Talking of banning, take a look at this:
NASA Asks Questions: Blocks Answers.
NASA reports a serious anomaly in the physics they use to track their satellites. The anomaly, they say, has proved insoluble. This is to the extent that they have had to consider the possible need for ‘new physics’.
This chronically unsolved problem has become known as ‘the Pioneer Anomaly. It is that over the decades that NASA’s space-probes, such as, for instance, Pioneers 10 and 11, have been travelling through the solar system on their way out towards interstellar space, their orbital trajectories have veered inexplicably towards the sun, as if by some altogether unknown and unguessed accelerating force. To explain this anomaly, NASA have invited suggestions from all sectors, and the suggestions they have received are listed on their website. One such listed suggestion was that Newton’s gravitational theory which they statedly use to track their probes, typically takes no account of the spin of those bodies, so that the anomaly lies in the Newtonian theory of gravitation, and that the Newtonian theory needs to be updated to include any spin angular momenta of orbiting bodies.
Listed at first as one of the suggested solutions, this was gradually cut down by the controllers towards the point of extinction, at which point it eventually disappeared off the list. All further attempts to get this suggested solution tabled and considered have been met with silence. Indeed, it is fair to say that the lack of response, even from those sources requesting such suggestions, is monumental. For a long while one assumed that this might have been due to some fault with the communications system, but gradually, one’s suspicions became aroused that this idea was actually being obstructed. Then. to test this suspicion, having pressed the button for acknowledgement of receipt of the e-mail, the automatic response from one of the leading NASA officials who is centrally concerned with the anomaly was: ‘Your message was deleted without being read’.
Other suggestions that were listed at the same time remain on the list, some of them quite bizarre and completely implausible. So what was one to conclude from the removal of this particular suggestion from the list and the continued lack of response regarding it, other than that for some strange reason it has been blocked? But what can be so heinous about this suggestion that it should be blocked in this way? Here is that suggestion. Let the reader judge it for himself.
All orbiting bodies have angular momentum, and the textbooks of Physics say that angular momentum is a quantity that is conserved in both magnitude and direction. This means that a space-probe to which an amount of angular momentum is imparted at launch, so long as it is not interfered with from then on, will retain that same amount and direction of angular momentum thereafter.
Now let it be emphasised, here, that this is not some new theory but just standard textbook physics. Standard physics also is that the total amount of angular momentum of an orbiting body must include all forms of angular momentum it might have, such as, for instance, spin, also that the distance of an orbiting body from its centre of balance with a countermass, such as in this case, the sun is directly proportional to the amount of orbital angular momentum. That is to say, a body with a smaller amount of orbital angular momentum orbits nearer to the sun than one which has a larger amount. (Note, again, that this has nothing to do with higher mathematics or exotic theories such as relativity and quantum theory. It is no more than ordinary ‘grocery-level’ logic and accountancy, which is perfectly sufficient for present purposes.)
This being the case, it follows that for any given total amount of angular momentum imparted to a space-probe, the more there is of spin angular momentum the less there has to be of orbital angular momentum, and the less there is of orbital angular momentum the more the trajectory of the probe veers, predictably, towards the sun, which is precisely the phenomenon which NASA regards as an anomaly.
So, since this is so logically predictable in terms of standard physics, where’s the problem? Why is it regarded as an ‘anomaly’? Plainly, the solution to this ‘anomaly’ is that the orbital dynamics which NASA uses to track its spinning space-probes takes no significant account of the spins of those orbiting bodies. But practically all orbiting bodies spin, from satellites, to planets, stars and — not least — the hosts if spiral galaxies, and if those spins are not included in the orbital equations, then there will be ‘anomalies’ throughout — such as, for instance the notorious so-called ‘Missing Mass’ anomaly whereby the measured total mass of the universe of stars, galaxies and so on turns out to be much larger than can be accounted for by Newtonian gravitation.
What, then, can be so abhorrent about this suggested solution to NASA’s stated Pioneer Problem that it should be banned from the list of possible solutions? First, a technical point. Some might judge this suggestion to be too simplistic, pointing out that as well as having magnitude (amount) angular momentum is a vector quantity, which makes it much more complicated. However, compared to the magnitude of the orbital angular momentum of a space-probe in solar orbit, any change in the ratio of spin to orbital angular momentum due to the composition of vectors is altogether negligible. Also, any such difference in the spin-to-orbit ratio will be set at the start of the motion and retained throughout, so that it has no bearing on the in-flight condition of the probe hence can be discounted. But in any case, if there were some fault in this reasoning, then it would surely have been pointed out in response to the invited suggestion. So this cannot account for the conspicuous silence with which this honest and sensible suggestion has been met.
What else, then, can be the reason for this ominous silence? Let’s put it in a historical context, say in the era of Copernicus and Galileo. Supposing that a committee of pre-Copernican astronomers agreed that their explanations of the motions of the planets in terms of their postulated wheels-within-wheels-within wheels theories of circular motion as epicycles, equants, deferents and so on had become too complicated, and that there had to be some ‘new physics’ to make sense of it. We may imagine that all sorts of suggestions as to what this ‘new physics’ might be in terms of, say, some mathematically unified, all-inclusive Wheel. Preparedness to consider all such suggestions, so long as they were rational, respectably written and clearly presented would not be hampered by any overriding authoritarian precept. Since they were invited in the first place these suggestions would hardly be summarily dismissed as ‘deleted without being read’.
But now suppose that one in particular of those invited suggestions was to take the centre of motion of those planetary cycles away from the earth and fix it on the sun. This simple sensible suggestion would, of course, relegate our earth to the status of just one of many such rocks orbiting the sun This would be intolerable to the religious belief of the time, that God had made our earth the centre of the universe and all creation. So, what would happen to that new and unique suggestion? Much as did happen, in fact. Once that implication of decentralising God’s creation away from our earth and setting it in space was realised, it would, at first, be dismissed out of hand. And then, if it became more persistent, it would be condemned as a heresy, and those who were a party to it would be persecuted, as, in our science history, Giordano Bruno and Galileo were, in fact — because, of course, that uniquely different idea was a danger to the whole authoritarian mindset of that era.
Now ,let us return to the present time and the contemporary call for ‘new physics’ and the suggested solution of NASA’s problem that the anomalies NASA and our astrophysicists report are due to Newton’s neglect of spin in orbital motion. More than just a few commentators have expressed the view that this suggestion that Newton’s ‘gravitation may be wrong is a heresy of ‘Copernican proportions’, because Newton is to NASA nowadays as the Pope was to Medieval science. Professor Alan Winfield describes it on his blog (see below) as ‘the most dangerous idea’ and. Prof, Robert Trail lists is one of the top five modern heresies. Meanwhile, science editor and researcher, the late Professor Honig, has declared it ‘immoral’.
But why? How can such a simple suggestion of the omission of spin in orbital motion be such a threat to the Establishment as to be blocked in this altogether conspicuous way?. Why has it not been responded to?. Why have there been no comments on it, either positive or negative, or any attempts whatsoever at refutation or to engage in rational discussion? Why has all mention of this proposed simple solution been removed? The situation invites careful analysis.
One is always wary of seeming paranoid or as being party to popular conspiracy theory and suchlike. Having said that, objectivity demands an examination of the real possibility that this simple suggestion threatens today’s Establishment in some way that might be on a par with what was presented to Medieval science by the shift from earth centred to a decentralised, earth-independent cosmology.
First, then, we have to discern the present Establishment position. The current prevailing dogma is, of course, that of the Big Bang theory of cosmic creation, which, although it is a theory is now taken as fact by most mainline physicists. This whole notion of an ‘expanding universe created in a primordial ‘Big Bang’ is based on the phenomenon known as the Hubble redshift, which is taken as irrefutable evidence that the distant galaxies are receding. But this is the same as saying that because all ferrets are quadrupeds, seeing a quadruped is the same as seeing a ferret. This fallacy underlying the Big Bang dogma and all its supporting theoretical paraphernalia, has been pointed out and published by this present author over some years, which makes nonsense of the current search for the Higgs Boson, or ‘God Particle’, which is supposed to have been created in the first nanoseconds after the ‘Big Bang’. At a cost approaching five billion pounds. the Large Hadron Collider (LHC) at CERN, which is designed to recreate that ‘God Particle’. would be seen as so much pure waste of money. Together with this, all the other associated, heavily funded searches for ‘gravity waves’, ‘gravitons’, ‘dark matter’, etc., would be wiped out if this simple, unique solution of replacing ‘gravity’ with angular momentum were generally accepted. For these priests of Modern Mathematical Physics and Cosmology, it would be, a complete and utter disaster.
Seen in this way, it is scarcely likely that this simple solution would be properly considered and evaluated, If it were to be accepted, then at the very least, it would make the moguls of modern Theoretical Physics look pretty silly. Moreover, from the fact that it has for so long remained unrefuted — that although sufficiently well disseminated it hasn’t even been taken up and argued against — one might reasonably suppose that it has been found irrefutable, hence what Professor Winfield has judged to be a real danger to the current Physics Establishment.
However, as someone has pointed out, for the latest e-mail to NASA to have been ‘deleted without being read’, something of the message must have been read for that decision to have been taken, and if it was not the message that had been read, then it must have been the name of he sender with which that Simple Solution is well enough associated.
It seems to have been unwise, therefore, to have assumed that over the years during which this uniquely ‘dangerous idea’ has been presented it has been just passively ignored. After a while there comes a time when what might have seemed like just passive ignorance begins to appear active and deliberate, especially when it ends-up being virtually expunged from the record.
However, here at least, is one reference to this ‘most dangerous idea’ that has, so far survived. It is on the blog of Professor Alan F. T. Winfield, of the Electronic Engineering Department UWE, Bristol:
(FRIDAY, FEBRUARY 24, 2006
I came across the Edge website last week, whose home page declares the rather grand aim:
To arrive at the edge of the world's knowledge, seek out the most complex and sophisticated minds, put them in a room together, and have them ask each other the questions they are asking themselves.
It appears that the Edge asks an Annual Question, "What is the answer to life, the universe, and everything", that sort of thing, and then publishes the answers by the contributing illuminati.
The 2006 question is "What is your dangerous idea?".
So it was with some excitement that I started to read the assembled responses of the great and the good. Very interesting and well worth reading but, I have to say, the ideas expressed are, er, not very dangerous. Quite dangerous, one might say, but by and large not the sort of ideas that had me rushing to hide behind the sofa.
So, I hear you say, "what's your dangerous idea?".
Ok then, here goes.
I think that Newton's interpretation of his first law of motion was wrong and that there is no such thing as a force of gravity. Let me say right away that this is not my idea: it is the result of a lifetime's work by my friend Science Philosopher Viv Pope. But I have played a part in the development of this work, so I feel justified in evangelising about it.
Recall your school physics. Newton's first law of motion states that every object in a state of uniform motion tends to remain in that state of motion unless an external force is applied to it. In other words, that the 'natural' state of motion is in a straight line. Of course in an abstract sort of way this feels as if it is right. Perhaps that is why it has not been seriously challenged for the best part of 400 years (or it could be because Newton's first law has become so embedded in the way we think about the world that we simply accept it unquestioningly).
Consider an alternative first law of motion: the natural (force less) state of motion is orbital. I.e. that bodies continue to orbit unless an external force is applied. Now the Universe is full of orbital motion. From the micro-scale - electrons in orbit around nuclei, to the macro-scale - moons around planets, planets around stars, rotating galaxies etc. If this alternative first law is true, it would mean that we don't need to invent gravity to account for orbital motion. This appeals to me, not least because it leads to a simpler and more elegant explanation (and I like Occam's Razor). It would also explain why - despite vast effort and millions of dollars worth of research - no empirical evidence (gravity waves or gravity particles) has yet been found for how gravity propagates or acts at-a-distance. A common-sense objection to this idea is "well if there's no such thing as gravity what is it that sticks us to the surface of the earth - why don't we just float off?". The answer is (and you can show this with some pretty simple maths), that the natural (force less) orbital radius for you (given the mass of your body), is quite a long way towards the centre of the earth from where you now sit. So there is a force that means that you weigh something, it's just not a mysterious force of gravity but the real force exerted by the thing that restrains you from orbiting freely, i.e. the ground under your feet.
This has all been worked out in a good deal of detail by Viv Pope and mathematician Anthony Osborne, and its called the Pope Osborne Angular Momentum Synthesis, or POAMS.
Now that's what I call a dangerous idea.
For those who, like Winfield and many others who are not steeped in this new religious dogma that Modern Physics is a ‘search for God’, it is plain that those priests involved in this highly expensive research, funded as it is largely by the Catholic Church, cannot afford to let it be revealed, however simply and logically, that like its medieval predecessor, this scientific departure of theirs is just a new kind of religious nonsense. Only by being allowed to present its case without doctrinal interference can Commonsense prove that it is now high time that Physics dropped all this nonsense about searching for ‘God Particles’, equations revealing the ‘Mind of God’ and so on, so as to recover its original integrity as a secular search for just plain and simple commonsense-logical truth. This is being done but is so far not seen being done. If it were allowed, what would be seen is that over the last half century, following a short correspondence between this present writer (then a young telephone lineman) and Albert Einstein there has been developed a whole new physics since known as the Pope-Osborne Angular Momentum Synthesis, or POAMS. Based on the neo-Machian philosophy of Normal Realism, this Synthesis answers not only the Pioneer and ‘missing mass’ anomalies but also the notorious ‘EPR paradox’ and the mismatch between relativistic time-delay and quantum instantaneity in distant action.
Neville Vivian (Viv) Pope
Website
http://www.poams.org
This article was subscribed to Sounding Circle: the Big Bang and now appears in Sounding Circle: The "Big Bang" Is Just Religion Disguised As Science. It has also been sentto one of the NASA officals centrally concerned with gthge Pioneer Anomaly. Let's see if he answers (will keep you posted on this).
™ Version 4.2