The Allais Effect – Coincidence Between Newtonian and LeSagian Gravity
Abstract. This paper reviews the alleged Allais Effect, i.e., anomalous behavior of pendulums or gravimeters sometimes observed during a total solar eclipse.
With the Moon in a direct line between the Earth and Sun, the potential for an additional gravitational perturbation is examined as a possible contributor to the effect.
Both a classical Newtonian “attractive” gravitational approach and one based on a “pushing” gravitational concept first introduced around Newton’s time by Fatio and LeSage are examined.
Results indicate that both yield surprisingly equivalent results – a possible explanation, or part of one; or merely a coincidence?
- INTRODUCTION
“The Allais effect is the alleged anomalous behavior of pendulums or gravimeters which is sometimes purportedly observed during a [total] solar eclipse. The effect was first reported as an anomalous precession of the plane of oscillation of a Foucault pendulum during the solar eclipse of June 30, 1954, by Maurice Allais, a French polymath who went on to win the Nobel Prize in Economics. Allais reported another observation of the effect during the solar eclipse of October 2, 1959 using the paraconical pendulum he invented … Maurice Allais emphasized the ‘dynamic character’ of the effects he observed:
‘The observed effects are only seen when the pendulum is moving. They are not connected with the intensity of weight (gravimetry), but with the variation of weight (or of inertia) in the space swept by the pendulum. Actually, while the movement of the plane of oscillation of the pendulum is inexplicable by the theory of gravitation, the deviations from the vertical are explained perfectly by that theory. The deviations from the vertical […] correspond to a static phenomenon, while my experiments correspond to a dynamic phenomenon’.”
“Besides Allais’ own experiments, related research about a possible effect of the Moon‘s shielding, absorption or bending of the Sun‘s gravitational field during a solar eclipse have been conducted by scientists around the world [See Table 1]. Some observations have yielded positive results, seemingly confirming that minute but detectable variations in the expected behavior of devices dependent on gravity do indeed occur within the umbra of an eclipse, but others have failed to detect any noticeable effect.” [1]
Table 1 lists attempts to reproduce the Allais effect through 1995. Subsequently, NASA’s Marshall Space Flight Center tried to encourage coordination worldwide among several observatories during the total solar eclipse of August 11, 1999, to test the Allais effect.
However, Allais was critical of the results, finding that “the period of observation was ‘much too short […] to detect anomalies properly’.” Further observations conducted by Xin-She Yang and Tom Van Flandern found that “the gravitation anomaly discussed here is about a factor of 100,000 too small to explain the Allais excess pendulum precession […] during eclipses,” concluding that “the original Allais anomaly was merely due to poor controls.”
More recent experiments during the solar eclipses of July 22, 2009, and July 11, 2010, in China and Argentina, respectively yielded mixed results. One scientist from the China attempt observed the effect. However, an automated Foucault pendulum used in Argentina yielded “no evidence of a precession change of the pendulum’s oscillation plane (< 0.3 degree per hour).” [1]
This paper assumes the Allais Effect is possible and examines both a classical Newtonian “attractive” gravitational explanation as well as one based on “pushing gravity,” as per Fatio and LeSage. [2]
I myself uncovered another intriguing “coincidence” during my investigation of asymmetry with regard to the ocean tides. Noting that “neither the exact solution to the differential gravitational force approach nor incorporating the effect of the Earth’s barycentric centrifugal force was able to establish the alleged symmetry of the tides across the Earth’s hemispheres,” I found that “if one combines the barycentric effect with the Moon’s gravitational force directly, i.e., without the differential effect, … the differences between [the net forces at] corresponding locations in each hemisphere are quite small, … < 1{154653b9ea5f83bbbf00f55de12e21cba2da5b4b158a426ee0e27ae0c1b44117} of their average value. Similarly, the differences between the angles for these net forces at corresponding locations is quite small, … again < 1{154653b9ea5f83bbbf00f55de12e21cba2da5b4b158a426ee0e27ae0c1b44117} of their average value. What this suggests is that combining the barycentric centrifugal force and the Moon’s gravitational (direct, not differential) forces vectorially produces the alleged symmetry between the tides on the opposite hemispheres … We are left to ponder whether there is an alternative explanation for the alleged symmetry of the tides other than accepting the approximation employed when deriving the differential gravitational effect … Might the combination of the barycentric centrifugal and Moon’s direct gravitational forces explain what has so far been attributed to an approximation in the differential gravitational force derivation?” [6]
- CONCLUSION
Whether or not the Allais Effect is real remains in question. Repeated experiments sometimes reproduce the effect, or something similar, and other times show no effect at all. Starting from the premise that the Allais Effect is possible, this paper sought to examine the plausibility of a gravitational explanation from both the classical Newtonian “attractive” perspective and equally contemporary, but much less accepted, “pushing” model for gravity first introduced by Fatio and LeSage. The results indicate that, using either approach, the Moon may contribute an additional 0.6{154653b9ea5f83bbbf00f55de12e21cba2da5b4b158a426ee0e27ae0c1b44117} to the gravitational force from the Sun on the Earth during a total solar eclipse, which may explain, or be part of an explanation for, the alleged Allais Effect. Therefore, if one accepts Newton’s gravitational equation as empirically correct, then a LeSagian gravitational “pushing” concept is at least consistent with the quantitative results.
PRINCIPIA SCIENTIFIC INTERNATIONAL, legally registered in the UK as a company 
incorporated for charitable purposes. Head Office: 27 Old Gloucester Street, London WC1N 3AX.
Please DONATE TODAY To Help Our Non-Profit Mission To Defend The Scientific Method.
Trackback from your site.
Robert Beatty
| #
Another aspect needs to be considered here, that is the direction of black hole V616 during the solar eclipse. If the sun is covering, or partially covering, gravity rays coming directly from V616 to the earth, this will provide an effect, other than the shielding effect inherent in the moon covering the sun. This aspect can be expected to alter the field results and account for the different findings.
Reply
Ray Gallucci
| #
When it comes to black holes, I’m in Steve Crothers’ camp, not accepting their existence given how Schwarzschild’s work was misinterpreted by Hilbert after Schwarzschild was killed in WWI and could not respond. That being said, it does not eliminate the possibiity of very strong gravitational force existing due to other than a black hole (perhaps a neutron star, if such are possible) and affecting the result as you point out.
Reply
Robert Beatty
| #
Raymond, thanks for these thoughts.
The Schwarzschild radius is given by Rs = 2GM / c^2. G is the gravitational constant which is an empirical physical quantity defined by Newton’s force of gravity formula: Fg = GMm / r^2 which has proved to work reasonably well under solar system conditions.
However, it is surprising to me that G is regarded as a constant elsewhere in the universe, as there is plenty of observable evidence to show Fg varies in strength and is much different in other parts of our universe.
If we accept that Fg can vary, and assuming M m and r remain unchanged, then G must vary.
Perhaps you can explain why we should regard G as a constant under interstellar circumstances?
I have calculated G is a power of 39 times higher at an event horizon in accordance with the Fg required to disassemble an atomic structure. Under these circumstances, Rs will also be power 39 times higher, so Earth’s Rs moves from 8.87E-3 m within the solar system to 8.87E+36 m at an event horizon. So black holes are no longer none existent?
Reply
Raymond H Gallucci
| #
Steve Crothers’ arguments against the existence of black holes can be found at http://www.sjcrothers.plasmaresources.com/. The basic problem lies with confusion over the parameter “r” in Schwarzschild’s work, which he never intended to be the “true” radius of a sphere, such that, even if it drops to zero, there is still a finite entity at the center of “attraction,” not a singularity. Everyone who champions black holes has adopted Hilbert’s error of interpreting the “r” as the true radius. Steve explains this difference both qualitatively and quantitatively.
I have encountered many “dissidents” who argue against G being a constant, and I cannot say one way or another. Likewise I have encountered many argument for and against variable gravity. The Electric Universe has one of the better theories, in my opinion, for gravity being a very weak electromagnetic manifestation (summarized in one of my papers).
Reply
Robert Beatty
| #
Thanks Ray,
I note Steve Crother’s opening remarks;
“There has been a deliberate suppression of scientific truth by the community of physicists and astronomers concerning the black hole and the big bang. I bring you free access to original papers in the hope that this fraud can be exposed and physics restored to a rational search for knowledge. The black hole has no foundation in theory whatsoever.”
With this attitude one can be forgiven for not reading any further. Whatever happened to reasoned discourse, and the general assumption that professional people are constructively motivated? I have read further and find myself buried in a historical mire of papers which tells me nothing specific about black holes or the big bang. Just more specious criticism.
He has told me publicly that he will not communicate personally, which tells me all I need to know about Mr Crothers.
You have obviously travailed with his contributions and I gather you find some use for them. Your comment about Schwarzschild’s radius is interesting and highlights the academic nature of the discussion – when a radius is, or is not a radius. Whether a BH exists or not will never be defined by mathematics. It will take a step by step logical investigative approach, a recognition and acceptance of apparently disassociated observations, to find the truth. This is new ground and the answers are most unlikely to be found by poring over old manuscripts.
The Electric Universe is an interesting concept, but seems to be lacking quantitative backing. The tyranny of distance seems to be an ever present challenge. Ray, I assume you have seen my paper on Natural Gravity at
http://www.bosmin.com/PSL/InterstellarGravity.pdf and wonder what your thoughts are.
Reply
Raymond H Gallucci
| #
Thanks for the reference to your work – I don’t believe I read it before, so will do so now. As for Steve’s work (I have met him personally and communicated likewise, and find him very accommodating – I’m sorry to hear your experience has differed); you will find in his referenced papers the exact solution to Schwarzschild’s equation that explains the impossibility of a singularity, which makes sense both mathematically and physically. And it was the mathematics upon which the existence of black holes was first postulated, so a refutation of the mathematics is a strong argument. Here’s the key paper by Abrams that he cites: http://www.sjcrothers.plasmaresources.com/Abrams1989.pdf,. I also looked into this a bit mathematically from a different perspective (https://principia-scientific.com/the-black-hole-can-the-irresistible-force-overcome-the-immovable-object/)..
Reply
Raymond H Gallucci
| #
I read through your work. Alas, I am not really qualified to comment, as it is based on several accepted astrophysics concepts (e.g., Big Bang, gravity waves, time dilation, black holes, string theory) of which I am skeptical. Still, I believe, if one accepts these concepts, your theory may be plausible. One thing I particularly note is the interesting definition of a black hole by NASA – “great amount of matter packed into a very small area” – which does not mention a singularity, but allows for a finite, if highly compressed mass, such as a super-dense neutron star. This would align with the mathematics of Schwarzschild, which limits the compression to a finite sphere, albeit very small, but not a singularity. This is the first time I’ve seen a definition of a black hole by a mainstream source that does not require the always controversial singularity. If the requirement of a singularity were dropped from the discussion of black holes, the concept would likely be much more acceptable.
Reply
Herb Rose
| #
Hi Raymond,
Since you don’t believe in gravity waves, time dilation, and other nonsense resulting from Einstein’ theories I will try explain to you what I have been unable to explain to Robert. Gravity has nothing to do with mass. Newton needed a source for his force and created the gravitational constant to provide that source. The data (MpVp^2)/d gives a constant value for all the planets which is the energy of the sun, not its mass. Because of this error there has been a constant need to invent invisible or magical objects to make reality conform to theory. I am waiting for the next excuse to explain asteroids orbiting other asteroids even though their masses would not allow this to happen
Herb.
Reply
Robert Beatty
| #
Welcome to this discussion Herb,
“I am waiting for the next excuse to explain asteroids orbiting other asteroids even though their masses would not allow this to happen.”
Can you show the calculation to prove such orbiting is impossible?
Herb Rose
| #
Hi Robert,
There is an asteroid with a mass of 1 X 10^6 kg with an asteroid orbiting it (its mass is irrelevant). 1 X 10^6 time G is equal to the velocity of the orbiting asteroid squared times its distance from the middle of the asteroid. ! X 10^6 times 6.7 X 10^-11 = V^2d,. 6.7 X 10^-5 = V^2d. The orbiting asteroid is very close to the center of the central asteroid and moving very slowly.
Herb
Robert Beatty
| #
Thanks Herb,
Here is some NASA vision of such an occurrence:
https://www.nasa.gov/feature/jpl/observatories-team-up-to-reveal-rare-double-asteroid
Herb Roe
| #
Correction. The data is that the velocity of a planet squared times its distance from the sun is constant for all planets (Kepler’s Law).
Reply
Robert Beatty
| #
Ray, I have read the two references you specifically drew my attention to. Thanks for your help. While not taking the time to fully analyse the maths, my initial scan was to look for references to mass and point mass. There are several. I then looked for reference to Max Planck or his work, and found none.
How can we get embroiled in maths’ minute about black holes, neutron stars etc without referencing quantum mechanics? Steven Hawking spent his life researching this topic and concluded significantly that radiation emanates from a singularity (Hawking Radiation). If this is the case, the boundless mass accumulation mathematics fails, because an event horizon becomes a dynamic mass processing structure.
Another problem I see with these references is the ability to extrapolate without end. Gravity and mass are unlikely to follow such a path. I expect mass will decompose down to its atomic elements as soon as gravity reaches that level of destruction.
Taking another look at your current paper on the Allais Effect, it seems very pertinent that gravitational shielding was not noted during the period August 10, 1980 through to July 22, 1990, or during one reading in Feb 16, 1961. The latter anomaly may be due to instrument error as the effect was noted elsewhere on the same day. However the big gap in the 80s and 90s seems real. My guess is that during that time, the twin star at Monoceros A0620-00 may have been eclipsing V616 from Earth?
Reply
Raymond H Gallucci
| #
I am neither an advocate nor a denier of the concept of pushing gravity – as with most debatable physics concepts, I remain “on the fence” (e.g., aether vs. vacuum). When I started the article, I did not expect it to go anywhere, but then the very interesting mathematical coincidence sprung up, so I continued and decided to write it up. The Allais Effect may be pure fiction or, if true, explainable by other than pushing/shielding gravity. So your observation of some of the non-observations of the effect is relevant to the discussion, especially given that most of the non-observations occurred consecutively over the decade you cite.
One last point that didn’t seem significant at the time, but maybe actually is – the title of this article should have included a question mark at the end (it somehow was omitted).
Reply