You are on page 1of 12

# Force Doubling Paradox of Gravitational Attraction

Radiation Pressure versus General and Special Relativity

Abstract
A public domain article. This paper compares three concepts for modeling the cause
of gravitation:
* Radiation Pressure * General Relativity Attraction * Mass Attraction
The argument is presented that the radiation pressure model of gravity is the only model
that produces the correct values for the forces acting upon orbiting bodies. All
competing "attraction" models produce values that are exactly double the actual force
which is required to maintain orbit. This force doubling paradox as detailed in this paper
indicates that the Mass Attraction and General Relativity Attraction concepts are not
viable models for the cause of gravity and inertia.
In a radiation and shadowing model of remote force all forms of matter: (atoms,
particles, electric charge, and magnetic fields), are subjected to "apparently" attractive
and repelling remote force. However, the isotropic prime radiation is the seat and
source of the relative forces, in the same manner that it is the seat and source of inertial
force!…Attraction and repulsion at a distance cannot exist in a radiation and shadowing
model of remote and local forces.

Page Contents

Force Doubling Paradox of Attraction Public Domain Statement ☼
Abstract Addendum: Arithmetic of Double Force
Paradox of Gravitational Attraction Double Force Paradox Accounting
The Mass Attraction Models ø Conclusion
The GR Model of Gravitation ø Reference Text

Newton’s Ref. to the Cause of Gravity List of Link Addresses

The Radiation Pressure Model ☺ Radiation Pressure Ref. Papers

Roche Radius… Re visited ø Last Page ☺ ☻ ø ☼
In Summary

Special Relativity…L. Essen ☼

1 | 12
Paradox of Gravitational "Attraction"
Our past and current dictionaries, dominant encyclopedias, Wikipedia and university
physics books [1] define and refer to gravity as; an “attractive” force “inherent” to the
mass or warped space of a body.
Merriam Webster: gravity...: the gravitational attraction of the mass of the earth, the
moon, or a planet for bodies at or near its surface.
Applying any "attractive" force model to the Earth Moon dynamic forces, we obtain this
system:
 The Earth’s "attractive" gravitation balances the orbital force of the Moon.
 The Moon’s "attractive" gravitation balances the orbital force of the Earth.
At first this may seem like an orderly and balanced "attractive" force system;
however…the following paradox exists. If the seat, source and cause of the "apparent"
attraction forces are "internal" to each of the bodies...the attraction concept produces
twice the force that is necessary to balance the centrifugal orbital forces of a planet
moon system. The concept of "attraction" between bodies requires that the force “from”
each separate body acts on the remote body…and equally on the originating body.
Another example of a balanced system is a rope under tension; each end has an equal
amount of opposing force. As noted by Newton's third law of motion,
" To every action there is always an opposed equal reaction".
This double force paradox is directly applicable to the "mass attraction"… the General
Relativity “attraction” and all other attraction type concepts of gravity.
This example may help visualize the double force issue.
Let there be two equal rafts ( X and Y ), freely floating on a clear calm lake with a rope
between them.
Both rafts are setting still and are a rope length apart.
The man on raft X pulls on the rope which is attached to raft Y.
Raft Y will move toward raft X,… "and"...raft X will also move toward raft Y. ! !
Both rafts will receive equal and opposite force and motion.
Action and Re-Action...It is not possible for raft X to remain still and be the source of the
force.

Contents /\

2 | 12
The Mass Attraction Models of Gravitation
The attraction concepts [2] accept Newton's inverse square equation of gravity's force
between two bodies as:
F = G x (M1 x M2) / r squared.
The surface gravity ( g ) for each of the bodies can be derived from the gravitational
constant ( G ) and the mass and radius of the bodies. Using the attraction equations,
the two g forces, "allegedly seated" in each of the "two" bodies and each "attracting"
the other body at a distance, can be calculated.
Within the erroneous "attraction" concepts:
 From Earth, the concept requires that Earth's gravity is attracting the Moon;
and an equal Earth anchored “attraction” force is pulling the Earth toward the
Moon.
 From the Moon, the Moon's gravity is attracting the Earth; and this Moon seated
force is equally pulling the Moon toward the Earth.
Using: 1 ) Newton’s equation as given above, 2 ) basic arithmetic, 3 ) common logic and
4 ) the mechanics of force, it is shown that the assumed Earth and Moon seated forces
are equal; and as a result;…"all attraction models" of gravity,...produce
twice the force that is required to balance the centrifugal forces of orbit!

The General Relativity Model of Gravitation
The exact same paradox arises with the General Relativity (GR) concept of gravity. It
postulates that Mass warps a hypothetical "fabric of space-time" and the warped fabric
of space-time causes “attraction” of other masses. Since in the GR theory the seat of
each attractive force is anchored within the center of the planet’s... "and
moon’s"...positions, we would again have twice the force required to balance the orbital
forces of the Earth Moon system.

Contents /\

3 | 12
Newton’s References to the Cause of Gravity
This paradox only arises within "attraction" type models and it also raises the following
question: If this paradox is true and important, why was it not addressed by Newton, the
author of our gravitational math? The following quote from a letter by Sir Isaac Newton
should answer the above question. This quote expresses his firm opinion opposing the
concept that gravity (attraction) acted through empty space as an “inherent” property of
matter.
Quote "...that one body may act upon another at a distance through a vacuum
without the mediation of anything else, by and through which their action and
force may be conveyed from one to another, is to me so great an absurdity that
I believe no man, who has in philosophic matters a competent faculty of
thinking, could ever fall into it." Unquote
Since Newton considered the attraction concept "so great an absurdity"; it seems
reasonable to assume that he would not have spent time contemplating the detailed
mechanics of an absurd attractive system. Therefore, he may not have encountered or
addressed the double force paradox. People do not normally study hypothesis that they
believe are not correct, or hypothesis that they do not have an interest in.
It also appears certain that Newton would never have believed that for one hundred plus
years our Twenty and Twenty First Century Natural Philosophy Societies, learned
professors, authors, students and Democratic Governments would fall into believing,
teaching and propagating the concept... “that one body may act upon another at a
distance through a vacuum without the mediation of anything else”.
Sir Isaac Newton's laws of motion, circa 1600's, gave the description of how the force of
gravity varied with distance, following the inverse distance squared equation, but he did
not propose a cause for gravity or inertia in any of his publications. Although, the
following quote, from a private letter to Robert Boyle, shows Newton did conceive of a
cause for gravity that is essentially the duplicate of this radiation and shadowing model
of remote forces. If Newton's term "ethereal spirit" is replaced with the term "prime
radiation" in the following quote, the similarity of the concepts becomes obvious.
Quote: "so may the gravitating (apparent) attraction of the Earth be caused by
the continual condensation of some other suchlike ethereal spirit (prime
radiation),. . . in such a way . . . as to cause it (this spirit) (prime radiation) from
above to descend with great celerity (speed) for (from) a supply; in which descent
it may bear down with it the bodies it pervades, with force proportional to the
superficies (surfaces) of all their parts (atoms) it acts upon." Unquote

Contents /\

4 | 12
The terms in above brackets have been added to the original to aid in the comparison. It
is satisfying and important to note that Newton's concept, as stated above, does not
propose an Aether consisting of the vibration or flow of particulate material, nor does it
propose attraction through a distance as a cause. In this author’s opinion the above
quote shows that Isaac Newton did frame a non-particulate radiation and shadowing
system as a cause for gravity, circa late 1600’s.

The Radiation Pressure Model of Gravitation
In an isotropic radiation pressure system of gravity [3] the seat of the force is not in the
mass of the objects. Each atom of the object shadows the radiation flow, causing an
"external" unbalanced radiation pressure force “pushing” the objects and atoms toward
each other. There is “no attracting” tension involved, which would require the doubling
of the calculated force. The gravitational radiation pressure is an attribute of the
Universe’s prime isotropic radiation,...in the same manner that Inertia, E fields, EM
radiation and all remote forces are mediated by prime radiation. In a radiation pressure
model, planets and objects do not “have” gravity; they are “subjected” to gravity by
screening a portion of the prime radiation flow of the Universe.
Gravitational "Attraction" does not exist.
An example of calculating the gravitational force between objects using the Radiation
and Shielding concept is provided in the web page,
Gravitational Constants and Pressures.

Britannica’s Roche Radius… Re visited

The following quote from Wikipedia gives the commonly held erroneous description of
how the false gravitational "Attraction" causes the disintegration of asteroids when
their orbit is too close to a planet. Britannica Version click here.
Quote The Roche radius, is the distance within which a celestial body, "held
together only by its own gravity", will disintegrate due to a second celestial
body's tidal forces exceeding the first body's
gravitational self - attraction. Unquote
Gravitation is a compressive force applied on the far sides of the two orbiting objects.
There are no pulling forces to cause disintegration of moons or comets. The tides
reveal a change in isotropic force balance but the cause is not due to a
hypothetical attraction force.
Contents /\

5 | 12
Special Relativity’s Invalidation
General Relativity’s invalidation is demonstrated by the facts of the Double Force
Paradox which is presented above
Since Special Relativity is the foundation for general relativity the following papers
which invalidate special relativity are reviewed: 1)…”The Special Theory of
Relativity…A Critical Review”, and 2)…”Light Speed vs Special Relativity”.

Special Relativity A Critical Review Dr. Louis Essen
Dr. Louis Essen's critical review of the Special Theory of Relativity circa 1970 provides
an authoritative disciplined study that concludes that SR is not a scientific theory. His
critical review should be required reading for all advocates and authorities responsible
for propagating the clearly disproven concepts of SR and GR to our young
students. Dr. Louis Essen:...is a Fellow of the Royal Society...is the Inventor of the
Atomic Clock...he established the standard value of the second...and is also
respectively known as "The Lord of Time".
The-Special-Theory-of-Relativity-A-Critical-Analysis-Louis-Essen-digitized-copy,
https://www.scribd.com/document/360703796 , a Scribd site document.
Louis Essen's statements concerning Special Relativity:
Quotes: " I concluded that the theory is not a theory at all, but simply a number
of contradictory assumptions together with actual mistakes”….
"The theory is so rigidly held that young scientists dare not openly express their
doubts."…
"No one has attempted to refute my arguments…but I was warned that if I
persisted I was likely to spoil my career prospects." Unquote

Invalidating Special Relativity via Olaf Roemer’s 1676 AD Discovery
Light Speed versus Special Relativity Stanley Byers 2005
The one single fact that demonstrates that the constant light speed assumption of
special relativity is false…is the "1003 second delay" in Jupiter / Io's eclipse timing.
This eclipse delay was discovered by Danish Scientist Olaf Roemer 1676 AD...
NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory (JPL) and Astronomy On Line provide data from
replicating the work of Olaf Roemer’s… which confirms the continued existence of
Roemer’s 1003 second delay and proves that light speed is finite. Light speed would
have to be in-finite…to conform with Einstein’s constant light speed “assumption”.
The inconvenient existence of Roemer’s eclipse delay must have been denied for 300+
years…in order for the physical science community to maintain a belief in and teach the
invalid theories of Special and General Relativity.

6 | 12
In Summary

If the Earth is “attracting” the Moon… and the Moon is “attracting” the Earth…this
would produce twice the actual force that is required to maintain the bodies in their
current orbits. It would cause your scale to display twice the value of your actual body
weight.
This double force result demonstrates that the seat of force does not reside in the
planets or bodies, nor their positions.
The seat and cause of the forces are “external” to the planets…as predicted by a
radiation pressure model of remote force. With the disqualification of the two attractive
force models, the isotropic radiation and shielding model is the only known one
remaining which correctly predicts the actions and forces of gravitation and inertia. A
detailed study of the radiation and shielding system is available on the web, [3] and
titled, Radiant Pressure Model of Remote Forces.
The logic of this article does not imply that there is anything wrong with Newton's
gravitational equation;...the double force error only arises when it is “assumed” that the
force is attractive and that the cause and seat of the forces are within the mass or
position of the planets or bodies.
Newton's equation works perfectly for a radiation and shadowing system, since the seat
and/or source of the force is external and applied locally to the planets and moons...and
attraction or tension through a distance are not required and cannot exist within a
radiation pressure and shielding system of remote and local forces.
There is nothing in this article that changes the known number values of gravitational
forces. Numerical comparisons are not required to realize that relativities’ calculated
value is double the natural value. Applying the laws of basic logic excludes the
possibility that matter could be the seat of attractive force. Primary school students
and laymen will understand this message and realize that the Universities that are still
advocating relativity have not done this simple homework on this double force
issue. The following numerical comparisons are provided as suggested by some
reviewers.

Public Domain Statement
This October 2017 paper and the October 14, 2011 original web article,
Force Doubling Paradox of Gravitational Attraction, authored by Stanley V Byers, are
granted to be in the public domain. It is this author's belief that this Double Force
Argument is so elementary and logical that peer review is not required prior to
publishing in journals or to the public media. This is a public domain article.
Contents /\

7 | 12

Givens from NASA data; MathCad 15

Earth's surface Gravity

Earth's Mass

Moon's surface gravity

Moon's Mass

Moons distance to Earth

Moons distance to bary center

Moon's orbital velocity

Contents /\

8 | 12
Double Force Paradox Accounting

Moon's orbital force

Moon's "Attractive"
force for Earth

Earth's "Attractive"
force for the Moon

Conclusion: Invalidation of Special and General Relativity
Adding the Moon's and Earth's "Attractive " force produces twice the force required to
balance the Moon's orbital force, (Fc_mn in above math).. Gravitation cannot be an
inherent "Attractive" force seated in the center of "each" mass ! !
Mass Attraction is invalidated.
General Relativity is an attractive force system. Stable orbits would not be possible with
an unbalanced force system. General Relativity is invalidated.
Special Relativity is adequately disproven by the existence of the “Jupiter – Io eclipse”
delay discovered by Olaf Romero circa 1676 A.D. Special Relativity is invalidated.
Newton's equations do not produce a double force when used with a radiation and
shielding system of gravitation. Ref. example of Radiant Pressure system math.
http://home.netcom.com/~sbyers11/DerivConst.htm#Deriving_g_via_Orbital_Force__

Contents /\

9 | 12
Reference Above:

1. * * * Understanding Relativity, Leo Sartori, University of California Press
Copyright 1996 by The Regents of the University of California. **
* * * The Modern English Dictionary 1913 AD, The Syndicate Company
Definition: Gravitation: The force which "attracts", pg. 384 **
* * * Britannica, Encyclopedia, SEARCH [Gravitation]: "Universal force of
attraction that acts between all bodies that have mass. ....where all bodies
experience a downward gravitational force exerted by Earth's
mass." 9/5/2010
http://www.britannica.com/ **
2. * * * University Physics, Sears, Zemansky, and Young
" Every particle in the Universe attracts every other particle...."
pg 125, Copyright 1987, 7th Edition, **
3. A web search through science textbooks and science journals and dictionaries
for the definition of Gravity and Gravitation, reveals that they all define gravity as
mass attraction and/or General Relativity “Attraction”. ? ? ?

Links Uniform Resource Locators: URLs, used with this document.

The-Special-Theory-of-Relativity-A-Critical-Analysis-Louis-Essen-digitized-copy
https://www.scribd.com/document/360703796
Radiant Pressure Model of Remote Forces, Byers, 1975
URL: http://home.netcom.com/~sbyers11/
Google Search { site:home.netcom.com/~sbyers11 }
Gravitational Constants and Pressures
http://home.netcom.com/~sbyers11/DerivConst.htm#Deriving_g_via_Orbital_Force__

https://www.britannica.com/topic/Roche-limit
Astronomy On Line

Contents /\

10 | 12
Radiation Pressure Reference Papers

The following list of papers and articles present additional support for the dis-
qualification of the mass attraction and General Relativity attraction concepts.
 Light Speed versus Special Relativity, 2005
URL: http://home.netcom.com/~sbyers11/litespd_vs_sr.htm .
Olaf Roemer's work of 1676 AD demonstrates that the light speed is not constant
in relation to all observers. If true, this inconvenient fact and its uncontested
data disqualify Special and General Relativity as viable scientific theories of
electromagnetic radiation and physical forces.
 Dr. Louis Essen, Fellow of the Royal Society, The inventor of the atomic clock,
with a sterling Physical Science Reputation disproves Special Relativity.
“I concluded that the theory is not a theory at all, but simply a number of
contradictory assumptions together with actual mistakes.” L. Essen

Essen, Louis (1971). "The Special Theory of Relativity: A Critical Analysis"
Oxford: Oxford University Press. ISBN 0-19-851921-4. ISBN 0-19-851921-4
 Letter from Louis Essen to Carl A. Zapffe By Harry H. Ricker
http://www.gsjournal.net/old/science/rickeressen.pdf
 A second example of the light speed question has been available on the web site
of B. G. Wallace using 1969 radar data to establish that light speed is not
constant for all observers. The information is available
at: URL: http://www.ekkehard-friebe.de/wallace.htm
 Radiant Pressure system math.
http://home.netcom.com/~sbyers11/DerivConst.htm#Deriving_g_via_Orbital_Force_

 Google Search…[ invalidating relativity ]
 Continued

Contents /\

11 | 12
Radiation Pressure Reference Papers cont.
 Gravity Anomalies, Rev. 2010
URL: http://home.netcom.com/~sbyers11/grav11d.htm .
Anomalies of Earth's gravity, shown on the recent European Space Agency
gravity map, are presented that are only predicted by a radiation and shielding
model of gravity.
 The unmodified version of the gravity map may still be available
at: http://blogs.nature.com/news/thegreatbeyond/2010/06/goce_depicts_gravity_
in_high_r.html
 Pushing Gravity 2002 M. R. Edwards, Editor.
A valuable collection of papers reviewing theories of gravitation.
 A Wikipedia :http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism of relativity
 Britannica Roche Limit : https://www.britannica.com/topic/Roche-limit

Rebuttals and suggested corrections and / or clarifications to this paper are requested
and may be posted on this site with the contributor's permission. The goal is to obtain
the ultimate transparency, clarity and simplicity for this double force disclosure.

Author: Stanley V Byers, Web: Gravity and Inertia via Radiation
URL: http://home.netcom.com/~sbyers11/ E-Mail: sbyers11@comcast.net

Contents /\

Fini

12 | 12