Stampa Pagina

C) Gravity and the other “forces”. (Second part).

C) Gravity and the other “forces”. (Second Part).

C) Gravity and the other “forces”. (Second Part).


Article from:

Tempo nuovo, Naples 1973, nn.5-6: The unigravitational field


by Renato Palmieri

In the modern physics the methods for the measure of mass are the most improper one could imagine on the theoretical plan. The apparent precision of the determinations derives only by the usage of a certain conventional meter which usually leaves almost unchanged the relations with a mass assumed as sample: but providing that the compared masses are in strictly analogue conditions respect to the various fundamental factors, as density, magnetism, electricity, distance by other masses, etc. Varying this factors, is necessary to keep it into account modifying the formulas with various empirical arrangements, with which approximative results are obtained even though – normally – sufficiently exact to the practical scope. For the modern uses, in facts, not only are indispensable the absolute values of the elements in play, generally basing the conservation of the values of the relation inside determined limits of approximation (15).

Of all the proceedings commonly used to measure the masses, the only one which has theoretical validity is right what modern physics has denied into theory, to solve the irremediable contradictions of the relativistic formalism, and which is bound to the ancient concept of the quantity of matter: the mass is at the origin nothing else than the numerical ensemble of the elementary particles (photons) constituting a body, so that its effective value results by the product of corpuscular density for the volume. The conventional formulas which measure the masses by their effects (forces, accelerations, speed, energy) all of them contain all the basic errors which limit the validity inside particular fields, preventing a correct and universal vision of the phenomena.

So the most simple and famous of the formulas of Dynamic ma (second Newton’s principle) is empirical and approximative, not only because it consider the mass subjected m as inert and not contributing to Fbut most of all because it doesn’t keep in account the fact that the field of the mass which is source of F (let’s call it mo ), applied to m , has a total value which varies with the spatial extension of m . To clarify the matter, of fundamental theoretical importance, we resort to an exemplificative scale. Let’s suppose that the field of mo  has the value 32 as measure of the punctual intensity applied to the closer volumetric unitary part of m: for the progressively farther parts such intensity progressive decrease according to a scale determined by the distance, in relations to the peculiar characters of the field (in conventional terms: gravitational, electric, magnetic, strong nuclear, weak nuclear, etc.). Let’s express in numbers one of the possible scales, for a value of m (in uniform density) variable by 1 to 32. If this unitary parts extents much into space respect to the field of  mo , so that the punctual of this decrease very fast through m , where there is the sequent scale of partial values, total and medium of the field applied for the successive increments of m(remaining unvaried the distance between mo  and the surface of m ) (table and  fig. 1):

Unitary parts…………. Partial field….………….Total field……………Medium field

…….of m………………………of mo……………………….of mo………………………of mo


………1………………………….32………………………….32………………………….32 / 1 = 32

………2………………………….28………………………….60…………………………60 / 2 = 30

………3………………………….21…………………………..81……….………………..81 / 3 = 27


………4………………………..…11………………………….92………………………..92 / 4 = 23

………5-8…………………………4………………………….96……………………….96 / 8 = 12

……..9-16…………………………3………………………….99………………………99 / 16 = 6,1875

…….17-32………………………..1………………………….100……………………100 / 32 = 3,125


The scale of the medium field of mo , which is obtained by dividing the total field for the number of parts of m to which it results applied, coincides with the one of the acceleration suffered by m for effect of mo The acceleration is proportional to the medium applied field: being F the total field, it derived from a = F/m .

While is concretely defined the meaning of the second principle of dynamic, although inside the limits of its unidirectionality, it becomes moreover evident the interpretation of convenience which is given by the official physics, which reads it in opposite way depending on who applies it to the cosmic gravitation (F proportional to the masses, a constant) or to the other “forces” considered non gravitational (F non proportional, a inversely proportional to the masses). It is easy to observe by the table that up to a certain limit, signed by the horizontal line, the total field of mo increase almost proportionally to the mass m; therefore the medium field and the suffered acceleration remain almost univariate (diminishing only a little bit). Which is what applies, as we have seen, in the sidereal gravitation of bodies of small mass respect to bodies of high mass (Galileo’s experiment, “Newton’s tube”, meteorites). Over such limit, instead, it is the total field the one remaining almost unchanged, increasing by little with the increasing of the mass: the medium field and the suffered acceleration result, as a consequence, almost inversely proportional to the mass. We have seen that it is found in the phenomena in which the interacting masses are not too much in disequilibrium between them, that is in those of a type commonly defined non gravitational.

The analysis of the table reveals facts of extreme interest, which establish a perfect unity between the apparently disparate macro- and microcosmic interactions, confirming the discourse done so far. The band which stays over the horizontal line can be defined of “almost proportionality of F with m“. In it m results much restricted spatially in the field of  mo and its weight (total field of mo applied to m , apart from the inverse one) it’s almost proportional to the same m : 32, 60, 81 are between them almost as 1, 2, 3; the acceleration (32, 30, 27) remains almost unchanged  with the increasing of m (Galileo’s falling bodies, “Newton’s tube”, meteorites). The prevailing events in this strip are of “collision” of m towards mo , because of the high accelerations impressed by mo , superior to the accelerations addressed to the external fields.

The band which extends below the horizontal line presents instead the “almost non proportionality of F with m” character. In it m  is sufficiently extended in the field of mo , because the total value of this changes little(92, 96, 99, 100) at the increasing of m (4, 8, 16, 32); the acceleration (23; 12; 6,1875; 3,125) results therefore almost inversely proportional to m. The prevailing events are of “escape” of m by mo , because the increasingly lower accelerations impressed by  mo in direction of its own field become inferior to the ones that m undergoes in opposite direction by the external fields. Therefore phenomenally such events appear “repulsive”: mo seems “repelling” m . So it is explained the repulsiveness manifested by the particles to which an equal sign is attributed (electrons between them, protons withing them, etc.), but behave in this manner for the only fact of having almost identical masses: the same phenomenon – it has already been said – manifests between the celestial bodies, because of the equilibrated attraction of analogue masses in all directions.

The horizontal line in the end, represents the limit value of m , non excessively inferior to mo , for which the total field of of mo appears “almost proportional” to m compared with minor masses, but “almost non proportional” to m in relation to higher masses. The prevailing events are now of “orbiting” of m respect to mo, for the reached equilibrium between the accelerations directed towards mo  and those directed towards the external fields: so behave planets, satellites, asteroids respect to greater celestial bodies and electrons respect to protons in the microcosm, etc. I repeat in every case that here we speak about prevalence of events of a determined type, because particular conditions of speed and direction in the gravitational motions can produce different results respect to the general survey.

In that limit line is located also the explanation of the so called “barrier of potential”, which the scholastic physics has invented to justify the watershed between “attractiveness” and “repulsiveness” of the nuclear forces (16). Over certain reciprocal distances the interactions between particles with not dissimilar masses generally manifest with escape events: only in rare cases of particular directions and translatory speeds, which carry such particles at very short distance one to the other, they end up with undergoing reciprocally an intensity of field prevailing over the one of the external fields and therefore collide (here is the “potential well”!) or enter in mutual orbiting, instead of escaping each other. The passages of the “barrier of potential” in a verse or in the other, although rare, don’t have to surprise more than con-similar events, which can verify on macro cosmic scale, surprise us (escapes for values of  m in the band of proportionality or collisions and orbits for the values of m in the band of non proportionality).

Therefore there’s no reason, to explain the reciprocal orbit of two protons in the helium nucleus (particle α, or helium), to resort to an attractive “nuclear force”, acting in the “potential well” and different by the one which, over the “potential barrier”, is called “electrostatic” and would induce the protons themselves to repel each other, bonding vice versa the electron to the proton: a scary mess, equivalent to thinking that in a system of binary stars acts a different force than the gravitational one which ties planets and satellites to a greater celestial body. The most difficult equilibrium of such binary systems, and often also multiple (as in the nucleus of the complex atoms), normally becomes stabilized by external orbits of bodies or corpuscles, singularly less attractive but prevailing in number, as neutrons, mesons, electrons, etc., or – in the macrocosm – satellite celestial bodies, planetary systems, asteroids, cosmic dust. Missing this “cloud” of surrounding fields, the equilibrium is decisively instable, as the one of two electrons in the so called “positronium”, absurdly considered as the couple of a negative electron and of a positive one!

Concluding the analysis of the table, observing that, if the 32 unitary parts of m are instead condensed in a much restricted space of the field of mo , such that the partial field of mo variates by little for each part of m (for ex., between the values 32 and 28), will be found a total field applied very high (medium field 30 for 32 parts of m = total field 960), almost proportional to the mass of m : the acceleration impressed is equal to 30, that is almost equal to the one of an isolated part of m . So it becomes always more precise the sense of all the current survey, that is summed in the passive influence of density, that is of density of the subjected mass, which contributes with its own spatial extension to the effective value of the acting field. The gravitational cohesive interaction between the various parts of m , with the reciprocally attractive accelerations which coagulate it around the common mass center, reduces the value of the overall acceleration directed towards mo to a medium value, corresponding to the medium applied field of mo .

If to the passive influence of the density we add the active, that is the effect of density of mo , being it also intensifier of the field value (17), and let’s consider that this dual effects manifests in the two senses, that is taking as acting field both mo respect to  m  being m respect to  mo , we understand perfectly the fact that the Newtonian formula of gravitation, free of every reference to density, gives insignificant values for the interactions in the nuclear microcosm, where density is very high (18).

In reality, the gravitational interactivity of a certain mass measured in absolute (mass as quantity of matter: number of elementary particles constituting a body) varies enormously, in the effects of “force” felt by other masses, depending on the conditions of aggregation of the mass itself and also of the subjected ones: which has induced to erroneously believe that the electric, magnetic, nuclear “forces” are something completely different by the macro cosmic gravitation and that, next and over the mass and its prerogative of gravitational source, exist in nature electric or magnetic “charges”, “ exchange forces”, interactions of various type and name, antimatter, etc. Of such interactivity the fundamental factors are, in addition to the mass and to the distance – already present in Newton’s formula -, density of matter and its orientation wave (“magnetism”), which instead that formula ignores completely. But also the presence of mass and distance in the Newtonian law is distorted by erroneous reasonings or limited by the misunderstanding of very important phenomena. For what concerns mass, we are just dismantling the presumption of the proportionality of gravity to the masses and the current assumptions of the measures of mass; concerning the distance, I somewhere else dealt with the determining influence of the so called “red-shift” (motion towards red of the spectral lines) over the values of gravitational intensity (19). In fact the increasing of the wave lengths in relation to the distance is caused by a periodic concentration of the waves of the field: the period becomes just determined by the distance for a mechanism relative to the structure of the gravitational propagation, in which it is the explanation of the pulsation phenomena (“pulsar”) and of periodic variability of the stars and the reason of the enormous irradiation, otherwise unexplainable, of very far galaxies (“quasar”).

Regarding the two absent factors in Newton’s formula, it has been told of density, in its dual active and passive effect, and over it I will return afterwards. The other represented by the “magnetism”: also over this topic are necessary recalls to my precedent studies (20), of which I summarize here the more general conclusions, adding however some significant implications.

Magnetism essentially consists in the different ways and degrees of undulatory “polarization” of matter and in the consequent process of  co-orientation  of the fields. The disposal according to which matter tends to aggregate along the reciprocal lines of the multiple gravitational propagation defines the degrees of the natural magnetic scale (21). The progressive gravitational thickening, sieving the optimal positions in relation to the structure of the field, carries matter to gradually coordinate the axes of the single propagations, gradually organizing them around a principal axis of polarization, which is the one of a complex field (“dominion”) resulting by the composition of many particular fields. In turn different dominions tend to correlate the respective axes in various arrangements, the least possible by two optimal – one polar in the same sense and one equatorial anti parallel -, outside of them occur conditions of disequilibrium with cyclical exasperations (magnetic storms, solar protuberances, earthquakes and eruptions, hot interglacial ages, etc.). So the controversial polar disposition reason of the subatomic events of gravitational escape, for which the homologue poles of two magnets bounce one respect to the other (phenomenally they “repel” each other). Still, the equatorial parallel disposition, as the one of most of the planets respect to the central celestial body (due to the common belonging to only one original mass rotating in the same sense), provokes in the reciprocal motions of rotation a continuous slowdown, which in the end brings the orbiting bodies to constantly apply the same face and after to reverse the slower of the two respective rotations, passing by the equatorial anti parallelism (22). This in fact characterizes the condition of greater gravitational harmony, as in the biological organisms to mirror symmetry (bivalve mollusks, cerebral hemisphere, etc.) (23). The equatorial parallelism, instead, is responsible of the phenomena of counter current (parasite currents, or of Foucault), to which refer the “Lenz’s law” and the so called “self induction”: new confirm of the universal character of the unigravitational physics.

The predominance of an axis of propagation determines therefore an accentuated dipolarity of the masses (magnet; polarity of rotation and magnetic of the celestial bodies – respect to two principal axes: mega- and meso magnetic -; spin of the particles; equatoriality of the galactic and planetary systems; equatorial rings and bands – Saturn, Van Allen, galactic bands -; “polarizations” of light; zodiacal light; etc.). And because the lines of the gravitational propagation thicken along the axis (24), this is the place of the higher gravitational speeds both in the centripetal motion (collision motions), and in the centrifugal as outcome of a trajectory of missing collision (appearing “repulsion”): is what is found in the interaction between the poles of two magnets (25).

The process of magnetic orientation of the matter coincides with the progressive reduction of the atomic-molecular speeds. The polar zones, where the matter precipitates faster than in the equatorial bands (here the gravitational lines thinned and present also a minor punctual intensity), they also reach faster, respect to the equatorial zones, an ordered magnetic attitude, in which the atomic speeds are overall inferior. Therefore they, apart from the concomitant factors (as, in the case of Earth, the inclination of the axis of rotation on the plane of the orbit), are “colder” areas. It has been verified, for example, in the shells surrounding the solar poles, without any explanation by the official physics (26).

What has been said regarding the gravitational lines at the equator, explains the equatorial expansion  of the bodies of the celestial systems. Decreasing the centripetal attraction by the poles towards the equator, increases in relation to the one of the external gravitational fields: as a consequence, the equilibrium between this and the central body establishes at radial distances progressively hinger; from here the expansion. It’s therefore the relation between the mutual gravitational intensity of the fields at determining the radius of the positions of equilibrium and the relative speeds of rotation, and are not these speeds to give birth out of nowhere an imaginary “centrifugal force” (27).

It is curious the fact that a gravitational field could be commonly distinct by a magnetic field because, among the other things, the first would be unipolar! (28) Indeed, a mass clearly not magnetic is such only because it presents a high multiplicity of axes, all insensitive, whose dispersion is in fact cause of the scarce interactivity of the mass. The magnetic orientation of matter therefore do make to the gravitation the second jump of intensity, after the one produced by density, by the weak proportional values of the macro cosmic masses to the very high of the so called electric “charges” and of the “nuclear energy”.

If we would restrict to the center of the Earth all the terrestrial mass in a very little sphere, dense as the nuclear matter, the terrestrial gravitational field would become enormously more intense equally at every other condition: at the same distance of the current radius of the Earth the apple would have fall on Newton’s head with a much higher weigh respect to the one which he was familiar with and his formula and his wrong calculations would pretend independent by the density of the masses (cfr. n. 17). In front of such hypothetical eventuality, Newton would have invented, for this phenomenon non accordant to his expectation, a new force of intensity duly multiplied respect to the known gravitation. He would then be forced to make a further enormous multiplication and the relative invention of “forces”, if the little sphere containing the entire mass of the Earth would coordinate in a optimal way the axes of all the particular propagations in a compact “dominion” at very high dipolarity, extraordinarily intensifying its own magnetic field, and so enhanced would interact with analogue little spheres.

At the origin of pseudo concepts as electric “charges”, “nuclear forces” and similar, over the two relative errors at density and magnetism, there is then the false reading of the “repulsive” phenomena, which seem such – and therefore strangers to the gravitational interaction, always attractive – only because seen by a mental deforming perspective: what appears “rejected” by something, is is reality, as we have seen, “attracted” by something else in different direction.

The validity of this observation extends to the scope of psychic phenomena, whose modality perfectly fall under the unigravitational analysis of the universe: that is, “hate” isn’t really “repulsion” for someone or somebody, but is prevalence, in the unconscious, of “love” for oneself (for his own organism, for his own physio-psychic sphere: self-defense, instinct of conservation) or for external objects different by the one from which we feel “rejected” (29). It is not therefore anything different by the peripheral “barrier” which prevents or hinder the inter penetration between two bodies, causing the “bounce” of the bumped body towards internal or external directions divergent by the one which goes towards the colliding. This means, on the philosophical level, that hate does not have a absolute value, always reducing to an excess of love: the latter is the only absolute function in the psychic area, as gravitational attraction in the physical area. Let’s add, as corollary, that self-preservation of the gravitational systems, which manifests as resistance to the violent inter penetration with other systems of analogue mass (remember the analysis done of the behavior of electrons, starts, etc.), is a necessary moment to allow the gravitational undulatory “composition” with other bodies and build with them wider and more complex harmonic structures. Which means that self-preservation is not the purpose of living beings, but is the way to love: it is so scientifically reversed the relation placed by Hobbes between man and humanity, the first as “wolf” for every other man, the second as society regulated by the “equilibrium of selfishness”: a relation which seemed validated by a distorted interpretation of the biological evolution. In its place Christ’s precept becomes recognized as a certain law of nature: “Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself “.

To a corpuscle which presents the character of scarce interactivity with the external particles is commonly attributed the qualification of “neutral”. This is due to a condition of magnetic disorder (expanded and “hot” corpuscles: for ex., the neutron, compared with compact, highly magnetic and “cold” proton), or to a different collocation of the “barrier of potential” of the particles constituting the corpuscle (as in the proton-electron system: there is normally equilibrium between attractive effects of a particle and “repulsive” effects of the other), or at a regular magnetic anti parallelism of equal composing particles (nucleus and saturated layers, with protons in anti parallel couples, as in the “inert” gas: there is equilibrium between attractive effects of a pole and “repulsive” effects of the other) (30). As for the value presumed unitary of the “charge” both positive and negative, it is preordinate by the caliber of our instruments, whose sensibility is at the limit of a certain gravitational intensity: this appear identical, because perceived at different distances from the field’s center of the proton of the electron which acts as a screen. In other terms, the instrumental perception arrives up to the “potential barrier” of the proton and to the one of the electron, which has the same intensity, because the first is much more distant by the proton than the second is of the electron (31).

Let’s now return to the problem of the measure of mass, which become executed in base of the gravitational effects of the masses themselves. Let’s now observe in this regard that the factors of density (active effect) and of the magnetism has in the gravitational interaction a much restricted radius of prevailing influence, over which remains almost exclusively sensible the nude factor of the amount of matter (still remaining measured in the effects instead that in absolute): right for this Newton’s formula can prescind without too much harm, in the measure of the macro cosmic gravitation, by those two factors, whose gravitational character is however clearly underlined by the similarity of the formulas of the electric and magnetic interaction with the Newtonian law.

Therefore depends by the method and by the instrument of measure employed, if the values of mass result by the calculation almost naked or altered by the coefficients of the very short distances (electric and magnetic “charges”, “nuclear forces”, etc.), which must be deducted to reach the pure and simple effect of the “quantity of matter”.

So, if I must measure the mass of a iron bar relatively to the sample mass of a second iron bar, I can use as a instrument of measure the same sample bar, trowing it with a known force against the other and measuring the acceleration impressed to this. In such case, however, the resulting will differ widely depending on the fact that the two bars are both magnetic (and that homologous or opposite poles are facing), or only one, or none. This because the method and the instrument of measure are sensible, in the interaction at a very short distance, at the gravitational magnetic effect.

For the same calculation I will also be able to use the Earth as instrument of measure, putting on a scales the two bar. The magnetic characters of the bars in front of the gravitational terrestrial field will then become almost irrelevant, enormous as a value of mass, but relatively weak for the value of dipolarity (magnetism): the scales will give me in any case the relation almost exact between the two masses. Naturally, using this method, I will take note of the practice proportionality of the force to the masses; using the other, of the almost non proportionality of the force applied to the masses.

Moving to the world of particles, we will meet completely analogue situations. Making the particles interact between them, we will mainly take over the gravitational effects perceptible at the shortest distances – density and magnetism – and we will pull out “charges”, mythological signs of “plus”, “minus” and “anti-”, nuclear forces of binding and exchange, and so on. Made the tare of all this ingredients, we will calculate the masses. It is the method of the two iron bar. Or we will use the electromagnetic fields, which are the equivalent – made the proportion with the particles – of the terrestrial gravitational field used in the method of the scales. And here is the “spectrograph of mass”, which will give values of mass closer to the naked ones of the quantity of matter, being sufficient for calculating them having at the beginning in the particles an equal condition of “charge”.

But in the reading of the results a coarse gap takes over respect to the measure of macro cosmic masses: presuming that the forces in play in the electric and magnetic fields are not of gravitational type, they become absolutely considered non proportional to the particles masses, so as the electromagnetic forces manifest if applied to macro cosmic masses. The analysis done over our table instead showed us that, in a gravitational field, passing by a certain order of magnitude and density of the subjected masses to an order of minor magnitudes and higher density, the gradual passage by the almost non proportionality to the almost proportionality of the field applied to the masses occurs. Errors will therefore inevitably intervene which, on the basis of the comparison of accelerations evaluated with the rigid criterion of proportionality reverse to the masses, will make assign to the particles not true values of mass.

Also without variations of density, results, for example, by the table which, if an sample object of mass 8 undergoes by the field an acceleration pair to 12, another body, to which the same gravitational field impress an acceleration = 24, would be evaluated of mass 4, while in actually it would have m < 4. Vice versa, if the referring object has mass 4 and acceleration 23, an accelerated body of 11,5 and evaluated therefore of mass 8 would have actually > 8. But the most paradoxical phenomenon is found in relation to variations of density of the subjected mass, most of all when such variations involve the passage by one to the other band of the table. From this is noticed that a total field = 100 causes on a mass = 32  an acceleration = 3,125. If now we condense all the mass in the space of the first two unitary parts (fig. 1), for which the medium applied field is 30, the total field of mo applied to m increases to 960, without  mo  minimally changing, and the acceleration impressed increases to 30. The formula F = m a forces us to instead suppose an invariant of F and in relation to it an acceleration always pair to  3,125. The calculated mass for an acceleration = 30 will therefore be 32 * 3,125 / 30 = 3,33, against an actual value about 10 times higher, being changed only density of the original mass = 32. The conclusion is astonishing: masses of the particles, evaluated in base of the accelerations impressed to them by the electromagnetic fields of intensity referred to macro cosmic effect, are inferior to the true, because such fields, almost non proportional respect to the macro cosmic masses, has instead an effect of almost proportionality over the very dense masses of the subatomic particles, which therefore become accelerated much more than the foreseen. The masses calculated generally retain an appearance of validity, being approximatively respected the values of relation, as it has been previously noticed; but over certain speeds, arriving particles at a deeper interaction in the reciprocal gravitational fields, the produced effects necessarily end up with overstepping by a plausible approximation: it is another of the reasons which force to the conjecture of a fiction “relativistic increase of mass” and lately to notice an increasing in the so called “cross section” of the ultrafast protons (32), without finding any logical explanation of the phenomena at issue. Here takes birth the enormous confusion which, as it is known, rage in the physics of particles, paralyzed by the lacking of a serious general theory of the macro- and microcosmic interactions. We have by now reached the “anti omega minus”: so an immediate block of the discoveries becomes necessary!

Let’s return at last to the sidereal gravitation and to Kepler’s and Newton’s laws. We rode all the way of the mistake which has made attribute universal value to formulas clumsily approximative. The orbital motion of the planets around the Sun, for the existing relation between the planetary masses and the Sun, (and so the one of satellites around planets) collocates almost along the horizontal line of our table, that is over values of field for which the total field of the Sun is still approximatively proportional to the masses of the single planets and therefore its variations seem depending only by the rays of the orbits. This way Kepler could believe exact his third law R/ T2 = constant, hypothesizing the universal value. At this point, Newton had nothing more to do than introducing it in the formulas of his second principle and of the circular motion, to fatally arrive at the so called law of universal gravitation:

F = G (m1 m2) / R2

This formula, – as it is obvious – of the same empirical value and approximative of its Kepler matrix, dressed surreptitiously of the same halo of universality, putting for three centuries out of the road the modern scientific thought. Without telling that Newton’s formula, by bringing into question (with a progress respect to the 2° principle F = m a) the second of two interacting masses, completely ignores the clearly determining action of all the surrounding masses, which go hiding in the role of that Cinderella by unknown parents, which is the “centrifugal force”! (cfr. n. 27) (33).

And yet of Kepler’s law was very easy to make the arithmetic counter proof, which would have right away demonstrated the absolute theoretical nullity, and also practical over a limited scope of relations. I reserve that litmus test as a conclusion to this work, having now to occupy of the so called “universal constant of gravitation” G (for constants and universal we mean, in the modern physics, some particular variables!), measured by Cavendish with the well known experiment. It was absolutely needed to calculate the planetary masses on the base of the Newtonian formula and could be obtained only empirically by a tiny model of the sidereal interaction. So Cavendish conceived his gravitational torsion balancewhich notes the force exercising in laboratory between two masses of known value.

But since the mass of the celestial bodies, starting with the one of the Earth, can be measured only in relation to the constant one, it follows that, if the experiment was theoretically wrong, today we would ignore the actual measures of the planetary masses. Well, this is precisely the fact: Cavendish’s experiment is affected by two fundamental mistakes, hard to detect on a small scale, but which carry us to measure, as it has been said, in place of a “universal constant” a modest variable: which is already been demonstrated by the fact that, among the fundamental constants, the gravitational one has been calculated with minor precision, not exceeding the approximation – scientifically ridiculous – of 1 / 500.

The first error consists into completely neglecting density of the interacting masses, which in the Newtonian formula is considered irrelevant. In Cavendish’s experience masses all have same density and disregarding the specific gravity of the constituent: according to the formula, the result should not be influenced by it. And instead, compatibly with the   possible degree of precision of the instruments, one should find that the force exercised reciprocally is higher between masses of more dense material, because of the active and passive effect of density. The second error is into believing that such force, measured between masses of laboratory, is proportionally equal to the one which acts between the Sun and the planets. We have instead seen that planetary gravitation is characterized by a very strong imbalance between the masses in platy and that it is precisely this imbalance which gives to the force of the celestial body more character than almost proportionality to the mass of the minor celestial body. Not being realized in the laboratory such condition of enormous difference, the measured force has the character of almost non proportionality to the subjected mass and therefore constitute an absolutely improper model of the planetary gravitation.

After all, also in the cosmos, the proportionality of the force of gravity to the subjected masses is a fact approximatively valid only for the force of the greater celestial body respect to the minor one: Kepler’s third law and Newton’s consequent one demonstrate their inconsistency, if we try to verify in reverse, that is applying it to the force of the minor celestial body respect to the greater one. We will now numerically demonstrate what we already know by the theoretical analysis, that is that the field of the minor body quickly diminishes starting by the closer zones of the bigger body and therefore becomes in total almost non proportional to the mass of the bigger body, to which it gives an acceleration almost inversely proportional to the mass of the body itself.

We will therefore take in exam the reverse of the planets revolution around the Sun, that is precisely the revolution of the Sun respect to the Earth and the other planets. The difference from Ptolemy is in the term “respect to”, but we right away have to take the distances – and very clear – also from the actual vision, completely unfounded, of the phenomenon. After all, in the geometric reality of the spatial motions also the planets orbit, properly speaking, “respect to the Sun” and not “around the Sun”.

Let’s proceed with order. The logic and the Newtonian law itself tell us unequivocally that the effects of the gravitation between two or more bodies are reciprocal and differentiate only for the spatial and temporal dimensions of the provoked motions: in this also agrees the generic Einsteinian idea of the “curvature of space”. Now, if the gravitational solar field is such to cause the revolution of the Earth around the Sun, we must research the precise measure and modality of the mutual phenomenon which terrestrial gravitation produces over the mass of the Sun.

Let’s first see what modern cosmology think about it. At the voice “Moon” of the EST (Encyclopedia of Science and Technique, Mondadori, V edition) we read:

“The Earth and the Moon at present perform a revolution around their center of gravity or common center of mass (a point situated around 4670 km by the center of the Earth)in 277h 43m 1l,6s”.

At the voice “Celestial mechanics”:

“Both bodies [the Sun and the planet] describe, around the common center of gravity, two orbit having exactly the same shape and the dimensions of each orbit are inversely proportional to the mass of the body”.


“The only motion directly observable is the one of the planet around the Sun”.

From the above it is clear that the modern physics consider the two motions around the common center of gravity as synchronousone in opposition to the other, identical to those of two unequal balls which rotate over themselves at two extremities of a handlebar at variable length (for the ellipticity of the orbits) and in rotation around its own barycenter (fig. 2).


In first place we notice, as however it is noted by the EST, that the motion of the greater celestial body, for the narrowness of its orbit, over which is constantly in opposition at the minor body, isn’t astronomically verifiable: it is therefore, in the indicated terms, a hypothetic motion regarding the natural test. Indeed I argue that the timing of the two orbits is nonexistent – except in the limit case that the two masses are identical – and reciprocity of the motion must be otherwise.

My reasoning, indeed, follows the common one only up to a certain point. The non coincidence of the barycentric of the system with the center of mass of one of the two bodies and the variations of speed (for both local and general factors) determine the ellipticity of the orbits (fig. 2). As the Earth of  T1 undertakes a motion tending to orbit around the Sun, this reciprocally moves by S1 on a route tend addressed to circumnavigate Earth. But being too weak the gravitational terrestrial force in relation to the solar mass, the Sun cannot embrace the terrestrial orbit in its own and limits itself to circumscribe the barycentric of the system. But here intervenes the substantial difference with the common reading of the phenomenon:

a). The barycenter of two orbiting bodies, respect to which it’s needed to consider the reciprocal revolution, is not the static one of a handlebars, that is such to rigidly constrain the elements of the system to a perfectly united motion: rather it is a dynamic barycenter, in the meaning which I will define hereinafter. Stillness of the barycenter intervenes only over a scale of phenomena in which the various parts of a system are concatenated in a overall warp of mutual fixity: for example, an iron object in any motion has a static barycenter determined by the reciprocal immobility of its macroscopic parts; but two atoms of the same object in continuous relative motion has between them only one dynamic barycenter.

b). While the static barycenter taken as reference by the Newtonian physics is constantly found on the jointing the two center of mass, the dynamic barycenter is constantly situated over the major axis of the orbit (apsidal line) by the part of the apoastro (aphelion, apogee, etc.): that is it refers at the moment in which two bodies, reached the maximum relative distance, return to undertake a prevailing reciprocal attraction and precipitate along the bends of the mutual gravitational fields. The distance of the barycenter from the two centers of field is in proportion inverse to the intensity of the two fields.

c). Respect to the dynamic barycenter so defined, the revolution of the Sun, far from being synchronous with the one of the Earth, is instead extremely slower and has as natural effect and at once evident proof of such slowness the rotation of the line of the apses: this is the famous “shift in perihelion”, for which explanation uselessly relativity has been bothered (fig 3).

In the measure which the Sun, weakly solicited by the terrestrial field, rotates around the barycenter of the system, makes also rotate in natural synchrony with such motion the line of the apses. The same happen, obviously, for all the planetary motions and signs the   true period of the inverse revolution of the greater celestial body respect to the minor. Between two equivalent masses (as binary stars of equal mass and identical field, the two protons of helium atom, etc.) the reciprocal orbiting is synchronous and the true period of revolution is not signed by the completion of a round by each body (34), but by the entire rotation of the apsidal line (which is then the real reciprocal revolution of two bodies: rosette orbiting) (fig. 4).

Moreover we precise that the actual measure of the apsidal revolution is not to be traced to the only action so determined by the minor body over the greater, including in itself stresses also of other origin, whose entity is to be purified in our reasoning. Here therefore we refer to the additional part of the rotation of the apses, over the value of which classic mechanic manage, for better or worse, to account: For example, the shift in perihelion of Mercury is of 574″  of arc per century, of which only 42″ constitute the additional rotation (35).

So established the exact meaning of the Sun revolution in relation to the Earth, it only remains to finally apply in reverse the third Kepler’s law, as its check up and of all the speech done so far. The result is astonishing and is enclosed in a very easy calculation. Let’s move the reference point from the Sun to the Earth, considering respect to this the revolution of the Moon and the one now analyzed of the Sun itself.

Here is the table which derivate, in function of the values R and T of the lunar orbit taken as unit:


R………………. 1………………….149.500.000 / 384.000 = 389


R3……………….1….…………………….3893 = 58.863.869

T2……………….1…………………………x2 = 58.863.869

Whence x = 7672 lunar revolutions, that is about 590 years.

If then Kepler and Newton were right, that is if the terrestrial force of attraction was proportional to the masses of the Moon and the Sun, it would produce a solar revolution of 590 years. But the verification of this value is now easy: it will in fact be needed to compare it to the additional one of the apsidal terrestrial revolution, that is of a complete additional rotation of the perihelion of the Earth. Well this period has been calculated and it is of 34 millions years! (36) If we want to make the proper reserves on the calculations of the classic mechanic, because the actual apsidal rotation happens in the period of about 112.000 years (11,6″ of acre per year), this value is the minimum referable to the single solar revolution, if for absurd there wasn’t the other solicitations concurring: it, however, would result still much superior to the 590 years foreseen by the third Kepler’s law (which for its account already denies the ridiculous period of a year of the alleged synchronic revolution of the Sun, bound at handlebars with the Earth!).

There has been so the most evident mathematical confirmation of the assumption of this investigation: that is that gravity is only in the appearance proportional to the masses of the falling bodies in the direction of the force which a very big body exercises over a very small one, but it is not such not even approximately in the effect produced by the minor body over the greater, keeping along the median relations towards the “non proportionality ” – also only as a limit – of all the other forces. The period of the apsidal revolution is in fact enormously superior to the one which we would have in case of actual proportionality of the terrestrial attraction to the masses of the other celestial bodies.

Remains confirmed that the empirical result of Cavendish’s experiment and similar aimed at calculating the so called “universal gravitational constant” is not absolutely extensible as unity of measure to all the gravitational phenomena of the universe. Naturally the values attributed to the masses and to the density of the celestial bodies are all in absolute erroneous, because calculated exclusively in function of that false constant, without further verification.

But the graver consequence of Kepler’s an Newton’s mistake is represented by the apparently insurmountable barrier which it inserts between the gravitation and the other cosmic forces: a barrier which has so far frustrated the deep need of the human thought to realize in science the organic unity of all the laws in the universe.


(15) “(For Mach) measurable … is not mass in absolute, but the relation between masses, defined only in function of the reciprocal action exercised between the masses themselves” (A. Trebeschi: “Sapere” n 757, pag. 10).

16) W. R. Fuchs, cit. op., pag. 273.

(17) R. P., Introduction to the unigravitational physics, pages. 20-24; Physics of the unigravitational field, vol. 2°, pages. 48-50.

(18) “Tempo nuovo” n. 2/1973, pag. 49, note 11.

(19) R. P., The unigravitational physics, §§ 28-29; “Tempo nuovo ” n. 3/1972, pages. 53 and following.

(20) R. P., Physics of the unigravitational field, §§ 13-15, 38-48; Magnetism and earthquakes. The forecast of the earthquakes (“Tempo nuovo” nn. 1-2/1972); Magnetism and heat (“Tempo nuovo” nn .5-6/1972 e 2/1973).

(21) “Tempo nuovo” nn. 1-2/1972, pag. 43.

(22) As it is known, also the duration of the terrestrial day increases slowly because of the interaction Moon-Earth.

(23) “Tempo nuovo” nn. 1-2/1972, pages. 36-57.

(24) “Tempo nuovo” nn. 1-2/1972, pages. 34-35, figures 1-3.

(25) “Tempo nuovo” nn. 1-2/1972, pages. 35-36.

(26) “Scienza e Tecnica/73″, Mondadori, pag. 17.

(27) R. P., The unigravitational physics, pag. 64.

(28) O. M. Phillips, Geophysics, Mondadori, pag. 168.

(29) R. P., The unigravitational physics, pag. 84.

(30) The usual terms of para magnetism and diamagnetism refer exclusively to the effects of dipolarity. In the “natural magnetic scale” referred to the note 21, they indicate instead the different structural complexity (increasing from first to second) and extension of the dominions (respectively decreasing); so substances with low nuclear density are, for such scale, paramagnetic, and with high diamagnetic densities . Dipolarity depends most of all by the distribution of the protons in the most external nuclear layer and therefore the   relative phenomena are highly recurring along the scale of densities. As a consequence, the value of the terms does not coincides in the current and in ours.

(31) R. P., Introduction to th unigravitational physics, pages. 19-20; Physics of the unigravitational field, § 60.

(32) “Sapere” n. 764, pages. 31 and following.

(33) At this point it is good to clear a concept extremely ambiguous in the common physics: the one of “absence of weight”, on which senseless opinions run (W. R. Fuchs, cit. op., pages. 232-234; Caianiello, De Luca e Ricciardi, cit. op., vol. 1°, pages. 116-117). It is in fact confused the absence of weight with the sensation of an absence of weight. The first verifies in the orbiting or in the point at zero speed between ascent and relapse of a body and it is due to the simultaneous action of a centripetal acceleration and of an equal centrifuge acceleration (R. P., the unigravitational physics, pag. 65). The second is felt, although weight is not null, inside a pressurized cabin at free fall and derivate s by the absence of an interaction of contact or of an impact with the walls of the cabin, whose speed is equal in absolute value and in the verse to the one of the internal bodies: in the contact and in the impact (R. P., Physics of the unigravitational field, §§ 61-69) the atomic peripheral speeds has opposite direction, determining events more or less accentuated of interpenetration or bounce and therefore the sensation of weight. This essentially comes from the disequilibrium – in verse and absolute value – between the accelerations suffered by the various parts of the body, which attracted all in direction of the center of a celestial body, are at the same time rejected by atomic-molecular interactions of escape respect to the surface of contact.

(34) “Tempo nuovo” nn. 5-6/1972, pages. 64-65.

(35) See ” Relativity ” In the Enciclopedia Italiana  and in the EST. In the last one is written: “Because of the slight perturbations caused by a planet over the other, all the planetary orbits rotate very slightly, so that the position of their aphelions changes into time. In the case of Mercury, general relativity predicts an additional rotation and aphelions of about 43″ of arc per century, quantity which, in spite of its smallness, has been verified with satisfying accuracy”. But the calculation does not fit at all for the planet Mars (8,03″ against a prevision of l,35″ ). Cfr. R. P., Physics of the unigravitational field, § 26-(5).

(36) The additional motion of the perihelion is 3,8″ of arc for century: see J. A. ColemanLa relatività è facile (Relativity is easy), ed. Feltrinelli, pag. 109.

Let’s close this section with a recall to the other preceding relative to the unigravitational physics, quoted in the Bibliography of the author.

They represent – as it were – the “archeology” of the new physics, but are however still, yet in the necessary adjustments made after the magmatic originally thought, an essential complement of the current opera.

It is not moreover possible to put remedy to the real difficulty of their modern retrieval and re-reading, at centuries of distance by the first publications made.

In the economy of the present work could not find place, for example, the description of the unigravitational structure of the atom – from hydrogen to the more complex elements of the periodic system – , which is read in Physics of the unigravitational field (§§ 56-57), edited in 1969.

Actually, the punctual study of the elementary particle object of section 6, in the entire context of the laws of universal structuring which move from it, exempt by the necessity of exhaust all the formative inter medium passages, which can not fail to re present, in a in a way more or less obvious and divisible, in the inside of particles and corpuscles the general morphology of every macroscopic structure.


Between the premise to the first article of this section 4 (October 1997) and this closure (January 2005) more than seven years has passed. Such writing referred to the earthquakes happened in Italy, recent at that time, and introduced an article published in 1972 over magnetism and the earthquakes forecast. Today it should repeat identical, but with much more dramatic tones, after the tsunami of December 26th, 2004 which has devastated the coasts of a continent. Over two hundred thousand persons have died and all the wildlife was saved. A collateral effect of the foolishness of contemporary science (which would do well to study the effect of Barkhausen, natural for animals, instead of toying with the black holes fairytale, and similar).

Permalink link a questo articolo: