The Orbital Dynamics of Normal Realism

Angular momentum is the product of the three measures, mass, velocity and radius (mvr) in the relation L = mvr, where L is the sign for orbital angular momentum. This relation is  one in which all bodies within the system are automaticaly paired and balanced, each with every other in the system, permutatively.  In a closed system of angular momentum – i.e., one in which there is no outside influence – the overall angular momentum is conserved, both in amount and direction.  This implies an immediate and instantaneous connection between those bodies, such that a change in motion of any one of them automatically affects the motions of some one or other, or all of the other bodies, with there being no question of how or by what means – i.e., by postulated in-vacuo ‘fields’ or ‘forces’ – that effect is conveyed.  In other words, in a closed system of angular momentum, the orbital – and spin – motions of all free-moving bodies are automatically correlated. This, of course, is what quantum physicists such as CERN’s John Bell, have discovered, to the consternation of the Einsteinian Relativists (ref. the famous ‘Bell’s Inequalities’).

Let us, then, consider a simple angular momentum system such as that of our earth orbiting the sun. Ignoring the effect of all the other planets, satellites and so on, the formula for the angular momentum of that system is

L = mvr = G m M/v                        (1) ,

where M is some central, or nuclear mass, like the sun, m is the mass of the planet and, r is the distance between the two bodies in ideally circular motion, with G being the usual empirical factor whose value,  like c, is no more than a product of the arbitrary choice of conventional units of measure. Plainly, given that the measures vm and M in this simple formula are known– and, of course, G – the  size of the orbital radius r (the distance between the two bodies) is:

r = G M/v2                                       (2).

In this way, it is plain that these formulae prove that angular momentum is sufficient in itself to explain basic orbital motion with no need of Newton’s in vacuo   ‘gravitational’ or any other similar kind of  ‘force’.

This change in conception of orbital motion is far from trivial. Replacing the ‘gravitational’ equation by the angular momentum equation means that  the total angular momentum of an orbiting body must include that of both orbit and spin, whereas ‘gravitation’, eminently, does not – at least, not to the extent that the momentum does. That is to say, Newton’s ‘gravitational force’ on a body is largely the same whether or not that body is spinning.

This  neglect of spin in the ‘gravitational’ equation creates serious anomalies.  For instance, from (1) we have:

G = v2 r / M                                      (3).

Now from the standard  kinetic energy formula K = ½mv we have 2K/m, whence (3) becomes

G = 2K r /m M                                 (4).

So now let the orbital kinetic energy be signified by KO and the spin kinetic energy by KS.  In terms of the total kinetic energy K = KO + KS ,this formula for G becomes:

G = 2 (KO + KS) r / mM.       (5).

Plainly, with the same values for m and M in this formula, the value of G is greater than in the previous formula, and the greater the value of G, the more closely the body orbits the centre of mass. From this it follows that for the masses of prodigiously fast-spinning galaxies, the value of G must be far greater than the standard textbook value, so that these galaxies are crowded more closely together than if they were not spinning. This explains why these galaxies, plus the total of all the other spinning objects, stars, planets, satellites and so on, appear to have more mass than they should have according to the traditional ‘gravitational’ account which NASA and the astrophysicists still use to calcuate the trajectories and masses of orbiting bodies . So the reason for this ‘extra mass’ is, quite plainly, not the presence of some spooky ‘dark matter’  or ‘dark energy’ but ‘dark spin’, where ‘dark’, here, simply means ‘neglected’.

The same goes, of course, for NASA’s ‘Pioneer’ Anomaly as for the so-called ‘Missing Mass’ Anomaly, which is the same anomaly in both cases. There can be no anomalies of this sort in nature, to be explained by theories of any tortuously intellectual kind, theories which are often as short on logic as they are long on mathematics and wild imagination. The only anomaly one can discern lies in Newton’s inadvertent and perfectly understandable  failure of his  ‘gravitational’ account of motion to include spin in the total angular momentum of an orbiting body. Extending Newton’s ingenious formalism to include both spin angular momentum and spin kinetic energy brings him out of the undoubtedly illustrious age of falling apples and steam technology up to speed with our second-millennium space-age.

Newton famously stated ‘hypotheses non fingo’ (I make no assumptions). Little did he know that his biggest and most misleading assumption was that of his fictitious ‘in vacuo gravitational force’. In view of what Newton achieved, he might be forgiven for that. But why do we keep making such a Big Production out of a theory which, for all its superb fitness for its time, is now long past its ‘sell-by’ date. This is no purely academic matter. In pursuit of ‘gravitation’ and all the mystique it entrains in the search for ‘gravity-waves’, ‘gravitons’, ‘dark matter’, the ‘’God Particle’ … and so on, billions and billions of pounds and dollars, overall, are continually wasted. That mystery of what ‘gravity’ is, how it is transmitted, by what means, at what speed and so on is, no doubt, as intriguing and entertaining nowadays as once were similar puzzles about how light is conducted and how angels flew about in the empyrean. But although some of the most preposterous theories sometimes produce serendipitous results, shouldn’t we now ask ourselves whether, in the interests of true science and a struggling economy, all this intellectual and financial extravagance is really worth it? In a true democracy one begs leave to think not.

One thing more: The ultimate paired and balanced angular  momentum system is the angular momentum quantum h/2pi, known to quantum physics as bar-h, where h is Planck’s constant, the quantum of action. The two masses involved in this angular momentum coupling, into which all angular momentum systems ultimately reduce, are those whivh have been conventionally called the ‘electron’ and ‘proton’. In the Angular Momentum Synthesis, however, the conventional ‘charge’ on these particles in coulombs is cashed-out in equivalent terms of spin kinetic energy in joules, where the spin is that ascribed to the ‘electron’ by Uhlenbeck and Goudsmit. Due to the conservation of angular  momentum, when one atom loses a quantum of angular  momentum, another, somewhere else, has to gain that lost amount in a resonant interaction which begs no  question of how and by what  means that action, in units  h, is conveyed. In Normal Realism, these quantum interactions, in statistical numbers, are what is called light. This present account is, perforce, somewhat sketchy and condensed, but is fully explained in the POAMS books and papers.