Galilei was Wrong: Angular Nonradial Effects of Radial Gravity Depend on Density of Matter

Abstract

Although in mathematical sense the actual meaning of Galilei's experiments conducted at leaning tower of Pisa is that he failed to detect any measurable impact of composition of matter on gravitating bodies, the obvious failure is mistakenly interpreted as experimental confirmation of lack of the impact instead. Galilei did not really perform internal validity checks of his experiments, because he did not ensure that he actually measured what he was supposed to measure. However, a modern experiment devised to test the impact of large mass on gravitational phenomena has revealed presence of (formerly unanticipated) extraneous frequency decrease in rays coming from Taurus A, when they passed close to our Sun (i.e. near occultation). The experiment has effectively confirmed that density of matter of the mass source of locally dominant gravitational field (which was our Sun's field) affects gravitational interactions happening on equipotential surfaces surrounding gravity center of the field. Also very similar experiment involving radio waves, which too exhibited (formerly unexpected) frequency decrease when they traveled along practically equipotential surface of Earth, has reaffirmed that conclusion. Hence contrary to Galilei, effects of nonradial (i.e. tangential and/or binormal) components of radial gravitational force fields depend (inversely) on (equipotential exposure to) the, assumed as practically constant and uniformly distributed, density of matter of the mass source of the local field.

With Equalized Mass, its Density of Matter can Affect Radial Gravitational Interactions TOO

“…Despite mounting experimental evidence that Newton was right [2], [3], mainstream scientists ignored it and left some childishly simple experiments unexplained and unreconciled [2]. Instead of taking seriously the very first definition that Newton has offered in his Principia, physicists and mathematicians "rationalized" his insight and in doing so created few nonsenses and even fake theorem [4].…”

“…The new nonradial effects showed that density of matter does matter indeed for nonradial gravitational interactions and that they give rise to clearly repulsive nonradial gravitational interactions as well [5], [2], [3], [6], [7].…”

“…Since the necessity to take density of matter into account has been confirmed by experiments [2], [3] as well as by purely mathematical analyses of gravitational interactions [9], [8], it may be beneficial to briefly highlight some problems created by ignoring the Newton's ingenious definition and then concisely recapitulate the developments that actually resolved those problems.…”

“…The traditional comparisons of masses of planets, each of which orbits our sun at different speeds, resulted in rather infantile inferences, some perpetuated for centuries [3]. Only if celestial bodies are considered as if they were made of the same material substance, we could avoid unnecessary bias and make meaningful inferences from comparisons of these bodies.…”

“…Volume 54 from the gravity center associated with the source mass M -spherical/spheroidal angle θ giving thus the angular distance λ=rθ measured along an equipotential surface, we obtain: (6) which is the angular nonradial amount of potential energy spent on the work done by the field along the equipotential surface a the perihelion distance r p that is also codetermined by the radial distance r, and the (assumed as average -at the present depth of inquiry into the gravitational phenomena) density of matter Q of the source mass M and the perimeter volume υ enclosed within the perihelion [6], [3]. The value of proportionality constant k proved to be 1 for practically spherical celestial bodies such as our Sun and Earth [2].…”