Gravity, Again

In 2009 I worked for a small mineral exploration company named Brumby Resources Limited that had a couple of iron ore projects east of Port Hedland in the Pilbara region of Western Australia. One of the projects was based on a shallow gravity anomaly some 4000 metres by 500 metres size at an interpreted depth of  some 60 metres on Pardoo Station. The geological environment was the Cretaceous aged Canning Basin sediments hosting artesian water overlying folded Proterozoic banded iron formations, sediments and volcanics.

One expensive bore hole was drilled to test the gravity anomaly and yielded negative results, thus falsifying the interpretation of a shallow large body of hematite; There was no large gravitating mass in the ground responsible for the gravity anomaly. The failure was inexplicable.

Further to the west on the adjacent De Grey station we had a deeper magnetite target in the folded Proterozoic sediments also overlain by the same Cretaceous Canning Basin artesian basin sediments. An angled hole was drilled into the interpreted magnetic anomaly and started off with a roller-cone precollar of some 90 metres downhole depth from which diamond coring was then started. Routine down-hole surveying is performed using a sophisticated dip meter and magnetometer to record the dip of the bore hole (nominally -60 degrees) and azimuth using magnetics since we did not think using an expensive gyro survey instrument worth the cost. The target was large, after all, being iron ore. The drilled hole went to where it was designed to go save for two wierd dip measurements at 90 and 120 metres down hole where the measurements indicated the dip was +36 degrees, instead of the nominal -57 degrees aimed for. The immediate conclusion was that there was a gravitating mass above the instrument at 90 metres depth which the consulting geophysicists refused to countenance since it implied a gravitating mass above the hole in free air. They were right, of course but unscientific in the sense that no challenge to gravitational theory is permitted.

Except that if one took the previously falsified massive hematite target to the east, interpreted from the gravity data to be at 60 metres depth, then the gravity anomalies identified from the airborne data pointed to target masses within the flat lying Cretaceous sediments. Since drilling had shown these gravity anomalies to be specious, despite the measured fact of the gravity anomalies, then clearly what was causing the gravity anomalies could not have been the presence of mass per se, but to some other forcing agent, presumably linked to the artesian water, because we now realise water has some inexplicable physical properties as discovered by Gerry Pollack and his co-workers. The alternative was faulty instrumentation and that was clearly ruled out by replication and other tests when Holger Hotzi, the driller, and I performed in situ tests of the surveing instruments.

And questioning gravitational theory is not a new development either, eg Maurice Allais’ work during the 1950’s and afterwards,  when his experimental results led him to wonder whether there might be an additional physical ‘field’ affecting objects behaviour to gravity. The interesting aspect of Allais’ work was the omission of the electric field as a causative agent from his various explanations. Yet while he considered the magnetic field, among a large number of alternative possible ‘forcings’, the absence of the electric field as a possible candidate for the inexplicable behaviour of matter he observed is striking, especially when no magnetic field can exist in the absence of an electric field; magnetic fields are solely produced by moving electric charges, and electric charges can’t exist in the absence of an electric field since the presence of an electric field requires the existence of electric charges in the first place.

It’s like the paradox of which came first, the chicken or the egg, the electric field or the electric charge separation? Neither, because chickens never evolved from a previous simpler state to its existing state, but that the pair, chicken-egg, simply exists and has always existed, and if you want to get metaphysical, implicitly so in the Bohmian Implicate Order of the Holographic Universe model.

So which came first, the electric field or the electric charge separations that form electric field, since the presence of charge separation means the existence of an electric field in which electric charge separation becomes possible? Like the chicken-egg pair, the electric charge-field pair also must have always existed. It’s only when creationism is added that difficulties arise and the impossibility of making something from nothing is the primary axiom on which all else is derived resulting in the paradox of the chicken and egg conundrum. (And of course Darwinian evolution as essentially a more ‘scientific’ explanation of creationism by the introduction of time).

Allais’ observations which led him to question gravitational theory, and hence Einstein’s theories of relativity, stem from the apriorism of gravitational theory that is held as the primary axiom explaining the physical motion of matter. It is only because of the existence of motion that a question of how, and maybe why, arises. It is also pertinent to point out that in plasma physics, when applied to astrophysics, gravity is routinely ignored as the Lorentz Forces associated with the behaviour of electric plasma are some 10^39 greater in magnitude than the gravitational force. And in a similar way the unexpected behaviour of a pendulum during a solar eclipse is not attributed to the gravitational effects of the Sun and Moon, since those effects are a million times weaker than the observed forces affecting the Foucault Motion, as described by Allais.

Given no matter is electrically neutral, but not to be confused with electrical conductivity, then if all motion of matter is thus essentially the motion of electrical particles/bodies in electric fields, then the gravitational force would probably be electrical as well; but how?

A clue lies in the belief of self-gravitation which is used to explain the formation of stars and planets, and for that matter, clumps of matter itself from the imagined antecedent Creation or Big Bang event. If we use the Earth as an example we might assume the core’s barycenter or center of gravity is determined by its spherical shape and geometry, everything else being equal, and hence its location is the centroid of the sphere used to represent the core in three dimensions. And the core is enveloped by a liquid outer core whose spherical  centroid is … wait for it…the same location as that of the core’s barycenter. And so also the centroids of the outer shells of the mantle and crust. Because the various barycenters, or spherical centroids, or centers of mass are all at the same location in space, in the Earth’s case at the core’s centroid, no effective distance exists between the various shells making up the Earth, and hence no attraction between them is possible.

(And the barycenter is not a physical object, by the way. It is actually a location in space, of no dimensions and thus incapable of posessing any physical properties).

This does not mean, however, the high pressures and temperatures inferred to exist at those depths are imaginary; rather that the existing physical state of matter is not the result of self-gravitation or accretion as presently maintained in the standard model, but casued by a different physical process.

So what else could explain this?

The Plasma Z-Pinch mechanism.

Birkeland currents are known to frequently cause the formation of strings of beads or filamentary structures in which the beads are Z-Pinch zones or zone of enormous compression powered by, in the case of cosmically scaled phenomena, massive cosmic scaled electric currents of immense amperage in which the Lorentz force dominates. Stars are thus essentially radiating plasma Z-Pinches. And when the currents powering these stellar Z-pinches wane, then what is left are spherical bodies of highly compressed matter that might, with time, develop into planets. (The physics behind the production of spheres by Z-Pinch effects remains moot).

If this is the case and if we assume the Earth was so formed, that its polar Birkeland currents are the remnants of the previous stellar state’s primary formative electrical currents, then the resulting Z-Pinch force would be very weak, and perhaps sufficient in magnitude to explain the force we call gravity. Variations in gravity, or more accurately unexpected motions, measured by Allais and others, for example, might then be better explained by variations in the current density of the polar Birkeland currents, caused by the interference of external bodies such as the Moon during solar eclipses, causing smaller scale variations in the Earth’s electric fields. (Allais made no mention, as far as I have read, of electric fields as a possible causative forcing).

And the occasional wierd gravitational effects at the Earth’s surface, as noted above with the drilling data, might be caused by the electric field generated by the artesian water in the Canning Basin sediments, producing localised Lorentz-forces that counter ‘gravity’; how is a matter for another day. (Hint- throw money :-))

So gravity might actually be a plasma Z-Pinch mechanism that causes matter to be compressed into a spherical form, in that the Z-Pinch forces are spherically symmetrical. Earth expansion would then be a logical physical process, after the waning of the earlier compressing Z-Pinch forces during stellar formation, where the previously compressed matter is now re-equilibrating to the new but lower PT conditions of its solar environment. This can only be done by decreasing the density by increasing the volume that the matter occupies. There is no need for a creation of ‘mass’ to explain the expansion. (And the theory remains incomplete too).

It suggests that the high PT conditions inferred in the Earth are not being presently formed, but were so formed during the past when the Earth was in its stellar incarnation, and that since then the Earth has been ‘decompressing’ as it were allowing life, as we understand it, to spontaneously appear from the implicate order. In an instant? No, but the interpreted slow process of degassing might lead to the interpretation, of many, that life was evolving when in reality it was appearing from the implicate when environmental conditions were appropriate. Evolution from environmental change, as it were.

This explanation suggests the Earth is a large electrical capacitor powered by the Solar electrical currents which, because of the observed cyclicity of the sunspots, seem to be part of a larger galactic alternating electric current system.

Radioactive elements are thus over-compressed forms of matter that in the existing electric field are unstable.

(And climate changers believe we can affect this system by modifying our consumption, as carbon based life forms, of carbon; just who is delusional is hardly moot).

But one problem remains – extricating science from its present-day religious shackles, where gravity is assumed as an unchallengeable axiom but which founds the basis on which is constructed the intellectual edifice we describe as ‘science’. Science, in its present state, is state sanctioned consensual religion. But real science regards all theories ultimately false in the sense that scientific theories are strictly limited to the facts as presently known and understood. That new data might change scientific theory is an axiom, as it were, of the scientific mindset. That new data can never change theory is axiomatic of religions.

This is the ultimate problem, the domination of science by the religious.

About Louis Hissink

Retired diamond exploration geologist. I spent my professional life looking for mineral deposits, found some, and also located a number of kimberlites in NSW and Western Australia. Exploration geology is the closest one can get to practicing the scientific method, mineral exploration always being concerned with finding anomalous geophysical or geochemical data, framing a model and explanation for the anomaly and then testing it with drilling or excavation. All scientific theories are ultimately false since they invariably involved explaining something with incomplete extant knowledge. Since no one is omniscient or knows everything, so too scientific theories which are solely limited to existing knowledge. Because the future always yields new data, scientific theories must change to be compatible with the new data. Thus a true scientist is never in love with any particular theory, always knowing that when the facts change, so too must he/she change their minds.
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s