Gravitation shows that photons have mass

The Forces of Nature by Kelland Terry, Ph.D.

Physicists have shown that celestial bodies cause photons to curve. This is referred to as gravitational lensing. According to the universal law of gravitation this is only possible if the photon has mass while in flight. The equation that supports this conclusion was worked out by Newton:



G is a constant that converts the raw data to a force in Newtons. Notice that the photon must have mass to make this work. Till then be safe and in good health. Kelland—www.vestheory.com

Photons are particles with mass

The Forces of Nature by Kelland Terry, Ph.D.
In addition to the torsion balance experiments, there are a number of other experiments that clearly illustrate that photons in flight are particles that have momentum. I will briefly summarize some of them here.

• The photoelectric effect. Photons striking a metal plate or wire cause the electrons in the wire to move, which sets up an electric current. It seems obvious that this is only possible if the photons pass some of their momentum to the electrons in the wire. In 1905, Albert Einstein concluded this was only possible if the photons were composed of particles.
• Compton Effect. This effect occurs when photons collide with electrons. Compton believed the results of his study could best be explained if the photons “experienced billiard-ball-like collisions with the free electrons in the scattering block.” This means the photons must be particles with mass.
• Casimir Effect. If metal mirrors are placed close together in a vacuum, only those photons in resonance remain between the two plates. Because there are fewer photons between the plates, it allows those on the outside to dominate as they collide with the plates. The plates are pushed together. The only way photons can push the plates together is if they are particles with mass.
• Photons have spin angular momentum. This was proven by R. Beth in 1936. The only way this is possible is if the photon is a particle with mass that is spinning on its axis.
• Diffraction experiments. Photons are deflected when they pass by an object. Elastic string theory explains this as follows: Elastic strings are ejected from photons at a 90 degree angle to the flight path of the photon. As explained in my book, when elastic strings strike a thin wall, it causes the photon to swing around this pivot point, which changes the photon’s direction slightly.


The flight direction of a radio wave photon is affected more by a wall than a visible light photon because the momentum of the visible light photon is some 100,000,000,000 greater. The visible light photon will tend to continue on in a straight line more than the radio wave photon. This by the way completely explains all slit experiments. Notice to make this work, the elastic strings must have physical properties and the photons must have momentum and therefore mass. Till then be safe and in good health. Kelland—www.vestheory.com

Photons have momentum and therefore mass

As mentioned, the momentum of a moving train or a tiny photon particle whizzing along at the speed of light are both calculated the same way: momentum = mass x velocity. One might conclude this: If photons have momentum, they must have mass just like a moving train has mass.

The theoretical momentum of photons with different energies and frequencies can be calculated, and these calculated values can be compared to values determined by experimentation. As explained in previous blogs:

The momentum of photons with different oscillation frequencies has been measured with the use of a torsion balance experiment. In this experiment, photons with a known frequency are directed against mirrors suspended by a tiny wire thread.

Bombarding the mirrors with photons causes the mirrors to move away from the photon beam. This causes the wire to twist as the mirrors rotate in a circle. The amount the wire is twisted is used to calculate the momentum of the photons directed against the mirrors. It was found that the momentum of the photons calculated using the twist on the wire in the torsion balance experiment was exactly the same as the momentum calculated using their theoretical mass and velocity.

Not only can you calculate the mass of a moving photon, but you can prove experimentally that the calculated mass is correct using a torsion balance experiment.

The only logical conclusion is that photons have mass at the time they strike the mirror. How else is it possible for photons to apply a force against the mirrors? I have no idea how scientists who believe in the special theory of relativity can explain this experiment and many other experiments that demonstrate unequivocally that photons have momentum, as well as other characteristics that show a photon in flight has mass.

This is such an important topic that I will continue with it in the next blog or two. Till then be safe and in good health. Kelland—www.vestheory.com

Light from our Sun comes from preexisting mass

The Forces of Nature by Kelland Terry, Ph.D.
The light we receive here on Earth from our Sun is created when hydrogen is converted to helium by fusion. In this process some of the mass of the hydrogen ion becomes positrons and electrons. These two particles with the same mass immediately combine and become two gamma photons with the same mass and energy. Free gamma photons are created in other reactions as well. Gamma photons eventually find their way to Earth in the form of visible light photons and other photons of different mass and energy.

The point I am attempting to make is that the light we receive from our Sun comes from preexisting mass. Kelland—www.vestheory.com

Max Planck’s constant

The Forces of Nature by Kelland Terry, Ph.D.

I have already introduced the idea that the oscillation frequency of a gamma ray photon is much greater than a small radio wave photon. Oscillation frequency is directly related to the energy of the photon. What we are really saying is that the rate a photon goes through its string cycles is directly related to the photon’s mass and energy.

In 1900, Max Planck compared oscillation frequency and the energy of light, and from this he was able to show that the energy of a photon can be calculated using its frequency: E = hf, which applies to all photons. The letter h in this equation is Planck’s constant and f is the frequency of oscillation. Planck’s constant has a value of 6.626 x 10^-34 joule seconds. Thus, the energy in joules for a radio wave with a frequency of 1 x 10^4 is 6.626 x 10^-30 joules. The energy of a photon of visible light with a frequency of 1 x 10^15 is 6.626 x 10^-19 joules.

Planck came to this conclusion: The total energy of a given source of light is equal to nfh, where n is the number of photons emitted, f is the frequency of the photons, and h is Planck’s constant. This was an important contribution by Planck because it clearly stated that light was composed of discrete particles whose frequency and number dictated the total energy of the light emitted.

We still have Einstein and the special theory of relativity to be concerned with but we’ll get there eventually. Till then be safe and in good health. Kelland—www.vestheory.com

Photons have momentum

The Forces of Nature by Kelland Terry, Ph.D.

Merry Christmas

If photons are particles, it seems only natural that they have mass, and since they move with great velocity through space, it is only natural that they have momentum because momentum = mass x velocity. This equation can be used to calculate the momentum of a moving train or a photon whizzing along at the speed of light.

In the 1870s, James Clerk Maxwell, a Scottish physicist, carried out some famous experiments that resulted in his ability to calculate the velocity of light, and it enabled him to derive some fundamental equations that characterize the energy and momentum of light. He gave us this equation: momentum = E/c
Where E is the energy of light and c is its velocity. Obviously Maxwell thought that photons were discrete particles with mass.

Notice, that Maxwell’s equation for momentum can be rearranged to give us the more famous equation: E = mass c2. Just substitute momentum with mass x velocity.

In other words, Einstein did not derive this equation. However, he was forced to reinvent its meaning in 1905 because it did not fit his special theory of relativity. According to his theory, nothing with mass can travel at the speed of light. For this reason, he proposed that a photon in flight has no mass. In addition he theorized that mass can be converted to energy. This is a subject we will spend a great deal of time on in future blogs so don’t worry too much about it now.

The exact relationship between oscillation frequency and the energy of a photon was determined by Max Planck, which is the subject of the next blog. Kelland—www.vestheory.com

All Photons create the same number of elastic strings

The Forces of Nature by Kelland Terry, Ph.D.

Thus far we have seen that photons are particles and the energy of the particle determines whether we call it a radio wave, microwave, visible light, ultraviolet light, x-ray or gamma ray. In fact there is a continuous array of photons of different energy from radio waves to gamma rays. A gamma ray photon can be as energetic and massive as an electron, while at the other end, the lowest energy radio waves may be smaller by as much as 10,000,000,000,000,000.

Photons with low energy take longer to go through one oscillation cycle than photons with high energy; however, low energy photons and high energy photons are all similar. They all create the same electric fields, magnetic fields, and gravitational fields, and for this reason have oscillation cycles. In addition, the magnitude of the fields at their apex is the same for all photons regardless of their energy levels. It just takes longer for a low energy photon to create and retract the same number of elastic strings. Kelland—www.vestheory.com

Photon’s electric and magnetic fields

The Forces of Nature by Kelland Terry, Ph.D.

Elastic strings make up the electric fields and magnetic fields surrounding a photon. According to elastic string theory, the negative electric field is composed of e-electons and the positive electric field is composed of p-electons. The magnetic fields are composed of n-magnons and s-magnons.

During the first half of the oscillation cycle, the photon is creating p-electons and s-magnons, and in the second half of the oscillation cycle, it is creating e-electons and n-magnons. This is shown in the next diagram:


Notice these fields are not being cancelled out by their complementary counterpart; i.e., p-electons are not being cancelled by e-electons on the same photon. The same applies to the magnons created. Notice too how the fields are directed at a 90 degree angles from the flight path of the photon, and at 90 degree angles from each other.

By convention, one oscillation period goes from the apex of one p-electon field to the apex of the next p-electon field, but one oscillation cycle is composed of two distinct string cycles. Shortly after the apex of the first p-electon field, there is a brief period of time when the photon is not making any elastic strings (X1), and immediately following the creation of the e-electon field, there is another period when it is quiescent (X2).

It is convenient to think of a string cycle beginning at a point when the photon is not making any strings. Shortly thereafter, it begins ejecting strings until there are a maximum number, and then the strings retract back to their source. In one string cycle p-electons and s-magnons are created then retracted, and in the next string cycle, e-electons and n-magnons are created then retracted. These two events make up one oscillation period.

It is possible that at the time the photon is creating p-electons it may be creating n-magnons rather than s-magnons, etc. If someone knows the proper sequence, I would appreciate hearing from you.

Photon's oscillation cycle

The Forces of Nature by Kelland Terry, Ph.D.
All photons go through what physicists refer to as an oscillation cycle. The cycle is created by the appearance and disappearance of the photon’s electric and magnetic fields. One oscillation cycle goes from the peak of the positive electric field to the peak of the next positive electric field. Just how far a photon travels while it goes through one oscillation cycle is calculated as follows:


In this equation, the velocity of light is divided by the time it takes to make one oscillation period. The seconds cancel out, and we are left with a value in meters for our answer, which is the distance traveled by a photon while it goes through one oscillation cycle. This is the only meaning that you can ascribe to this equation. It gives a false impression to think the answer is the length of the electromagnetic wave, even though by convention physicists refer to “meters traveled by a photon” as wavelength. The equation does not calculate the wavelength of anything; it merely calculates how far a photon travels as it goes through one cycle.

The equation above is normally shown as follows:

Keep in mind that all photons travel at the same velocity (c), which is referred to as the speed or velocity of light. However, a low energy radio wave photon oscillates very slowly compared to a visible light photon, which means a radio wave photon travels a much greater distance in order to go through one oscillation cycle. By convention, we say a radio wave has a “long wavelength”, when in reality it simply means the radio wave photon takes longer to go through one oscillation than a photon of visible light.

Photons are particles

The Forces of Nature by Kelland Terry, Ph.D.
The evidence that photons are particles is overwhelming; it is important to keep this in mind if we are to understand the experiments and observations involving photons. For this reason, I will not refer to photons as electromagnetic waves because this detracts from the idea that they are particles that just happen to have wave properties. As we shall see shortly, the wave properties of photons are due to their elastic strings.

The energy level of a photon determines whether it is a radio wave particle, visible light particle, x-ray particle or gamma ray particle, etc. Energy is a measure of the capacity of a particle to do work. It requires mass in motion. For example, falling water can be used to make a water wheel spin, which in turn can be used to grind our corn. It requires mass in motion. In the case of a photon, its energy level can be calculated as follows:

E = mass x c x c


E stands for energy in joules, and the mass of a particle is in kilograms. All photons have the same velocity, c , which is approximately 300,000,000 meters per second. This equation clearly shows that photons with high energy, such as x-ray particles, must have a greater mass than photons with low energy, such as radio wave particles, because they both travel through space with the same velocity. This just makes common sense.

I will come back to this subject in detail at a later time. I present it here to emphasize that the only difference between a radio wave particle, microwave particle, visible light particle, x-ray particle, and gamma ray particle is their energy levels, which tells us that the primary difference between different photons is their masses because they all travel at the same velocity.

The elusive photon

The Forces of Nature by Kelland Terry, Ph.D.
I will now switch the subject to photons, those particles that make up radio waves, microwaves, visible light, ultraviolet light, x-rays, gamma rays, etc. Photons are referred to collectively as electromagnetic radiation because all photons create electric fields and magnetic fields. The evidence shows they also create a gravitational force of attraction much like electrons and quarks. Superficially, at least, photons are much like electrons because they are both particles and they both create the same force fields.

I will first explain the differences between the various photons, and then I will delve into their physical properties, and their origins. It is an interesting subject that leads to a greater understanding of elastic strings, elastic string cycles, the properties of light, and a host of observations that are central to Einstein’s special theory of relativity. It will be fun.

We will take just one small dose of this subject with each blog. Kelland—www.vestheory.com

Our solar system in review

The Forces of Nature by Kelland Terry, Ph.D.

I have in this section shown how elastic string theory can be used to explain common observations in our solar system. Gravitons have their effect because of three important features:
• They have physical properties; i.e., they have mass.
• They remain bound to the particles that create them.
• Finally, there is a vast concentration of gravitons emanating from central bodies, such as our Sun.

These features lead to the following conclusions:
• Gravitons couple the spin of a planet to its orbital motion about the Sun. Earth spins in the same direction it orbits as it collides and spins against the Sun’s gravitons in its path. Venus has the slowest spin rate of all the planets because Venus spins in the opposite direction that it rotates. Venus is slowly being forced to spin in the opposite direction.
• Gravitons physically connect satellites to central bodies. Because Earth spins on its axis, it drags the Moon forward much like a gyrating human body drags a hula hoop. This physically transfers Earth’s momentum to the Moon in the same manner that the human body transfers its energy to the hula hoop. The Moon is moving away from us as it gains momentum and Earth’s days grow correspondingly longer. Triton rotates around Neptune in the opposite direction that Neptune spins. Triton is being forced to migrate inward towards Neptune at a noticeable rate.
• A dense matrix of gravitons causes repulsion forces between Sun and planet. Repulsion is dependent upon graviton concentration and the angles taken by an orbiting planet. Repulsion decreases faster than gravitational attraction as the distance between two bodies increase because both of these factors decrease with distance.
• Because the ratio of repulsion force versus force of attraction decreases with distance from Sun, it completely explains Mercury’s precession thought due to relativity.
• The interaction of repulsion forces and the force of gravitation coupled with the planet’s equatorial bulge causes Earth and other planets to tilt on their axes.
• Because the ratio of repulsion force to the force of attraction decreases faster with distance from the Sun, it causes tilt to increase with distance, and it explains Earth’s annual (actually semiannual) polar wobble on axis.
Kelland—www.vestheory.com

Annual polar wobble of Earth on its axis

The Forces of Nature by Kelland Terry, Ph.D.

Because planet tilt increases with distance from the Sun, I came to realize that Earth must wobble on its axis. It should tilt more at aphelion than perihelion. A few minutes after coming to this conclusion, I was able to confirm this expectation with use of the Internet.

When Earth rounds aphelion, the force of attraction versus the force of repulsion is greatest, and tilt will increase. Thus when Earth leaves aphelion it will lean over just a little more than when it arrived. The opposite is true for perihelion. Now the force of repulsion is slightly larger with respect to the force of gravitation, which means Earth will be slightly more erect when it leaves perihelion than when it arrived.

This simple explanation has eluded scientists because it makes no sense unless you believe that gravitons have mass and create repulsion forces Kelland—www.vestheory.com

Planets with little or no tilt

The Forces of Nature by Kelland Terry, Ph.D.

There are three planets that show little or no tilt: Mercury, Jupiter, and Venus.

Mercury’s equatorial diameter is the same as its polar diameter, and it does not tilt on its axis. The forces of repulsion and attraction are identical at the top and bottom of the planet.

Venus tilts only 2.64 degrees on its axis. Like Mercury its equatorial diameter and polar diameter are the same. This suggests to me that Venus has some unique physical feature that I am unaware of that might explain why Venus has a slight tilt on its axis.

Jupiter might be thought of as a true anomaly when it comes to tilt. Jupiter has a larger equatorial diameter than polar diameter but it only tilts 3.13 degrees on its axis. I can’t say why Jupiter is tilted less than Earth; however, the solution might be in the great difference in their masses, which has helped to stabilize Jupiter in its present position. Jupiter has 322 times greater mass than Earth does, and it has 2 ½ times more mass than all of the other planets combined.

Because Jupiter is nearly vertical, it remains almost perfectly balanced top and bottom with respect to the forces of repulsion and attraction. Perhaps if it were jostled out of its present position, it would eventually assume a degree of tilt greater than 23 degrees. Kelland—www.vestheory.com

Tilting planets

Tilting planets
The Forces of Nature by Kelland Terry, Ph.D.

For those planets with a tilt of 23 degrees or more, we find the following relationships:

• Planet tilt is dependent upon an equatorial bulge that gives the planet a unique orientation in space.
• Planet tilt is dependent upon the dynamic relationship between the forces of attraction and repulsion acting on the planet. The force of attraction favors tilt and the force of repulsion favors no tilt.
• Planet tilt increases with distance from the Sun because repulsion forces decrease faster than the force of attraction as we move away from the Sun.

I will examine those planets with little or no tilt in my next blog. Till then be safe and in good health. Kelland—www.vestheory.com

Repulsion forces favor no tilt

The Forces of Nature by Kelland Terry, Ph.D.

In the previous blog, I explained that the force of attraction favors tilt. Repulsion forces have the opposite effect.



There would be less repulsion force pushing Earth away from the Sun if its equatorial bulge was directed towards the Sun. Repulsion forces are attempting to move Earth’s axis to a vertical position with no tilt. Kelland—www.vestheory.com

Equatorial bulge and tilt

The Forces of Nature by Kelland Terry, Ph.D.

Earth’s gravitons retracting back to source are trying their best to make Earth into a perfectly round sphere; however, the tug between Earth and Sun caused the planet to bulge along its equator directly towards the Sun. Since Earth’s equatorial bulge is no longer directed at the Sun, it seems likely that the bulge came first, then tilt. This idea fits my model for tilt.

The equatorial bulge gives the planet a unique configuration that allows the Sun’s gravitons to interact with the planet in a very special way. In the following diagram for aphelion, Earth is moving away from the viewer and the planet is spinning counterclockwise on its axis.



There is a gradient along the axis. At the upper side, the force of attraction favors tilt, while gravitons pulling on the bottom of the planet are attempting to reverse tilt; however, overall the force of attraction favors tilt.

The force of attraction favors tilt at aphelion and perihelion, which the reader can verify by making a drawing for Earth’s position at perihelion.

The opposite is true for repulsion forces, which I will analyze in my next blog. Till then be safe and in good health. Kelland—www.vestheory.com

Repulsion & attraction forces

The Forces of Nature by Kelland Terry, Ph.D.

In this blog I will be content just to review why the force of repulsion attempting to push a planet away from the Sun decreases faster than the force of attraction as the distance between planet and Sun increases.
• The gravitational force of attraction between planet and Sun decreases with distance because fewer gravitons make connections.
• Repulsion forces against a given planet are dependent upon two factors and both decrease with distance from the Sun:
1. The concentration of the Sun’s gravitons per unit area.
2. The angles negotiated by the planet as it proceeds along its elliptical orbit become less as the distance from the Sun increases.

The net result is that the force of repulsion decreases faster than the force of attraction as the distance between planet and Sun increases.

Kelland—www.vestheory.com

Tilting planets have a strange story

The Forces of Nature by Kelland Terry, Ph.D.
Most of the planets in our solar system tilt on their axes, but the degree of tilt is very variable. Do elastic strings cause tilt, and if so, how?

There are five planets in our solar system that have a 20 degree or more tilt on their axes: Earth, Mars, Saturn, Neptune, and Pluto, well maybe Pluto is an asteroid. Three other planets have little or no tilt (Mercury, Venus, and Jupiter), and in the case of Uranus, the manner of tilt is completely unlike any other planet in the solar system. Scientists believe Uranus met with some cataclysmic event that makes its orientation different from the other eight planets. I ran a regression analysis to determine whether degree of tilt was associated with distance from the Sun for the five planets listed in the table below.



R squared in this analysis was 0.991, which means tilt is highly correlated with distance from the Sun. Scientists believe our Moon influences Earth’s tilt, which would explain why predictions are slightly out of whack for Earth and Mars.

The force of attraction in comparison to the forces of repulsion also increases with distance, which I review in my next blog. Till then be safe and in good health. Kelland—www.vestheory.com

Evidence that elastic strings explain precession

Repulsion forces between satellite and central body was used to explain Mercury's precession thought due to relativity. Let’s see how this jibes with the evidence when a regression analysis is used to predict precession for four known satellites, whose precession values are known. The results are shown in the following table.




It was gratifying to find that elastic string theory does a better job of predicting precession than Einstein’s equation and general relativity.


To delve into the details of how this regression analysis was run is beyond the scope of this blog; however, it is completely explained in my book. I will simply point out that the independent variables used were the difference in the concentration of the Sun's gravitons at aphelion versus perihelion, and the difference in angles of displacement between aphelion and perihelion (actually combined into one by multiplying) In addition, I used diameter of the satellite as one independent variable. Thus there were two independent variables.

The value of R squared that is computed in this analysis is an unbiased estimate of the relationship between the observed precession of the satellites and the two independent variables. If R squared is one, it means there is perfect correlation. R squared for this analysis is 0.9999991, which means there is almost perfect correlation.

If and when I get the observed precession for the other planets, and or asteroids, I will include them in this analysis. Till then be safe and in good health. Kelland—www.vestheory.com

Repulsion forces explain planet Mercury’s strange orbit

The Forces of Nature by Kelland Terry, Ph.D.

Mercury orbits closer to the Sun than any other planet in our solar system. In addition, its elliptical orbit is very pronounced, which changes the angles the planet must negotiate as it circles the Sun. The displacement angle taken by the planet as it rounds perihelion is 1.5 times greater than at aphelion. In addition, there is a 2.3 fold increase in the Sun’s graviton concentration at perihelion versus aphelion. I believe these two factors are responsible for the 0.00000396 increase in the repulsion force between aphelion and perihelion, as explained in the previous blog.

Because the repulsion force at perihelion forces the planet away from the Sun just a tad more than expected, it takes longer for the planet to reach the point where it is nearest the Sun; at aphelion the opposite occurs. Both of these factors work to constantly change Mercury’s orbit.

Mercury is not the only satellite that experiences an advancing perihelion. At this time, I only have data for three other satellites. Venus advances 8.4 arc seconds per century, Earth 5.0 arc seconds, and Icarus (an asteroid) 9.8 arc seconds. This gives me four satellites that I can examine using regression analysis, as explained in my next blog. The results are beautiful. Till then be safe and in good health. Kelland—www.vestheory.com

Planet Mercury does not obey universal law of gravitation

The Forces of Nature by Kelland Terry, Ph.D.

Mercury’s rotation about the Sun constantly changes. The point it is closest to the Sun advances forward in space with every rotation. Most of this change is due to the tug and pull of other solar bodies; however, there are 43 arc seconds per century that can not be explained in this manner. Einstein proposed that the 43 arc seconds discrepancy can be explained by his general theory of relativity. This view is not shared by all scientists in the field as explained in my book.

In 1958, Coleman, a former physics professor at UCLA, calculated that Mercury’s 43 arc seconds discrepancy can be explained if the difference in the force of attraction between Sun and planet at aphelion versus perihelion does not follow the universal law of gravitation. If the force of attraction at perihelion, when the planet it closest to the Sun, is 0.00000396 less than expected, this would completely explain Mercury’s strange orbit thought due to relativity. I propose this is the difference in repulsion forces experienced by the planet at aphelion versus perihelion.

When the planet is closest to the Sun, the repulsion forces push it away more than average, which serves to advance the perihelion point. At aphelion the opposite occurs and Mercury is pulled in towards the Sun more than average. Both serve to advance the perihelion point of Mercury. In future blogs, I will present strong evidence to support this contention. Till then be safe and in good health. Kelland—www.vestheory.com

Triton’s fate is doomed

The Forces of Nature by Kelland Terry, Ph.D.

In the normal situation, a satellite rotates around a central body in the same direction as the central body spins on its axis. This is similar to the hula hoop spinning around a rotating waist. The human body and hula hoop are both rotating in the same direction because body and hoop are in physical contact. What would happen if the hoop is acted upon by some mysterious force that caused it to rotate in the opposite direction? Obviously, the hula hoop would quickly come to a rest and fall to the ground because the human waist is spinning in the opposite direction. This is the exact situation we find for Triton, a moon of Neptune.

Neptune is spinning in one direction, and Triton is rotating about the planet in the opposite direction. Perhaps Triton was captured by Neptune, or perhaps its reverse, abnormal rotation was caused by some cataclysmic event. We can’t say how this relationship came about, we only know that at the present time Triton is rotating one direction and Neptune is spinning in the opposite direction.

Triton has a very fast rate of rotation, some 25,765 meters per second, while Neptune is spinning in the opposite direction at 2685 meters per second. Neptune is an extremely large planet, and much like the human body, it is attempting to reverse Triton’s direction of rotation. This is causing Triton to spiral into the planet at a noticeable rate as it loses angular momentum. Triton’s fate is doomed. Kelland—www.vestheory.com

Elastic strings help explain a run-away Moon

The Forces of Nature by Kelland Terry, Ph.D.

There are two methods by which elastic strings might cause satellite migration. First, in a previous blog, I explained how satellites meet with repulsion forces. This means the Moon in orbit about the Earth will meet with some modest repulsion force as it encounters the Earth’s graviton in its path. In this case, the Moon will be encouraged to move away from Earth, and Earth’s gravitons will meet with resistance as they retract against the Moon’s surface. This will cause a net transfer of momentum from Earth to Moon, which will cause it to migrate away from Earth a tad every year. It will also cause Earth’s day to grow longer. There is another force at work which is analogous to the hula hoop spinning around a gyrating human body.

A small girl is able to make the hula hoop spin around her body because her body is spinning faster and it weighs more than the hula hoop. The human wins out, and the hula hoop in contact with the gyrating body spins in the same direction the body rotates. In this system, a portion of the angular momentum of the human body is transferred to the hula hoop because of direct contact between hoop and body. To maintain this relationship, the human must expend energy, and of course, it is impossible for the hula hoop to migrate away from the human body even though its angular momentum increases. Let’s examine the Earth-Moon system

Earth spins on its axis at the rate of 463.8 meters per second, while the Moon is orbiting around Earth in the same direction at the rate of 4.6 meters per second. Not only is Earth more massive than the Moon, it also spins 10 times faster. Earth’s gravitons that bind to the Moon will exert a force dragging the Moon through space as the Earth spins on its axis. The Moon is attempting to reverse this force, but the Moon is less massive and its spin rate is 10 times less. The end result is an increase in the Moon’s velocity and angular momentum, which means it will tend to migrate away from Earth (15 inches per year). At the same time, the gravitons retracting back to Earth are impeded, which decreases Earth’s spin on its axis with an increase in the length of the day by 0.002 seconds per century. Thus we have a physical reason for the transfer of momentum from Earth to Moon, and a physical reason why the Moon is slowly migrating away from Earth.

The drag effect Earth has on the Moon works because Earth’s gravitons at its leading edge closest to the Moon are constantly being tightened as Earth spins on its axis. At the same time, those gravitons on the other side of Earth are constantly being loosened as Earth on this side is spinning towards the Moon.

Kelland—www.vestheory.com

The moon is trying to escape from Earth’s grasp

The Forces of Nature by Kelland Terry, Ph.D.

Our Moon is moving away from Earth 38.2 centimeters (15 inches) every year. Scientists refer to this as satellite migration. Astrophysicists offer this solution. They believe that ocean tides here on Earth slow down the rate Earth spins on its axis. And in fact, the length of the day is increasing 0.002 seconds per century. What they propose is this: Earth loses momentum every year as its rate of spin decreases because of ocean tides. This momentum is transferred to the Moon which causes the Moon to move away from us. There is an important problem with this interpretation.

Astrophysicists offer us no physical explanation for the transfer of momentum; just that it is transferred, which keeps the sum total of angular momentum constant. Think of a person playing with a hula hoop. The energy of the gyrating individual is transferred to the hoop which causes it to spin. The transfer of energy in this situation is obvious. The individual must be in direct contact with the hoop; otherwise the hoop will stop spinning.

If there is no physical contact between Earth and Moon, why should the movement of our tides influence migration?

Second, some astrophysicists have proposed that the slow spin rate of Venus and Mercury might be due to the tidal interaction between these planets and the Sun. However, tides cannot be responsible for this observation because Venus and Mercury have no oceans, which means tides would have to occur in solid bodies. Or paraphrasing Shakespeare “something must be wrong in Denmark”. Kelland—www.vestheory.com

Repulsion forces between satellite and central body.

The Forces of Nature by Kelland Terry, Ph.D.

The elliptical orbits of the satellites in our solar system cause the satellites to collide at an angle with the Sun’s gravitons. This exerts a slight outward pressure forcing the satellite away from the central body. There are two main factors that influence the repulsion force: The concentration of the Sun’s gravitons that the satellite must negotiate its way through, and the sharpness of the angle taken by the satellite as it rounds the Sun. The greater the angle of displacement, the greater the repulsion force. It is somewhat analogous to a boat crossing a river. If the boat heads directly across stream, the force of the water on the side of the boat may well cause you to capsize; whereas, if you take a less direct route, the crossing is easier.

Because all planets have an elliptical orbit, there is one point where the planet is closest to the Sun (perihelion) and another point where it is at maximum distance from the Sun (aphelion). At perihelion, the concentration of the Sun’s gravitons is greatest and the angles taken by the planet in orbit are the most acute. At this point, there will be maximum repulsion. At aphelion, the concentration of the Sun’s gravitons is least and the angle of displacement is least, which means the force of repulsion will be least.

This repulsion force is very small compared to the force of attraction between satellite and central body; however, it helps to explain several observations in our solar system: satellite migration, Mercury’s strange orbit, planet tilt on axis, and Earth’s polar wobble on axis. I will discuss each one in separate blogs.

Why do planets rotate in the same plane?

The Forces of Nature by Kelland Terry, Ph.D.

When we were kids and not plugged into a TV, we frequently had to invent something to do. On occasion I tied a string to a tin can filled with dirt. I then caused the can to rotate around my head by rotating my hand. The rotating can came to rest in a plane dictated by my rotating hand. Obviously, I had too much time on my hands, or perhaps this activity relieved me of hoeing the garden for a few minutes. Now I see that the rotating tin can is analogous to the rotation of the planets in our solar system.

The planets in our solar system tend to rotate in a similar plane like tops on a table. This occurs because the planets are physically connected to the Sun with graviton strings, just like the tin can was physically connected to my hand by a string. As the Sun spins on its axis, it drags the planets through space, which causes them to move into the same alignment like tops spinning on a table. The Sun is a huge massive body, and it spins faster than the planets rotate. This allows the spinning Sun to dictate the plane of rotation for all the planets in the solar system. Kelland—www.vestheory.com