Spin-Orbit Duality, Astromechanics and Anti-Gravity By Charles Douglas Wehner 10 August 2002 When Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin walked on the moon, the secret of anti-gravity became immediately clear to the author. We were told that the earth never set from their vantage point, due to the moon being in orbit around the earth. The author, however, saw that the earth was spinning. He argued that anybody born on the moon would understand that SPIN DELIVERS A REPULSIVE FORCE. The energy E of motion v is ½mv2 The potential energy E of an object raised to height h is ½mah so that we can cancel the mass m and the halves, giving a new equation: ah = v2 and so derive the orbital acceleration for a given velocity and height: a = v2/h equation 1. Equally, with the earth having a frequency f of rotation of one twenty-fourth of a turn per hour, and the circumference of the orbit being 2πh miles, the velocity v of the moon in orbit will be 2πfh so that a=4π2f2h equation 2. So we have two equations for acceleration, one based upon fly-by velocity, the other upon the spin frequency. These equations must deliver the same result, whether you are an earth-based observer using the lunar fly-by velocity, or the “Man in the Moon” who understands only the effect of rotation. They do. At a quarter of a million miles distance, they give an acceleration of about seven (7) feet per second per second, which is correct. But what of the case where we have a mixture of fly-by and spin - the REAL world? We can test such a result by spinning OURSELVES - in our imagination - at a rate of one turn per forty-eight hours. The fly-by velocity will be halved, and the spin will be halved - but the equation must still deliver the same result. That is to say, the outcome must be independent of the motion of the observer. Velocity and spin are vector quantities, each with its own signum. However, the above equations find the squares of these vectors, thereby destroying their signa. If we see a planet spinning to the right, with a satellite orbiting to the right, the differential movement will be small or nil. If we see a planet spinning to the right, with a satellite orbiting to the left, the differential movement will be the sum of the two. We are forced to the conclusion that we must combine the square roots of the above equations so as not to lose the difference-or-sum effect. This leads to: a = (2πfh½ - vh-½ )2 where a is the mutual acceleration, f is the frequency of rotation of the reference body, h is the distance between the bodies and v is the velocity of the moving body relative to the reference. equation 3. Or in another version: a = (2πfh½ + vh-½ )2 where a is the mutual acceleration, f is the frequency of rotation of the moving body, h is the distance between the bodies and v is the velocity of the moving body relative to the reference. equation 4. This is remarkable, because we have the square root of distance - where distance is a fundamental dimension, like mass and time. Yet we have a precedent in Kepler`s famous law, where the time of a planet orbiting the sun varies as the one-and-one-halfth power of its distance. It is almost as if nature dealt with the root of distance as a fundament, rather than distance proper. If in equation 3 we have zero spin, the equation becomes as 1. We have only the velocity v to contend with. Note that the orbital repulsion is inversely proportion to distance, and can be looked upon as a short-range effect. If in equation 4 we have zero velocity, the equation becomes as 2. We have only the frequency of rotation to contend with. Note that the antigravitational repulsion is proportional to distance, and can be looked upon as a long-range effect. We can see the sense of this, because the moon travels one and a half million miles per day, at about 65 thousand miles per hour. Yet, seen from the moon, this resolves to a single degree of turn of the earth in four minutes. Most of the problems with astromechanics resolve to the difficulty of identifying the most subtle angular movements - and heretofore the failure to appreciate their ramifications. The details given here relate to all moving objects, from the orbits and spins of elementary particles via the behaviour of the gyroscope to the dynamics of the largest galaxies. Such is the immutability of nature that, once a natural law is found, it applies in all places and at all times where suitable conditions are met. Considerations of the long-range action of spin led to thoughts of a person lying down and observing the sky without moving his head. The sun is 96 million miles away - half a light-second. Already the effective speed of movement is 25 million miles per hour, or seven thousand miles per second. In fact, at just 26.8 times the distance to the sun, 26.8 Astronomical Units, things are moving past at c, the speed of light. This is less than 14 light seconds, and yet there is nothing whatsoever to be seen at this range. The nearest star - Proxima Centauri - is two light years away, at which the sideways movement will be millions of times the speed of light. Einstein`s relativity teaches us that nothing can exceed the speed of light. As they approach this speed, distance contracts along the axis of motion, and the object becomes heavier and heavier. Consider the firmament:

With such collossal rates of contraction, the stars would be contracted so thin that they would be invisible - and yet I see the stars. Again, all contraction would be in the plane of the ecliptic. We do see spiral galaxies and other oval bodies, but not all in the same axis as shown here. The benefits of Einstein`s theory cannot be denied. As predicted, mesons which normally survive for only a microsecond remained alive for seconds in a particle accelerator, when close to the speed of light. Yet sensationalistic journalism, and oversimplification, lead one to expect the spectacular. Every time I see a stellar object pass my vision I know that it greatly exceeds the speed of light, and no strange or puzzling phenomenon ensues. Within the specialised world of relativity, however, it appears to be a convention to take c as the highest speed. Follow this line of argument. Even in the dark voids of space there will be isolated atoms of gas and dust. Taken overall, distant space will have not just mega, or giga, or even tera, but imponderable tonnage. Our spinning body is required to speed this up to silly speeds, when we recompute the movements from the spinning body as a datum! Ridiculous! Instead, as its antigravity pushes up against this relativistic wall, it experiences a reaction according to Newton`s law that every action has an equal and opposite reaction. This reaction is GRAVITY. IF this be so - for it is not proven - gravity must have several properties. Firstly, it must be the result of the spin of atomic particles. Secondly, it must be a quantum effect - as heavily quantised as matter itself. Thirdly, any individual particle capable of spin in one axis alone cannot have gravity in that axis. Fourthly, the symmetry of gravity must depend on the incoherence of the axes of spin of the atomic particles. Because the vantage point of a calculation delivers arbitrary amounts of energy - and therefore of matter - it would appear that there can be only one grid or framework from which accurately to view the universe. The current controversy over “DARK MATTER” is probably the result of such mistakes. I propose to re-introduce the concept of ETHER, or ÆTHER. Æther is the grid of reference in the universe from which the summation of the perceived masses and perceived energies agrees with the summation of the calculated masses and calculated energies. It may well prove to be the case that the “DARK MATTER” is nothing other than “DARK MASS” due to calculations being made from the wrong frame of reference, having no physical cause. An important point is that when dealing with spin, we are dealing with the spin of the mass, not the spin of the surface. Studies of stars and of the great planets reveal a core revolving at a different rate to the surface. A particular mystery of interest is that of the Legrange “TROJAN PLANETS”. These are asteroids that hover in the solar system in positions unexplained by existing astrodynamics. From considerations of not only their motions but also their spin, this problem may yet be resolved. Again, there is a very fundamental conundrum, THE PROBLEM OF THREE BODIES. If this is visited again in the light of the above, a solution may be found. I propose finite element analysis. Three bodies, such as E, M and S are placed in a grid. The relative motions and spins are computed for each case. Thus, we have the computations EM, ES, ME, MS, SE and SM - where EM is a study of the motion and spin of the moon as seen from earth, &c. Each body is incremented by a tiny amount according to the calculated accelerations. Then the computations are done again. With tiny finite elements, the trajectories may be precisely determined. If one rotation is nil, we can combine velocities: a = (2πf1h½ + v1h-½ - v2h-½ )2 where a is the mutual acceleration, f1 is the frequency of rotation of the rotating body, h is the distance between the bodies, v1 is the velocity of the rotating body relative to an external reference and v2 is the velocity of the non-rotating body relative to the reference. equation 5.

When a body A rotates relative to a body B, there is no rotation of B that can cancel the rotation of A. Only the ORBIT of B about A can do this. This requires special considerations. Due to extreme persecution by the British, the author has to leave this document in an unfinished form as of the 10th August 2002, until more pressing matters have been dealt with. Those skilled in the art of vector analysis should be able to adapt the above two-dimensional analysis for the three dimensions of the real universe. Possible nature of dark matter HOME (C) 2002 Charles Douglas Wehner. Use freely but do not plagiarise.