The Anti-Gravity effect. A weather balloon rises in the gravitational field, expanding in space at it rises and its density decreases. A contradiction exists in the matter based theory of gravitation in that it is claimed that weather balloons rise because they are ‘lighter than air’ because the gas has a ‘lower atomic density’ than ‘air’. However air is a mixture of gases with various atomic densities, and the matter based theory of gravity also claims that ‘atomic density’ is irrelevant in a gravitational field (so that one could drop a hammer and a feather on the moon and both would hit the ground at the same time).
The rising of a weather balloon is the inverse of an object falling in a gravitational field in that the conserved momentum of the balloon causes an instantaneous burst of upwards velocity and then the balloon decelerates as it stops ‘falling up‘ until finally the balloon slows to a stop and parks at a spot in space. An object falling down begins slowly and then velocity increases until at full velocity the object stops at hits the ground.
A tossed basketball behaves much like a weather balloon. It decelerates as it reaches a point in space, then parks for a moment. Its momentum is conserved as is illustrated by the fact that the balloon then begins once again to move horizontally at the same time that the balloon once again beings to drop towards a spot in space below. Both weather balloon and basketball conserve momentum and both are ‘attracted’ to a particular ‘height’ in the spatial gradient. According to the Unified Field Theory this attraction is a density function. The density of a weather balloon leaves it parked in a less densely energetic part of the energy field (higher up, according to the inverse square law) while the denser basketball is attracted to a part of the field buried somewhere below the surface of the earth.
According to the Unified Field Theory the two Pioneer Spacecraft are like the weather balloon, decelerating as they rise in a gravitational field. The fact that two spacecraft are found to be decelerating and that the deceleration is identical in both cases indicates that this is not the result of ‘gas leakages’ and all attempts to use ‘Occam’s razor’ to shave off any ‘new physics’ is a misuse of such an appliance. New physics is required. But then new physics has always been required for there have always been unexplained anomalies which are the result of a flawed theory of gravitation.
The Pioneer Spacecraft are decelerating at the same rate at which light ‘red-shifts’, or so it would seem, and this just makes sense, for the deceleration of the craft is being caused by time dilation (a faster running clock). To ‘conserve momentum’ the craft must decelerate so as to cover the same amount of ‘space’ in the ‘same amount of time’. Similarly an object falling in a gravitational field must ‘accelerate’ so as to ‘conserve momentum’ as the clock slows in a gravitational field, so as to cover the ‘same amount of space’ in ‘less time’. Therefore just as ‘deceleration’ is equivalent to the ‘red-shift’ and time dilation, so then gravitational acceleration is equivalent to time contraction and the ‘blue shit’. Both relative acceleration and relative deceleration occur without any exchange of energy taking place (no added or lost ‘momentum’ is required to explain the effect).
The predictions of the Unified Field Theory could be tested with a simple inexpensive experiment (should that be deemed necessary). Three metal cans could be launched into space on some cheap rocket. A little momentum could be imparted to all three tin cans. Less to the first, ‘medium’ to the second, and more to the third. The less momentum imparted the better, for then the results of the experiment would come in over a period of weeks or months rather than decades. The results of the experiment would be as follows. The tin can with the lowest momentum would decelerate and park, much like the weather balloon. It would then either remain in orbit, conserving its momentum, like the weather balloon, or it would begin to fall backwards like the basketball. Now given that the object would already be in orbit around the sun when launched, I therefore believe that it should park like the weather balloon and continue its orbit, since it has no real reason to fall down as the basketball does, for the orbital level of the basketball is located somewhere below the surface of the earth. The second tin can would decelerate and eventually park somewhere further out in space, followed by the third tin can with the most momentum.
This would refute the erroneous physics of Isaac Newton, for every closed energy system which is in motion is an energy system which is an state which is not allowed, and it will remain in motion until it reaches an allowable energy state, at which time its motion will cease. Whether or not some ‘outside force’ acts upon that object to help it reach an allowable energy state is irrelevant. Every exchange of energy between two closed energy systems results in an equal and opposite transfer of the movement towards an allowable energy state (such that the object receiving the transfer of energy then becomes the object that is found in motion and is moving towards an allowable energy state so that its motion may cease). It is in the nature of ‘energy’ to seek equilibrium and a steady state.