways. One way is to provide more economical equipment and to exercise greater care in use. But there is a limit to such measures and they cannot be anywhere near adequate on their own. The other way is to increase the actual resource base.
The combined increase of the effective resource base on its own will, however, only buy a few more years. Then catastrophe will be inevitable and worse than if this step had not been taken, unless the population issue is not simultaneously resolved.
It is more complex than this, of course. Another consequence of overloading is the increase of pollution of land, lakes, rivers and coastal seas. At the same time mineral resources are being depleted. The burning of fossil fuels and forests is creating the much-feared "greenhouse effect" by releasing carbon dioxide to the atmosphere. This is likely to raise sea levels and have adverse effects upon the climate. And then, to cap it all, holes have appeared in the ozone layer at the antipodes. This means that ozone has been thinned worldwide. It will have an adverse effect on the growth of all plant life due to increased ultraviolet radiation from the Sun being allowed to reach the surface of the Earth. Unless the damage can be corrected, the food resource base will be further reduced just at a time when it needs to be increased.
It is well worth while taking an old book off the shelves; then, after dusting, it is to be opened at page 124. I refer to "The Limits to Growth" by the Meadows Group(118), published in 1972. They produced a most comprehensive computer programme to model dynamics of the global system. It took account of mineral and fossil fuel resources, population growth, food and other resources. It took into account a wide variety of other factors such as the greenhouse effect, pollution and the reduction of agricultural land area.
Page 120 shows FIG.35 giving a summary of the projected effects. Food per capita is shown to increase as farming methods are advanced until about the year 2100. Then this starts to plummet down again. The pollution levels go on increasing until about 2030 and the population goes on increasing until 2050. Then it starts to fall rapidly as life-spans are drastically cut by mass starvation. What is very worrying is that the trends it projected two decades ago are being followed to an uncanny degree of accuracy.
The book made considerable impact when it first appeared but unfortunately this was soon blunted by powerful lobbies. To big business it was anathema because they wanted growth regardless of any long-term consequence. They successfully debunked the projections by pointing out that the mineral resource base had not been adequately assessed. The authors admitted this in the book but they had done their best. To allow for possible underestimates they had then arbitrarily doubled the resource base. FIG.36 on page 127 shows this actually makes matters worse! The population peaks ten years earlier. The reason is that pollution effects run away and make the major impact by retarding the growth of plants. Meadows show the effects of other assumptions but in all cases total disaster is projected unless effective population controls are implemented.
This book should never have been debunked. Its projections show the real dangers we have to face. It will need a massive drive of the kind only normally met with in a major war situation, but with all the nations of the earth in total cooperation if life on our planet is not to be almost extinguished. Even today few people are fully aware of the daunting magnitude of the task awaiting.
No solution is possible without tackling population growth, but this factor will be left until later. Let us first see how the new theory might help with the "Technical Fix" for increasing the resource base as part of a possible solution.
At present most of our system of energy supply used to give us electricity, power our cars and ships or fly our aircraft derives from fossil fuels. These are coal, crude oil and natural gas. When burned, carbon dioxide is created and is the major cause of the undesirable greenhouse effect. In addition the oxides of nitrogen and sulphur are emitted. These cause the acid rain which falls on forests and arable land. It has virtually destroyed the Black Forest and many trees in Britain already show signs of stress. The acids cause aluminium to wash out of soils into rivers and lakes to poison the fish.
A slow start has been made to remove sulphur dioxide from power-station exhaust-stacks. This uses limestone, which is converted to calcium sulphate. Apart from the high capital cost of the equipment needed, which is expected to increase costs by ten per cent, these measures will make severe inroads on limestone deposits. Many have declared this unacceptable.
Nuclear power has been proposed as a solution but this strikes a Faustian bargain. It is too dangerous as well as being too expensive. And the radiation hazard has been underestimated. The incidence of leukaemia around nuclear processing plant is evidence enough. Nuclear accidents have occurred, causing damage to ecosystems over hundreds of square miles. About six nuclear submarines have sunk, carrying their radioactive piles to pollute the sea-floor. It is becoming ever more clear that this solution is simply not acceptable.
To find a better energy source enormous efforts have been made, supported by multi-billion dollar budgets, to find a way of providing power by nuclear fusion. At present nuclear power is based on nuclear fission. The atoms of heavy unstable elements like uranium-235 split into radioactive fission products with the release of vast quantities of energy. Nuclear fusion, on the other hand produces much more energy by starting with light atoms such as deuterium. a heavy isotope of hydrogen, and fusing them together to build up heavier elements such as helium. This is claimed to be potentially more benign than the nuclear fission.
Fusion has proved much more difficult to achieve than was originally expected and physicists have stated that power from this source is at least forty years away. But we do not have forty years! Many advocate sustainable alternatives, such as wind, wave and solar power. These could help but are not adequate by themselves. Wind-systems have considerable visual impact on the environment. A farm of about 1,000 wind turbines are needed to equal a single nuclear reactor, for example, and all this power needs to be backed up by fossil-fired stations. Hence their capital cost is an additional item. These so-called "free" sources of energy always turn out to be very expensive owing to high capital costs when any realistic economic evaluation is carried out. Even when account is taken of all reasonable attempts at economising it is clear that some other kind of solution is desperately needed. One promising resource which has not yet been tapped is the deep ocean.
Energy and Fish Farms in Oceanic Gyres
The land is already overstretched for food-growing and so it seems strange that so far the oceans have received little attention. Of the total surface of the Earth 70% is covered by the oceans and for the most part they are the equivalent of barren deserts. They support little life in tropical and sub-tropical regions owing to lack of nutrients in the photic zone. This is the top 100-metre layer able to support plant growth by light penetrating from the sun. The nutrients lacking are the phosphates, nitrates and trace elements needed to structure the phytoplankton, the unicellular marine plants which form the base of the food chain leading to harvestable fish.
With these factors in mind Eric Marsden and I did our best to stir up the enthusiasm needed to start some experiments in the deep ocean. Reference was made in the opening chapter to an exhibition we set up called "ENERGY FARMS IN OCEANIC GYRES". This was actually the second. The previous year our "STRATEGY FOR SURVIVAL" held at Olympia in 1977 had also introduced the topic. Marine farming of the deep oceans has to depend upon the artificial upwelling of nutrient rich water from the deeps. This has already been proved to work.
Georges Claude, having made a considerable fortune with the development of commercial fractional distillation methods for the bulk manufacture of gaseous and liquid oxygen and other gaseous components of air, carried out experiments in Matanzas Bay, Cuba. His aim was to harness vertical temperature differences in the tropical ocean, of around 24 degrees Celsius, for the generation of power. An "upwelling pipe" brought up cold water from the deeps for use as coolant. The warm surface water could be made to evaporate at subatmospheric pressure and the steam so evolved could be used to drive a turbine for power generation. The steam then condensed in contact with the upwelled cold water. The system worked but the project was beset by corrosion problems. The project itself was a fiasco and ended with Claude dumping the whole mass of equipment into the ocean.
Ironically, the real success was from spin-off. The local fishermen were suddenly delighted to find their catches had increased threefold for a time. It was later discovered that the upwelling process was responsible. It had produced accidental fertilization of the photic zone!
Unfortunately carbon dioxide is brought up as well as other essential nutrients, but in amounts relative to plant uptake, of more than six times as much as can be utilised. Using upwelling from depths of 600 metres or so would therefore exacerbate the greenhouse problem. To provide a reversal of the greenhouse effect phosphates need to be leached from the bottom sediments, where their concentration is about 1,000 times that in the water above.
In the new project floating seaweed was the target crop, from which energy could be provided as a dried flake. Sargassum Fluitans and Sargassum Natans already float around in that area reproducing vegetatively whilst confined by the North Atlantic gyre. Hence the proposal was to increase its productivity. Later ideas showed that substitute crude oil would be a better product made on site by heating wet seaweed at great depth. This released carbon dioxide there and locked it up in seawater more effectively. Such oil could also provide all the needs of the petrochemical industry for the manufacture of plastics. A second product would be fish, since a computer simulation of the marine ecosystem, specially written to study the effects of upwelling, showed that about half the nutrient supply would be taken up by phytoplankton.
With fuel and fish produced together, economic viability was forecast despite the 4,000-nautical-mile distances involved, because fish would be transported on the fuel product carriers. In addition, instead of these carriers returning empty they would carry sewage sludge. This is normally dumped in the North Sea and creates the over-fertilisation which leads to toxic algal blooms. Dumping in the North Sea, therefore, sludge can only be regarded as a serious pollutant. Spread over greater areas of the deep ocean, it would be recycled to positive advantage at very low additional cost. Hence marine energy/fish farms in the open ocean could provide a unique combination of advantages. They would improve the carrying capacity of the planet.
Other advantages would be the revitalisation of the shipbuilding and steel industries. These would absorb the workforce released from consumer product industries, as these are reduced to comply with the zero consumer growth scenario at which the world needs to aim.
The North Sea is already badly overfished and it is essential that new resources are made available. Unfortunately we failed to attract the necessary interest and all our efforts achieved was a relatively trivial project aimed at controlling fresh water weeds in the Kawartha lakes of Canada. It was a tragedy, really, because at the time 24,000,000 deadweight tons of redundant tankers were laid up around the world. Nobody had the slightest idea what to do with them, so they just lay rusting at their moorings. They would have provided a cheap start for marine farms.
Marine farms in the deep ocean would still be worth considering for the provision of protein as fish for the rising population and for the raw material of plastics. But to provide all the fuel needs of the world the entire Gyros of both the North and South Atlantic oceans would need to be cultivated. It would be a giant task and would take a calculated fifty years to complete. No other project has been considered which would be able to lock away more carbon dioxide than is produced by burning of the fuel it creates. Indeed it seems to be fundamentally impossible that any other could have such an advantage. The sheer scale of operations and the reluctance of leaders to face reality make it unlikely that the solution just outlined will ever be tried.
It is worth searching for other alternatives. Indeed, so great is the problem that no stone should be left unturned. Even the most remote possibility of finding a new wholly benign alternative energy source needs to be explored.
A New Energy Source?
A considerable body of literature is already in existence concerning negative mass and negative energy states, as described in the references (301) to (314). They were first shown to be allowable in physics by Paul Dirac about 1930. Robert Forward(307) has used a similar idea to the accelerating pair described in the last chapter to show that if a supply of negative mass could be found, then the perfect space-drive could be constructed. Because the discovery of useable matter of the negative kind is very unlikely, he only suggests the idea can have value for use in science-fiction stories. The same idea for space-drive is discussed by Alan Guth in The New Physics(108). Both he and Forward, however, rely on a gravitational coupling between the two kinds of matter.
From investigations of this kind it always transpires that the pure creation of energy in equal and opposite amounts needs to be regarded as permissible. This means that a very dramatic reversal of previously held concepts is starting to become acceptable to physicists. The old definition of the First Law of Thermodynamics has already been undermined and needs revision. A suitable new definition was given in the previous chapter. The meaning is very clear. It is feasible, in principle at least, that power could be generated by pure creation.
The present study developed during 1982 in a way paralleling the ideas of R. Forward. It was necessary to postulate the existence of negative energy states to explain creation in the "Big Bang". First ideas suggested that two universes had to arise simultaneously, one from positive and the other from negative energy. It was then easy to show that logical inconsistencies would arise if cross-coupling by electric forces were present. Therefore the two forms of matter had to be mutually invisible and would interpenetrate one another. All efforts to publish this material in scientific journals met with total rejection and so a start was made to create a science-fiction story as the only means of expression. It may be of interest to summarise the plot.
John, the hero, thinks of the idea and by psychic means locates a parallel planet of negative matter interpenetrating our own. He finds it has people similar to us who also suffer from an energy problem. They join forces to devise a power-unit capable of generating both kinds of energy simultaneously and each uses their own kind. John then tells the BBC that he is going to astound them by demonstrating his new invention. But he tells them to have a camera ready on the rooftop since he intends to arrive in an unusual Way. This he does sitting in an armchair clutching at a cable pointing vertically upward and attached to the seat of the chair. The cable seems to be attached to nothing at its upper end and the whole assembly is observed flying majestically through the air toward the camera crew. Of course the readers know that at the top is a chunk of invisible negative matter providing an exact balance so that levitation and acceleration in any direction can be achieved.
He causes a great stir and the entire world is both baffled and astonished. His engine, demonstrated in the studio, produces power without any fuel supply being used. Little do the viewers realise that an invisible part exists and that in the other universe the same thing is happening. There is an invisible man on the other end collaborating in the control of negative power at his end. John sets up a business making levitation transporters similar to his chair by collaborating secretly with the other side. They have a deal in which they make parts for one another. The story ends in complete mayhem as large balls of concrete are seen flying through the air and crash into cars, houses and people. Also people start falling to the ground as their invisible supporting negative masses hit objects made from their own system of matter. The invisibility of each to the other has created an insurmountable problem.
I never completed the story because my friends soon made me realise that I was no story-writer. A pity. This all happened when the present theory was in its embryo stage. The existence of a universe of negative matter is very unlikely because the balancing negative energy states are needed to provide the primary mediators for the gravitational force. So negative energies exist as part of space and also provide the components holding atoms and sub-atomic particles together. The quest for a practical system of power generation by pure creation needs to adopt a more subtle approach.
The new theory of quantum gravitation, however, has thrown up a new possibility for an energy source, which, if confirmed might provide a complete solution to the difficulties of energy supply at low cost and without pollution. If history is followed, it will be seen that energy crises have happened several times before. Each time we have somehow been homed in upon a solution. It is possible that history is repeating itself. The possibility needs to be explored. We will take a close look at this spin-off from the theory.
In Newton's theory of gravitation a force acted on an object pulling it downward toward the centre of the Earth. In free fall this force caused it to speed up. It accelerated in a downward direction and added kinetic energy to the object equivalent to the work done by the force acting over the distance of fall. The same concept is retained in the extended version. Here, however, the force of gravity acting on an object is proportional to its total energy, defined as its rest energy plus any kinetic energy. That this has to be so is argued in the TECHNICAL SUPPLEMENT. Briefly, light is kinetic energy and since it is bent by gravity it is known to fall like matter. Hence the kinetic energy of any object will also experience the force of gravity. So the kinetic energy of an object will add to its weight.
The validity of this deduction is demonstrated by the success of the new theory, which not only fits the experimental checks just as well as Einstein's theory of general relativity, it relates the magnitude of the gravitational force to that of the electric force as well! Nobody has been able to do this starting from general relativity. Even Einstein did not manage this despite many years of effort. The superiority of the new approach is amply demonstrated by the comparison given in TABLE T 11. Hence it seems very reasonable to suggest that an object possessing kinetic energy, due to some kind of motion, will weigh more than it does when the motion is removed. Before going further it is necessary to make sure some basic principles of mechanics are understood.
Some confusion may arise because Einstein used an interpretation of free fall different from that of Newton. Hence this needs to be reviewed. Einstein said that a man falling off a roof would feel no gravitational force. He deduced that no force could therefore exist for an object in free fall. Instead it moved along a "geodesic" in curved space-time. It is true that a person would feel no force when falling, but it does not follow that Newton's concept is wrong.
For example, eight balls can be imagined so placed that one touches each corner of a cube. If both cube and balls are dropped simultaneously in a vacuum, so that the effect of air resistance is not present, then all objects will experience equal acceleration. All the balls will remain touching their corners as they all fall together. Hence if the balls were fixed to their corners, no force would exist across the fixing points during free fall. Similarly a man would feel no force between any parts of his body, because no force would be transmitted from one body-cell to another. This conclusion is reached even though an accelerating force is present on all particles, because the force per unit of mass is equal for all. Each atom has exactly the same acceleration as any other.
The situation is different from the acceleration imparted through, for example, the back of a car seat. Here the accelerating force needs to be transmitted to all atoms of the body by forces acting from atom to atom. The resulting stresses can be detected by the nervous system so that the accelerating force is experienced. In free fall each atom is subjected to the accelerating force from within itself and so no inter-atomic force is produced.
It cannot be inferred, therefore, that because no force is felt no accelerating force exists. Despite Einstein's unquestioned genius he does not seem to have appreciated this simple point. Hence the rival conceptualisation needs study.
A simple thought experiment can be set up to see whether in principle net energy could be produced by an asymmetric gravitational cycle. By this is meant a cycle in which a lifting process and a lowering process are incorporated having different kinetic energy from each other. All processes are to be considered ideal in that no frictional effects are present. It does not concern us that this is a situation which cannot be achieved in practice because it is only the theoretical principle which is being explored. In the TECHNICAL SUPPLEMENT it is shown that the "rest energy" of any object remains constant whatever its level in a gravitational field. This is the energy from which the object is made.
Now let an asymmetric gravitational cycle be considered. An object is first slowly lifted on a cable to a great height. This is the first process of the cycle, and lifting work is done equal to the weight of the object multiplied by the height difference through which the weight was lifted. The weight is the force exerted by gravity and is proportional to the rest energy of the object. Then the object is dropped and accelerates in free fall. The force of gravity still acts in the new theory, even though it is no longer perceived by internal stresses set up within the object itself. This force, in causing acceleration, adds kinetic energy to the existing rest energy, so that the average total energy during the fall is greater than it was during the lift. Now the new theory is based on the force of gravity being proportional to the total energy. The fact that predictions made from it meet all experimental checks gives confidence that this deduction is true. It follows that the work done by gravity on the object in free fall exceeds that done in lifting slowly on a cable. So the final kinetic energy on hitting the ground will be slightly in excess of the energy supplied by work done during lifting.
This is in contradiction to the First Law of Thermodynamics, which implies that exact equality should obtain. Some will use this to suggest the theory has therefore been flawed but such is not the case. What it suggests instead is that "gravitational potential energy" is not a true energy form. It is a
pseudo-energy form which is nevertheless useful in ordinary calculations. In simple mechanics the term "total energy" includes gravitational potential energy. The latter is the same as the work done in lifting the object from a reference position. This mechanical work is a form of energy and is considered to be stored "somehow" in the form of gravitational potential energy. But nobody knows just how this energy could be stored in space.
Then an object in free fall is said to have a total energy which remains constant. As it falls, potential energy reduces as kinetic energy increases, so that total energy by this old definition remains constant. As level reduces the stored gravitational potential energy is released.
In the extended physics the idea of energy being stored in space needs to be abandoned because it no longer fits the facts. Potential energy cannot vary with the speed of the object, as was shown earlier to be the case. Therefore the concept must be wrong. Now, however, negative energy states are allowed and this comes to the rescue. No longer is it necessary to postulate that total energy is constant in a state of free fall in order to satisfy the First Law of Thermodynamics. In the new concept, total energy is the sum of rest and kinetic energies alone. Then when a ball is thrown upward, its total energy continues to reduce until the zenith is reached and the object has only its rest energy. As it falls back again its total energy increases. The old First Law is violated during both ascent and descent but in the new definition given in the last chapter it is satisfied.
What is happening is that as the ball rises and positive energy is reducing, there is an interaction with the virtual energy of space responsible for the force of gravity. The negative energy of space reduces at the same rate as the positive energy of the object 50 that the net energy of the universe remains at its natural zero level.
So as an object rises, energy of both signs is being destroyed and as it falls again they are re-created. Hence in the new theory the destruction or creation
of energy from nothing occurs quite easily.
What is difficult is to arrange for a continuous cycle able to create a net continuous output of energy of both kinds. Only the positive kind can be detected or utilised, whilst the negative kind is added to existing energies of space. The conclusion that energies can be created from nothing cannot be regarded as absurd simply because this has been accepted as an impossibility since the time of Newton. If it were indeed an impossibility, the universe could never have been created in the first place.
If it is true, then why has the effect not been observed? This is a reasonable question. The answer is that for the kind of gravitational cycle used by way of example the effect would be so small as to be totally undetectable. If a kilogramme is raised two kilometres and dropped, the gain would be only 10-13 joules as compared with the 19,620 joules used in lifting on the cable.
An Experiment in Pure Creation
An experiment could, however, be designed to create an observable effect if positively charged atomic nuclei, called ions, are used together with strong electric fields. This addition makes it possible to greatly increase kinetic energy per unit mass of particle for the descent. The ion will be fired upwards at a low speed and after rising freely to a point near the top of the apparatus it is turned through 180 degrees by a local magnetic field, so that it points downwards. The force acts perpendicularly to the direction of motion in the magnetic field, whose lines of force are horizontal. In consequence the direction of Motion can be reversed without change of speed.
Reversal is achieved without any loss or gain of energy. Then the ion is accelerated to a very high speed by a static electric field produced by fixed electrodes which are so arranged that the ion does not touch them.
This adds kinetic energy so that weight is increased. Then near the bottom of the fall an adverse electric field is situated. The electrical potential change in this adverse field is made exactly equal to the fall previously arranged, so that on exit the electrical potential of the ion is the same as it was at the top of the trajectory. Hence all the kinetic energy imparted near the top of the apparatus is recovered again near the bottom. The weight during the falling phase is thereby caused to be greater than that during the rise.
The net effect is a predicted gain in electrical potential of the ion, for the complete cycle of rise and fall. The ion has returned to its original position and so could carry on indefinitely completing cycles and gaining an increment of energy at each. The gain per cycle would be difficult to measure, however. In an apparatus ten metres high and with a negative potential of a million volts used in the falling stage a gain of only one-billionth of a volt can be expected. The amount is just about detectable. If the apparatus is inverted, then a voltage loss, indicating energy destruction, is predicted. The net gain "dV" volts for a voltage equivalent "V1" of upward ion speed and an equivalent "V2" for downward speed, over a vertical height "y" metres, can be calculated from the expression:-
dV = n.g.y.(V2 -
V1) (divided by) c2
Here g = the acceleration due to gravity = 9.81
c = the speed of light = 300, 000, 000 m/s
and n = 1 for a singly-charged ion.
Electrons could be used instead of ions but for a given voltage change they experience much higher accelerations. Unfortunately energy is radiated away from accelerating electric charge and so produces a loss having a similar effect to friction. This loss equals the output when the voltage change is a few thousand volts. Then as the voltage is increased the losses become greater than the predicted output. On the other hand, for protons and heavier ions the loss is negligible. The complete cycle is then negligibly different from the ideal frictionless type.
If this experiment were carried out and the predicted result returned, an immense milestone in scientific progress would have been made. There are three aspects:
Firstly, it would prove that gravitational potential energy is only a pseudo-form, that it does not really exist. The result would infer the existence of negative energy states because without these the First Law of Thermodynamics could only be assumed approximate.
Secondly, the difficulties arising from Tryon's (123) concept would be fully resolved. He assumed from the conventional definition of gravitational potential energy that this was a negative form of energy. Then he showed its magnitude was about equal to the rest energy of matter in the universe. He concluded that in consequence the universe could have arisen ex-nihilo or from nothing. The zero or datum point was taken at an infinite distance from the place where the Big Bang was centred and from this reference point the gravitational potential energy appears negative. But the datum has only an arbitrary location. It is just as valid to use any other place as reference. If the reference point is taken separately for each particle, at the place where it is created in the assumed "Big Bang", then this energy appears positive, not negative at all. So which is it? Our previous deduction answers the question. It is neither. It is not a real energy form at all.
It is a pseudo-energy form and in consequence it cannot be the factor making the net energy of the universe zero. Hence only negative energy states are left and the deduction provides further confirmation that these states just have to exist. It was this argument which Professor Vigier agreed was true by his letter quoted in
Thirdly, the new theory would be supported if the experiment returned a positive result. But Einstein's theory of general relativity, based on curved spacetime, would be shown invalid. Energy creation by an asymmetric gravitational cycle is not predicted by Einstein's theory, because his concept is based on the idea of no force of gravity being experienced in free fall. Hence no work is predicted to be done and so no difference in potential is predicted for an asymmetric gravitational cycle. Indeed, in Einstein's theory a force is produced only if the acceleration differs from that of gravity. This is why he had to introduce the principle of "equivalence" between gravity and acceleration. He considered a person in an accelerating reference frame and showed that exactly the same effects would be experienced as for a non-accelerating frame in a gravitational field.
A number of experiments have been carried out to check this principle. These are expertly described by Clifford Will(124) and seem very convincing. The experiments of Eotvos and Dicke, for example, used the gravitational fields of the Earth and Sun respectively and balanced them against the centripetal acceleration of the Earth caused by spinning about its polar axis. They both used a beam-balance suspended on a fine wire so that it remained horizontal. On its ends were attached objects made from very different substances, so that it was known that their chemical binding energies would differ. They would also have different ratios of electrons to nucleons. Located at mid latitudes, the rotation of the Earth produced a horizontal component of centripetal acceleration which needed to be balanced by a horizontal component of acceleration produced by gravitation. If, then, the differing binding energies had any effect, a torsional deflection would be observed. None was found.
Another type of experiment was designed to test the effect of differing gravitational binding energies. Very precise measurements of the orbit of the Moon were made to see if the difference between the gravitational binding energies of Earth and Moon had an effect. None was found.
Will says that these tests are totally convincing and prove equivalence. Then he goes on to state that only the concept of curved space-time is compatible with these results. Hence Einstein's concept is proven as far as he is concerned. This conclusion is supported by the consensus of theoreticians in the field of gravitation and so most people would accept its validity without further question.
Now the astute reader is asked to consider the alternative. The rest energy of an object is postulated to be that of its component sub-atomic particles plus any binding energies. The gravitational force is still proportional to total energy, being the sum of rest and kinetic energies. But inertia forces are also proportional to total energy based on this definition in the extended Newtonian. Hence all the equivalence checks are satisfied just as well as by Einstein's concept. Indeed, working from the experimental checks made to prove equivalence, the above deduction arises. It can then be used as the starting point of the extended Newtonian physics. Hence once again the two theories parallel one another.
It is indeed most dangerous and quite illogical to state that the equivalence checks show that gravitation can only be explained by the curvature of space-time in order to exclude alternatives.
Altogether, if a positive result were returned by the new experiment, a whole new vista of scientific understanding would open up. It would show that in principle man would have discovered the secret of pure creation! My personal rating for the chances of this experiment ultimately returning a positive result are very high. I would put it at 99%, because the new theory on which the result depends satisfies all the experimental checks without the difficulties which have prevented Einstein's general relativity from being integrated with quantum theory.
There is little prospect, however, of generating commercial power from asymmetric gravitational cycles. The amount possible is absurdly small. What the experiment would achieve is the proof that the pure creation of energy, positive and negative in equal amounts, is both theoretically possible and practically achievable. Once this has been confirmed, even on the most minute scale, then the door will be open for research into the possibility of commercial power generation by pure creation.
There remains one small hope for harnessing gravitation. So far only linear motion has been considered. Gyroscopic action has not been introduced. The effect of precessional motion which gyroscopes exhibit is readily explained in terms of Newtonian physics. A torque is generated at right angles to the direction in which the axis of spin is turning and mathematics predicts this exactly. The theory also shows that there should be no unexpected effect like anti-gravity. Some people say, however, that gyroscopes can produce a demonstrable anti-gravity effect despite negative theoretical predictions. Hence a question mark has arisen and clarification is needed. It could be that some new effect will be discovered which will enable energy to be harvested from asymmetric gravitational cycles, though this seems unlikely.
The greatest hope for power by pure creation seems, however, to be offered by non-gravitationally based cycles.
If I am asked to give an assessment of the likelihood of this being achievable, based on pure logic and nothing else, then I have to say the chances are small. This is because the result depends on another assumption having to be satisfied which will not be considered here. I would have to rate the chances at less than ten per cent.
But this is based on logic. My hunch is that the prospect is not only feasible but that this is the means by which all power will be generated in the future. The only justification for allowing the hunch to override logic is that my theoretical work has been partly driven by hunches. During the last few years when struggling to derive a solution for quantum gravitation, I have followed one hunch after another. If my hunch told me to look for a solution in a certain way, then I looked at it that way. In almost every case the hunch method has ultimately paid off, though not without some blind alleys being followed. I have therefore developed a strong reliance on the hunch for indicating the direction in which to think.
Prospects for the New Source of Energy
What would the world be like if this hunch paid off? It is worth thinking about this because it might in fact come to pass. In the first place power units would take the form of vacuum tubes like those in the television set. Electric power would be dragged straight from the quantum vacuum without the use of any moving parts being involved. Consequently energy from this source would be obtained at low capital cost and there would be no need for maintenance. Running costs would not exist because no fuel supply would be required. And as a further consequence there would be absolutely no pollution of any kind. How could there be with no exhaust?
In this way the damage caused by acid rain would gradually heal because this source of pollution would entirely disappear. Also the greenhouse problem would be greatly eased because power generation would not be accompanied by the production of carbon dioxide. If at the same time forest burning were stopped, then the problem would be completely solved without developing marine energy farms. Some would still be desirable, however, as a source of raw materials for plastics and for boosting the fish supply. Then all the fossil oil and coal could be allowed to remain in the ground. There it could remain, passively continuing to fulfil its proper task of locking away carbon dioxide forever.
There would be no need for coal-miners to go down dirty pits. No need for messy oil-wells and all the marine pollution caused by spills. All the ugly transmission lines would come down, because every home and factory would possess its own power supply. There would be no need for any power-stations so all could be decommissioned, whether they be coal, oil or gas-fired or nuclear plant. No petrol pumps would be required. This is because all the cars would be powered by electric motors with energy supplied by vacuum tubes under the bonnet. Ships would be similarly powered. Aircraft would have infinite range. Their jet engine compressors or fans would be direct-driven from highspeed electric motors. The fire risk from accidents would no longer exist.
In short, there would be happy smiling faces all around! Except for the face of the odd vested interest which might just frown a bit.
These frowns would have to be given sympathetic consideration and eased by restricting the rate of change to levels which could be absorbed. Their problems might be eased by giving priority to making the new power systems available to the Third World. Their people would not then need to carry on using wood for fuel and so one major factor causing the present attrition of forests would be removed. This would slow down the changeover in the developed world and so ease the financial losses which might be incurred in any such major transition. Ultimately all people in the world would have cheap non-polluting energy on tap.
Let us not be carried away by these dreams of utopia however. They are not impossibilities but the major global problem still remains unresolved. This is the problem of population explosion. Let us now turn to this aspect and see how the abstract part of our new theory can help.
It may be easier to appreciate the global problem discussed earlier, when reference was made to the work of meadows, by looking at a scenario which has already developed. About 40 years ago the population of Ethiopia was less than 10 million, it was 40% forest and agriculture could just about cope. But the average family size was eight, so the population was growing fast. It meant a fourfold increase every generation. They chopped down the trees to make more land available for growing food, but they did not understand the subtleties of the natural ecosystem.
Trees store water, then let it steadily evaporate to come down again as more rain. So the rainfall is amplified beyond the level provided by the primary water carried by winds from the ocean. There is also a "flywheel effect". Rainfall tends to be spread out more over the seasons. The water eventually finds its way to the sea in clear streams and rivers but as a steady trickle which does no harm. But chop down the trees and the climate becomes more arid. Any rain which does fall tends to come down in short sharp deluges. Most of it runs straight away off the land and is lost to agriculture. Then, to add insult to injury, it takes away the topsoil with it, so reducing fertility. In totality the land is rendered less able to carry crops. Instead of food resources increasing, they diminish as the trees are felled beyond a certain point. The Ethiopians created their own semi-desert through lack of knowledge. New Scientist some years ago gave details of rainfall in Ethiopia over several decades. A steady decline was superimposed on sharper ups and downs. The decline correlated roughly with the loss of forested land.
The Ethiopian population carried on rising regardless of the diminution of their food supply and now they have 40 million on land able to carry less than it did when it was only 10 million. We are all upset when we see television pictures of the starving children. The instinctive reaction is to send them food. Bob Geldof has raised considerable sums for aid, then next time crops failed and the same situation arose he was surprised. He said the same situation should never have been allowed to occur again. Now I admire his spirit and his desire to help. This is genuine, there is no doubt of that. But he shows no deep understanding of the situation. It is impossible to prevent the same situation from arising again and again. Suppose we simply go on sending food to prevent starvation without strings attached. Then in another forty years there will be 160 million Ethiopians on land only capable of supporting ten million. They cannot spread out across their borders because the neighbouring land is already occupied and surrounding populations are also growing.
If Ethiopia were a single isolated case, then its difficulties could be resolved. Unfortunately this is not so. Ethiopia should be regarded more as a foretaste of things to come. The entire Third World is heading the same way and numbers will soon be too large to permit of solutions which depend upon food aid alone. we are faced with a situation unprecedented in history and virtually impossible to resolve!
The very act of kindness ultimately makes the problem worse because there are then more people to ravage the ecosystem. Ultimately the aid has to stop and then the crash, measured in numbers of deaths from starvation, will be greater than if no aid had been given in the first place. This highlights the problem. Unless it is properly understood in a mathematical way, the very act of helping can make matters worse instead of better. Aid needs to be accompanied by some form of restraint so that it is not translated into more mouths to feed at the same level of starvation.
It is no use trying to refute the above analysis by pointing out that warfare has existed in Ethiopia for many years. This has certainly caused a bad situation to be aggravated, but the removal of war would not eliminate the dilemma caused by population growth. Indeed, as a struggle develops to grab ever more scarce resources, more conflict situations will arise. it seems probable that this factor will be the normal accompaniment of the developing problem, making it even more difficult to resolve.
Some people have argued that all that needs to be done is to provide aid on such a scale that population growth would be out -accelerated. It is pointed out that once upon a time growth rates were high in the developed regions. They fell to the replacement level as soon as living standards rose. Therefore raise the living standards of the Third World to our level and, hey presto, the problem goes away of its own accord. We have already shown by our own past history that this is a feasible proposition. Hence why not implement this proven cure right away, it is asked.
This is the simplistic view of the nonmathematically-minded, unfortunately. Mathematics needs to be pumped in to quantify the problem. This has already been done. A sequel to
The Limits to Growth was Mankind at the Turning Point by Mesarovic and Pestel(119), which came out in 1974. They split the world into a number of regions which interacted with one another and in this way refined the computational approach which Meadows had used. They explored the idea of out-accelerating population growth and found it to be totally impractical. To achieve this in just one region, South East Asia, would have required a supply of food equal to the entire output of the whole world. Unless the supply exceeds a certain threshold level, then the situation worsens at a far greater rate than if no attempt at a solution had been attempted. This solution is only possible when populations are still relatively small. Beyond a certain size some form of positive control is needed. Yet nobody wants to take away freedom from the individual. The only possible acceptable alternative is some kind of change in attitude.
Attitudes and the sense of morality or knowing right from wrong are ethical values. They are the province of religious and political leaders. Our new theory can help simply by showing that the faiths people have held since antiquity are supportable by extended physics. Faith no longer needs to be considered as the sole supporting prop. Nature seems to fill all possible niches. This is the experience of science, whether of the biological or physical kind. And the new theory shows there are vacancies for other universes and other forms of life which we cannot sense and which interpenetrate our own. It shows that life-forms could be composites living in more than one universe at once.
The new theory offers convincing evidence that a Creator was needed to form the universe in the first place. Indeed a Creator is needed all the time to continue to control the structure of matter. All subatomic particles are constantly regenerated, as each can only have a fleeting individual life and the place of reconstruction has to be determined by the Grid using superimposed wave functions as numbers. Since physics shows it to be possible that people could be composites, the concept of people having souls is supportable by extended Newtonian physics.
Without this support faith has had to be relied upon and this is very dangerous. Other faiths appear as threats and this has been the cause of endless violent conflict. Furthermore, once incorrect ideas have been implanted, such as that of the Earth being flat, then it is very difficult to make correction. Any change to a part can be seen to undermine confidence in the whole. Even if the leaders want to put things right, the followers will not let them. This is because ideas implanted in the subconscious at an early age cause any later ones, which are seen to be incompatible, to be rejected. The would-be reformer is likely to fall between two stools, feeling the wrath from both leaders above and the congregation below. There is in consequence a very strong incentive to suppress advancement and change in order to protect the power structures of established churches. The new theory can help to allow changes to be made without harm to these power structures. The power structure of a leading principle is not in itself a harmful thing because leadership is useful. Chaos might reign otherwise. A power structure can become harmful, however, if it perceives new advances as threats to itself. Its response is to try to destroy them. New knowledge which offers the lifeline of showing basic beliefs to be supportable can be accepted more readily, because it no longer poses a threat.
Now what may be right for a bygone age can be wrong for the present. Right and wrong cannot be regarded as absolutes correct for all ages. Some commandments at least need revision from time to time.
It was right 1,700 years ago to say "Go forth and multiply" because at the time the Earth was underpopulated. Human life could have died out at that stage. Now the same directive is tantamount to global suicide. Yet many religions still say "Go forth and multiply." They do not seem to dare to change anything in their creed, because they have faith and faith alone to hold them together. Surely when faith is supportable by physics these attitudes can be relaxed?
There is no way wave-particle duality can be satisfactorily explained using theories which do not support a creationist scenario. If this statement is doubted then chapters 2 and 3 should be read again. Previous explanations which try to avoid this conclusion simply do not work. They require impossible assumptions like infinite numbers of systems of matter existing simultaneously in one place, the act of simply looking at an object causing it to spring into being from an unresolved ghost-like wave-function, or other similar absurdities. It would be quite impossible to find a solution, based on common-sense, which does not support a creationist theory. Therefore no danger now exists that the important basic beliefs of any religion could be toppled by making necessary amendments. Religion need no longer fight against science as far as basics are concerned. These beliefs are the existence of the soul, a Creator and an ultimate purpose for life. All other factors are mere window-dressing and those which modern knowledge shows to be insupportable can, with absolute safety, be allowed to pass into the realm of mythology. Indeed the main danger which established religions now face is the failure to adapt. They must let those parts known to be false pass into the realm of mythology, otherwise those religions will ultimately become totally discredited. Suddenly they will collapse unless remedial measures are taken. "Ultimately" could well be the near future.
What matters most at the present time is deletion of the command to increase numbers. Safeguarding of moral codes and the maintenance of socially acceptable behaviour patterns come within the responsibilities of religious faiths. The most valuable advance which could be made at the present time is the shouldering of this responsibility by the churches of the world. Now it should be thought a cardinal sin to propagate beyond the means of support. If having families greater than two is officially frowned upon by church leaders, a very favourable effect would accrue. This is the main hope for stopping the runaway population explosion, which, if not checked, could finally extinguish life on our planet. This could happen within the lifetimes of children of the present generation.
At the same time people who have restricted their family size will need to be given preferential treatment. An argument for justifying large families in the Third World is the high infant mortality rate caused by semi-starvation. The response is to increase the family size to ensure that some survive. This strategy will be of benefit to individual parents if resources are uniformly distributed on a per capita basis. The total effect on the entire population is, however, disastrous. The very response to hardship is to ensure matters are made worse for
Hence the newly-advocated moral code needs to be strengthened by actions which ensure that having small families is seen to be advantageous. Least controversial is the idea of education to make people aware of the consequences of excessive births. But this is unlikely to be adequate in the short time available. Even so this would help without doing any harm. Education might be integrated with project work; people being taken on in relays to share out the work and resulting benefits. This might, for example, be integrated with the establishment of marine farming. Next those who respond by having only two children need to be convinced that they will receive welfare in old age in preference to those who are able to rely on the services of more numerous offspring. This can be coupled with the acceptance of birth control methods by religious leaders.
Then finally if these methods are seen to be inadequate after not more than about a ten year trial period, more controversial, and what at first seem morally unacceptable measures will need to be contemplated. Aid needs to be given differentially so that the small families are given first priority. Or perhaps more politically acceptable would be the distribution of aid on a per-capita basis in which only the adults are counted.
Both of the last two propositions seem very cruel and run into a minefield of controversy. It can be argued that it is not the children's fault that they have many brothers and sisters, so they should not therefore be made to suffer. This is the "fair shares" argument. Unfortunately, in a desperate situation of the kind we will then face, global survival has to take precedence over the desire to be absolutely fair. If fair shares are made the top priority, it seems very unlikely that a solution to the global problem can emerge. People would in any case respond to the measures taken and restrict their families as required, if they knew this improved their chances of survival. Much unfairness would therefore be only a transient problem. It cannot be eliminated and can be justified by the principle of "least global harm". Whatever steps are taken some harm will inevitably arise. Some strategies, those which share out aid fairly but ignore mathematical realities, are totally unworkable in the long term. Ultimately they will therefore do immense harm by allowing numbers to proliferate unchecked.
What is fair is seen to be different by people looking from different angles. A highly simplified view of the world could be considered by way of example. In this the land surface is equally divided and half the world's people are allocated to each half. Initially both have the same per capita food supply and neither has any surplus capacity. There is no further room for increase of the supply. In one half in some way the population is maintained constant by births held at the replacement level. In the other the growth rate is allowed to remain at 3%, a value corresponding with the average of the Third World today. This is equivalent to a 2.4 times increase in thirty years. At this time the growing half finds its population is beginning to starve. From their viewpoint the other half should share its resources evenly across the world as a whole on a per capita basis. The half which has taken the trouble to keep its numbers constant does not take this view. Which view of fair shares is correct? The only safe way to view the problem is to invoke the principle of least global harm. If resources are shared on a per capita basis, then within another twenty years the whole world will be starving and soon afterwards the entire population will collapse from starvation. The alternative will see one half only self-destruct. On this basis the fair shares solution is unworkable and cannot be adopted. As a corollary a global solution needs to stress the importance of restricting immigration from countries trying to relieve the consequences of their own growth. Each nation will have to solve its own population problem whilst contained within its own boundaries.
The best solution will have to accept some unfairness and harm but will minimise the total harmful effects. But whatever solution is adopted, the action of the world's churches in coming together and mutually agreeing to change their admonitions from increasing to decreasing family size could be nothing but beneficial. This change would at least cost virtually nothing to implement.
After delivering the lecture concerning quantum gravitation to the Department of Physics at Leeds University, I broke my journey home by calling on someone who wished to meet me. He was Douglas Shaw, a powerful direct voice medium. He had somehow heard about my work and wanted somebody of scientific bent to witness the phenomena in which he was involved. Through him I conversed with an ex-student of mine whose name was Arthur Cook. I quote from an article subsequently published in "Two Worlds".
and Physics - Are they Compatible?
An entrancing display of flashing blue lights danced in the air. They were attached to nothing yet looked electric. They had beginnings and endings appearing as fuzzy edges, electrical discharges not starting or ending with the usual electrodes. Disembodied lights of short duration in fact, something the like of which I had never seen before. They appear to have been triggered by the rousing songs of Douglas Shawls circle as they wound up the power. I felt a prickle at the back of my head which others later identified as a breeze. These were the preludes to the most astonishing communication I have ever witnessed.
In a little while a babyish voice began. The sound seemed to emanate from somewhere near the top of the wall, about ten feet from where the medium's heavy breathing came. It was a little boy addressing his father sitting near me. A two way conversation on developed. It seemed like the ordinary banter between father and son. The medium was not involved in any direct way. The chatter went on for some time, but then a very strong clear adult male voice came through.
The voice addressed me personally as "Ronald", and engaged me in conversation. We talked about the theory of gravitation I had been working on for the last six years and the spin-off which offered explanations for the paranormal. Ultimately he told me his name was "Cook". He said he had been one of the students I had lectured at university. This was soon after my appointment. Unfortunately I was so amazed at the clarity of speech and the implications behind it all, that I just somehow could not seem to think of many sensible questions to ask.
We entered into a technical discussion which seemed just as real as if he were in the same room. He seemed to know a lot about the theory described in this book. He said that the concept was very close to the truth. There was an interpenetrating Grid, but it was not universal as I had assumed. He said each galaxy was based on a separate Grid structure. Also I had the number of interpenetrating matter systems wrong. At the time my estimate for the maximum number possible was ten, though now this figure needs to be revised upwards. The correct number was seven he said, not ten. He urged me to press ahead with my technical book called "QUANTUM GRAVITATION". I will not repeat what else he said but his comments were most encouraging.
Another less refined voice started to come through, addressing everybody in the circle one by one. He chided me for not responding and asked if I was asleep. I wasn't but I was in a somewhat flabbergasted state. Altogether the evening seemed to me a dramatic confirmation that we do have other bodies, that our minds do not reside in the Earth body, and that the spin-off theory seems to be well supported by the evidence which can come through the route of
I am convinced there was no trickery. There would in any case have been no financial incentive involved. People who still disbelieve this kind of communication to be possible should read "Keeping an open Mind" at the end of Chapter 1. A healthy scepticism is natural, nobody can be expected to fully accept these things without proof. But if something cannot be disproved, then at least a belief rating needs to be accredited which is above zero. To totally disbelieve is to accept one's mind is fully blocked. Atheists with whom I have discussed this matter have countered by saying that I am not justified in rating my acceptance 100% so they are justified in allocating a zero. To this I reply that I have been unable to check that Arthur Cook ever existed. Records at university did not go back far enough and I do not remember him. Therefore I cannot allocate the value of 100%, though I would put the rating above 90%.
This opens a crack in the defensive armour and allows the thin end of the wedge of doubt to enter, because it pulls the rug from under the case for allocating a zero rating. Then time can allow the subconscious to work upon itself with the wedge driving ever deeper of its own accord.
Arthur was very interested in the Grid idea and offered some constructive criticism. In addition he suggested I read three books by an author whose name I have decided not to quote. We will just call him Dr.X. Much of his material was highly relevant and supportive but although I do not doubt the accuracy of other material, this seemed to be too provocative. Part of the objective of this book is to show how bridges can be built across the divide separating science and religion. Much of his material could only increase the barriers.
I obtained his trilogy and read the books with avid interest. Dr.X did not mention any Grid but gave detailed evidence for survival of the consciousness after death. I found the first the most important; the other two are in my opinion too repetitive and add only extra detail in support of the main theme.
It turned out that Dr.X, by observation and without theorising, had offered convincing proof of the existence of a parallel universe to which the essence of all people transferred upon the deaths of their physical bodies. This universe has at least one planet and this interpenetrates our own. Not only that but the personalities of people living in it have changed little as a result of their transfer.
The approach described in the present book, however, started by trying to find an acceptable theory for quantum gravitation. Then wave-particle duality had to be included as this became involved in the solution. Then the only solution compatible with the new theory of gravitation which at the same time was free from unacceptable assumptions, predictions and incompatibilities led to the conclusions already described. Hence, starting from entirely different points and using entirely different methodologies, Dr.X and I home in upon very similar descriptions of reality.
Both approaches, the observational and the theoretical, therefore closely support one another. This is a very desirable situation and seems to justify the efforts made.
Communication of the ideas described in this book has unfortunately presented far greater difficulty than solving the technical and mathematical problems involved. A final chapter is therefore devoted to analysing the acceptance barriers. Areas needing further study will also be outlined. Much remains to be accomplished in order to achieve a truly "Grand United Theory of Everything". This is the "Holy Grail" of physics at the present time. To achieve this it is necessary to start afresh from a basis having no internal contradictions. The start which I have tried to communicate is free from these and so should provide this base. The achievements of a physics riddled with contradiction simply means that a parallel solution has to exist.
It is my hope that some young physicists will be fired with the enthusiasm to carry on where this book leaves off; to find the answers to the remaining questions.
of Achievements - Einstein's G.R verus New O.G.
|| Positive energy states only allowed.
|| Balance of positive & negative
so that net energy is zero.
|2) VACUUM PRESSURE
||VERY HIGH NEGATIVE
|3) ATTRACTIVE FORCE
coupling. (Contains internal contradiction)
|| Negative momentum carriers
made of negative energy.
||1050 times maximum
possible (due to 2)
|| ZERO - as observed
|5) CAUSATIVE AGENT
||NONE. Gravitons do not fit general
|| Mediators as 3). Balances
mass of attracting object.
|6) EXPLANATION OF
|| Curvature of space-time due to nearby
|| Compression of space 5)
produces space pressure gradients.
|7) EQUIVALENCE (Of
exactly. Force proportional to total energies
|8) RED SHIFT
|| Satisfied exactly
|| Satisfied exactly
|9) LIGHT DEFLN
|| Satisfied exactly
|| Satisfied exactly
|10) SHAPIRO TIME DELAY
|| Satisfied by GR
|| Predicted to be 1% different from
|11) PRECESSION MERCURY
|| 43"/century from curved
|| 43"/century assuming m.v.r conserved.
|(For GR this is rigid but in the extended Newtonian physics the true answer will be slightly less since mvr is not conserved exactly. This means the new theory is more promising, since with oblateness of the sun allowed the true value should be 42".)
|12) PRECESSION ALL OTHER PLANETS IN SOLAR SYSTEM. Exactly the same values predicted by GR and extended
|13) GRAVITY WAVES
|| Speed = c. Energy loss checked
|| Speed = 0.45.c
|(The extended Newtonian physics predicts gravity waves and in the ecliptic of a binary at far distance causes a transverse cyclic oscillation at double the period of the stars. Energy radiation has not yet been formulated)
|14) FORCE RATIO
|| Fair prediction