Author, Photographer, Researcher, Artist, Adventurer and Buccaneer Extraordinaire

“Or at least that’s the plan each morning after coffee.”

DL Tolleson.com

THIS UNNAMED GEOLOGICAL formation is the likely result of wind, rain and time eroading away surface material to expose what at one time would have lava (magma) that had cooled and solidified. Copyright © 2010 by DL Tolleson. All Rights Reserved.
COMING INTO OR out of the Chisos Mountains, this is the northwest view and is several miles south of Panther Junction and the headquarters for Big Bend National Park. Copyright © 2010 by DL Tolleson. All Rights Reserved.
THE CLARET CUP is covered in barbed spines and blooms a reddish, cup-shaped flower from about April to June or July in Big Bend National Park. Copyright © 2010 by DL Tolleson. All Rights Reserved.
THIS VIEW FROM a formation called, “The Window,” looks out from the westside of the Chisos Mountains in Big Bend National Park. Copyright © 2010 by DL Tolleson. All Rights Reserved.
INDIAN HEAD MOUNTAIN and its southern region offers this “leaning” wall of geology at the western boundary of Big Bend National Park. The rocks of the foreground are boulders ranging from man-sized on up. Copyright © 2010 by DL Tolleson. All Rights Reserved.
MASSIVE AND TOWERING, this wall of the geology is at least a couple of hundrend feet high and situated in the Indian Head area of Big Bend National Park. Copyright © 2010 by DL Tolleson. All Rights Reserved.
WIDE-OPEN PANORAMAS and mountainous terrain such as this are routine along roadside in Big Bend National Park. Copyright © 2010 by DL Tolleson. All Rights Reserved.
THE SOUTHWEST SIDE of the Chisos Mountains, also known as the Chisos Mountain Basin and home to the lodge in Big Bend National Park. Copyright © 2011 by DL Tolleson. All Rights Reserved.
A FALLEN TREE is an impassable barrier in an otherwise debris-free dry riverbed in Big Bend National Park. Copyright © 2010 by DL Tolleson. All Rights Reserved.
INDIGENOUS TO TEXAS, New Mexico and Arizona, Javelinas in Big Bend National Park genetically differ from swine. Copyright © 2010 by DL Tolleson. All Rights Reserved.
LOST MINE TRAIL in Big Bend National Park, looking southward over Juniper Canyon, the Chisos Mountain’s Northeast Rim and into Mexico. Copyright © 2010 by DL Tolleson. All Rights Reserved.
A TREE SILHOUETTED against the night sky as seen from Chisos Basin in Big Bend National Park. Copyright © 2010 by DL Tolleson. All Rights Reserved.
THIS VIEW EAST of a volcano is an illusion of the setting sun streaming through the Chisos Basin area behind Casa Grande Peak in Big Bend National Park. Copyright © 2010 by DL Tolleson. All Rights Reserved.
WRIGHT MOUNTAIN in background at Big Bend National Park. Copyright © 2010 by DL Tolleson. All Rights Reserved.
A VIEW WESTWARD after sundown from the Indian Head area of Big Bend National Park. Copyright © 2010 by DL Tolleson. All Rights Reserved.
A CAMERA COMPENSATION for the limited light after sundown provides this view westward from the Indian Head area of Big Bend National Park. Copyright © 2010 by DL Tolleson/Camera One. All Rights Reserved.
SANTA ELENA CANYON after sunset, as seen from the Chimneys in Big Bend National Park. Copyright © 2010 by DL Tolleson/Camera One. All Rights Reserved.

Publication History: Gravity and The 5th Force. Copyright © 2001, 2009 by DL Tolleson. All Rights Reserved. Excerpts from this work are permissible if author attribution is included. However, beyond this no part of this material may be reproduced in any form or by any means without written permission from the author.

Tolleson, DL. “Gravity and The 5th Force.”
DLTolleson.com, 2009.
http://www.dltolleson.com/research/fifthforce.php.

Tolleson, DL. “Gravity and The 5th Force.”
TheLighthousePress.com, 2016.
http://www.thelighthousepress.com/dltolleson.com/research/fifthforce.php.

Description: Analysis » Research—2,117 words (not including Notes and Works Cited).

Commentary: Gravity and The 5th Force began as handwritten notes out of my own interest while reading of the 5th force theory in Graham Hancock’s The Sign and The Seal. A short time thereafter, I was in a bookstore and came across J.G. Landels’ Engineering In the Ancient World (a very informative read). After Landels’ book—which concerned the 5th force only in terms of explaining the various means by which massive weights were maneuvered in ancient times—I felt compelled into researching the matter. My previous readings of Stephen Hawking’s, A Brief History of Time: From the Big Bang to Black Holes and John Allen Paulos, Innumeracy (both excellent books) fell into line with my developing theories and caveats concerning the 5th Force. Thus was born the paper.

So how “legitimate” are this paper and the theories? I cannot say. I certainly do not have a background in physics or the scientific experience necessary to validate the paper. Indeed, points I make may have already been made by others, be accepted theories or be so totally wrong that a reader educated in the subject might be unable to restrain his/her tears of laughter.

So, without any better foundation I can only claim that this is what seemed logical and reasonable when I wrote it and I’ve not had reason to since change my opinion in that regard.

—DL Tolleson

GRAVITY AND THE 5TH FORCE
DL Tolleson

Proposed Theories

• Gravity is proportional to an object’s atomic composition within the density of a mass.

• Gravity is matter composed of atoms more loosely bound than the atoms of a theorized fifth force.

• The fifth force is not an opposing force to gravity due to a composition of hydrogen-similar or helium-similar atoms.

Science holds there are four naturally occurring “forces:” Electromagnetism; An unnamed weak force responsible for radioactive decay; an unnamed strong force binding the atomic nuclei and; Gravity. Of these, perhaps gravity is the most omnipotent, elusive and theoretical. It may also be the key to a fifth force.

This fifth force is believed by some, to oppose or counteract gravity. In The Sign and The Seal, author Graham Hancock suggests the ancient Egyptians possessed knowledge of the fifth force since lost to mankind. Referencing Herodotus, and J.A. West’s Ancient Egypt, Hancock reports the 481 feet 5 inch-high great pyramid at Giza Egypt, covers 13.1 acres with 3.3 million limestone blocks, each weighing approximately 2.5 tons. Its construction is explained by an Egyptian priest who claimed gangs of 100,000 laborers built the pyramid during three months of each year, over a twenty year period. However, according to Danish Engineer P. Garde-Hanson, a daily installation of 4,000 blocks at a rate of 6.67 blocks per minute would have been required to complete the task in the time period reported.1

While these speculations are subject to error, the importance of the pyramids to the ancient builders is obvious by virtue of existence. Consequentially, any number of laborers could have employed numerous construction methods continuously for years. If so, most speculation is “out the window.” Of course there is a “very important limitation, which should be quite obvious, but is all too often forgotten. If a burden requires more than one man to handle it, its size and shape must be such as to allow the necessary number of men to stand close enough and get a grip on it.”2

A little over 2,000 years after the construction of the pyramids, the Greeks and Romans were thoroughly acquainted with cranes and hoists capable of lifting weights in excess of nine tons.3 It is not illogical to suggest these machines were available to—possibly invented or even further refined by—the Egyptians.4

Without argument however, the methods by which the pyramids were built are limited: They could have been constructed using cranes and hoists powered by a work force of thousands; A source of power alleviating weight (gravity) could have been theoretically employed: Or they could have been built by means of extraterrestrial intervention. Of these, there is no historical or scientific evidence of extraterrestrial intervention. In fact, there is even mathematical evidence to refute this far-fetched possibility.5 While there is no historical evidence of a power source such as the fifth force, “modern” science now questions the concept of gravity and the possibility of a fifth force which could explain a number of seemingly impossible feats.

“If we could harness such a force,” wrote science writer John Boslough, “might we someday have craneless construction, cableless elevators, or spaceships zipping between planets on “hyperdrive” that engages the fifth force locked within subatomic particles. As you might expect, none of this has escaped the notice of the U.S. government, especially the pentagon. Exotic and Expensive research aimed at pinning down the new force is already in the works.”6 If indeed the fifth force “appears” to counteract gravity, its existence may be a question regarding the nature of gravity. Although Albert Einstein redefined the concept of gravity, Isaac Newton’s theory remains the standard for pragmatic purposes. However, if Einstein’s theory is correct, why bother with Newton’s theory at all? Many mistakenly believe the Newton theory is easy to understand and quote. Almost anyone can understand that a planetary mass exerts an attraction on smaller (not always nearby) masses, and that is gravity. In reality, this is a very distilled understanding of the theories Newton proposed in his voluminous Principa (which he altered over the course of three editions). In an equally voluminous tome, Misner, Thorne and Wheeler wrote, “…of all theories ever conceived by physicist, General Relativity has the simplest, most elegant geometric foundation... By contrast, what diabolically clever physicist would ever foist on man a theory with such a complicated geometric foundation as Newtonian theory. . .”7 This “geometric foundation,” they point out, is the yardstick by which modern (italics added) science determines the complexity of a theory. This isn’t to say Einstein’s theory of Relativity (in the form Einstein presented) is any easier to comprehend. In another very distilled understanding, Einstein’s Theory of Relativity holds that gravity is not even a force, but rather the normal behavior of matter in space-time (meaning space and time are not exactly separate elements).

Proposed Theory: Gravity is proportional to an object’s atomic composition within the density of a mass. Thus, a variance of composition in an object results in a variance of gravity within the mass of the object. This variance is an anomaly observable as a low or high area of gravity. While such an anomaly exhibits negligible influence on surrounding physical matter, the measurable presence of a low gravity area surrounded by high gravity areas indicate the mass of the object is responsible for only a portion of the gravity inherent to the object.8

However, observation proves that atomic structure, in and of itself, is not indicative of perceivable gravity. No one ever documented a piece of space debris (a useless communication satellite, for example) as having observable or measurable gravitational pull. But pack that communication satellite into a ball of more communication satellites with the density of a planet (like earth for example) and a definite gravitational force will be present.

From where did the gravity come? It is the mass (meaning density) of the composition (meaning atoms) of all the communication satellites packed together. In other words, each atom possesses a gravitational attraction that increases when massed together with other atoms. This attraction however, is not limited to the mass of the object, but is exhibited by each of the atoms. Conceptionally, this differs from Newtonian theory, which would indicate gravity was innate to the total mass of the communication satellites because they are packed together. Undoubtedly there would be gravity anomalies throughout the ball, for which the Newtonian theory may not provide explanation. However, if gravity is intrinsic to the atomic composition, the gravity variances are easily explained. The atoms of gold, tin, iron, steel, and fiber optics (things of which the satellites are made) would be so tightly packed, the previously undetectable force of gravity becomes apparent. The anomalies then, are varying combinations of concentrated atoms. Thus all atoms inherently possess the force of gravity. But without the mass of other atoms, the gravitational properties are insignificant.

The absence of observable gravity from a single atom, or even many atoms grouped together, is normal. By merely lifting an arm, an individual overcomes the earth’s entire gravitational pull of 6,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 kilograms or 6.6 sextillion tons.9 Gravity is the weakest force known to mankind. Thus the failure of one to any finite number of atoms to exhibit gravity is understandable.

Proposed Theory: Gravity is matter composed of atoms more loosely bound than the atoms of a theorized fifth force. Within this scenario, however, the “fifth force” would only be perceived as overcoming the “force” of gravity. Since gravity would merely be the normal behavior of matter pressing against the fabric of space-time, the atoms of the “fifth force” would press significantly less against that fabric. Thus, unlike objects of loose atomic composition, when observed upon a planet exhibiting gravity, the fifth force atoms would appear to repel from the gravity of the planet (exhibiting a visible effect similar to electric charges or magnetic poles of the same sign repelling one another). In reality, these “fifth force atoms” would not be repelling from the earth but would merely be pressing against space-time less than the more loosely bound atoms of the planet.

Arguments for the fifth force are more substantial than the mere conjecture of writers. Ephraim Fischbach, a theoretical Physicist at Indiana’s Purdue University believes he found a natural force counteracting gravity.10 Fischbach and physicist Samuel Aronson observed particles called kaons11 apparently defying gravity in an atomic accelerator (atom smasher) in 1979. Further still, Fischbach and Aronson were startled by gravity experiments conducted early this century by a Hungarian named Baron Roland von Eötvös. According to Fischbach, Eötvös’ observations indicated “objects fall at slightly different rates according to their atomic makeup—the more tightly packed the atomic nucleus, the slower the fall.” Eötvös’ colleagues, publishing the experiments after his death, treated the differences as statistically insignificant.12 Likewise, Geophysicist Frank Stacy and colleagues at the University of Queensland Australia used a gravity sensitive meter below ground level to discover “a force opposing gravity with about one hundred percent of its (gravity) strength and a range of a few hundred meters.”13

Conjecture has led other physicist to call these discoveries “the hypercharge force,” alluding to the number of protons and neutrons in a nucleus—different for each element.”14 The unnamed strong force binding these particles together may create a mass (or energy if you will) by virtue of the binding process. Thus even the binding energy may be a key to the fifth force. For “a ball of iron, with high binding energy could receive a strong antigravity lift and fall slightly slower than a snakewood ball of equal weight.”15 These and other experiments have led some to speculate the fifth forced will eventually unite the quantum theories of space-time into the “Theory of Everything.”16

Proposed Theory: The fifth force is not an opposing force to gravity due to a composition of hydrogen-similar or helium-similar atoms. While the fifth force would not necessarily be composed of hydrogen or helium, those are the elements with which science is most familiar and which are most characteristic of an “antigravity” force. If so composed, the fifth force atoms would exhibit all of the foregoing characteristics whether gravity is a force or just the natural behavior of matter pressing against the fabric of space-time. In either case, the atoms of the fifth force would appear to “float” while on the surface of a planet exhibiting gravity. But when free of a gravitational environment, the atoms of the fifth force would react similar to the hydrogen and helium of a black hole.

Although the term “black hole” was first used in 1969 by American scientist John Wheeler, the concept was first suggested by “Cambridge don John Mitchell.” In 1783 he proposed that a sufficiently massive and compact star would have such a gravitational field that light could not escape it.17

Essentially, the formation of a black hole is an ending to the “visible” life of a star. A star (like our sun) is formed when hydrogen gas collapses inward under its own gravity. As the atoms rapidly collide they eventually coalesce, forming helium. So long as helium and other nuclear elements are being formed, the byproduct of heat makes the star “shine” and maintains a balance between gravity capable of “re-collapsing” the star and an inner pressure preventing that collapse. When the star finally exhausts its fuel of hydrogen and other nuclear elements, it begins to cool and contract. While not all stars will become black holes, those that do have contracted to a “certain critical radius” where the surface gravity is so strong that its own light is bent inward so much that light no longer escapes. Likewise, light rays, (or anything else) passing into the gravitational pull of this area will be pulled in.18 This, then, is a black hole and the perfect illustration of the gravitational properties of hydrogen and helium.

Hydrogen and helium are the two most abundant elements in the Galaxy and while Hydrogen is only about 0.14 percent of the Earth’s crust by weight, it is profusely available as part of ocean water, ice packs, rivers, lakes and the atmosphere.19 This odorless, tasteless, colorless element is an ingredient of almost all carbon compounds as well as responsible for forming a multitude of compounds with all other elements. Containing a single proton (a particle of matter with a positive charge equal to the opposite, negative charge of an electron) surrounded by one orbiting electron, it is the lightest and most simple chemical element.20

If there is to be a fifth force and a manipulation of gravity, I submit that the atomic structure thereof will not indicate a separate “force,” but simply a refinement of our concept of gravity.


Notes and Works Cited

1 Graham Hancock, The Sign And The Seal: The Quest for the Lost Ark of the Covenant, Simon & Schuster, Inc., 1993, pp. 309—312.

2 J.G. Landels, Engineering in the Ancient World, University of California Press, 1981, p. 9.

3 Ibid., p. 84.

4 Perhaps the earliest suggestion of a link between Greece and Egypt is in Plato’s two discussions (dialogues) named after the explorer/astrologer Timaeus and Plato’s maternal uncle, Critias the Younger. Plato attributes the story’s origin to an Egyptian priest telling of events from “earliest times.” This is the original source for the island of Atlantis which, Plato indicates, influenced surrounding countries with knowledge and commerce even after its demise. For a discussion relating the fifth force to Atlantis, see Graham Hancock, The Sign And The Seal, op. cit., pp. 319-29.

5 Of approximately 100 billion stars (1011) in our galaxy, 1/10th may support a planet. Of those 10 billion stars, perhaps one of a hundred would contain a planet in an orbit conducive for life. Of these 100 million stars (108), about 1/10th should be considered reasonable candidates for supporting planets with life. Perhaps 1/10th of these 10 million (107) stars have already developed life. The improbability of seeing evidence of life from these one million stars (106) is due to the size of our galaxy and the development of any of those planets. Our galaxy has a volume of about 1014 cubic light-years (a light year is the distance light travels in one year at 186,000 miles per second—about 6 trillion miles). On average each of the million stars has 1014 divided by 108 cubic light-years of volume for itself (meaning 108 cubic light-years of volume for each star assumed to support life). The cube root of 108 is approximately 500, meaning the distance between any one of the galaxy’s life-supporting stars and its closest neighbor would be 500 light years. Further, any possible civilizations are bound to be scattered in time, coming into existence and then dying out. Even if advanced life forms lived for 100 million years (the time from early mammals to a possible twentieth-century nuclear holocaust), these life forms spread uniformly over the 12—15 billion-year history of our galaxy would result in fewer than 10,000 stars in our galaxy supporting advanced life at any one time. Thus the distance between neighbors would jump to more than 2,000 light-years. —John Allen Paulos, Innumeracy, Vintage Books, 1990, pp. 80—82.

6 John Boslough, ‘Searching for the Secrets of Gravity,’ National Geographic, vol. 175, No. 5, May 1989, p. 578.

7 Charles Misner, Kip S. Thorne, John Archibald Wheeler, Gravatation, W.H. Freeman and Company, 1973, p. 302.

8 Gravity “highs” and “lows” are common in various areas of the world. The Geological Society produces booklets (available in local libraries) that discuss many of these anomalies and the theories explaining them. See, for example. John W. Cady, Magnetic And Gravity Anomalies in the Great Valley and Western Sierra Nevada Metamorphic Belt, California Geologic Society of America, 1975.

9 John Boslough, ‘Searching for the Secrets of Gravity,’ National Geographic, op. cit., p. 563.

10 Ibid., 563, 567.

11 The National Geographic article in which this appears does not indicate if Ephraim Fischbach believed a fifth force was acting upon or as a part of the Kaons. While numerous reference materials, including the Encyclopedia Britannic, indicate Kaons are particles of measons, there is no data to suggest or refute a relation to a fifth force.

12 John Boslough, ‘Searching for the Secrets of Gravity,’ National Geographic, op. cit., p. 569.

13 Ibid.

14 Ibid., p. 570.

15 Ibid.

16 Ibid., p. 576.

17 Stephen Hawking, A Brief History of Time: From the Big Bang to Black Holes, Bantam Books, 1990, p. 81.

18 Ibid., pp. 82-87. (This is an abbreviation of half of a chapter.)

19 The New Encyclopædia Britannic, Vol. 15, The University of Chicago, 1991, pp. 940—944.

20 Ibid., p. 941.