> On Nov 1, 6:02 am, rim317-...@yahoo.co.uk wrote:
> > There are many similarities between gravitational and EM waves, but EM > > waves only act on electrically charged masses; however, neutron > > scattering still occurs due to interference between the magnetic > > dipole and spin-orbit interaction.
> > The question related to gravitational and EM waves is rather what > is electric charge.
> Since we both use and measure charge all the time and know in great > detail how EM waves interact with charge I suppose that we understand > electric charge quite well.
> The question then becomes what is a gravitational wave. Since > relativity has established that gravitation can be better explained as > a curvature of space and time I propose that gravity waves as they are > called would be better termed as graviton and tacheon waves. A > graviton wave would be a wave in space and a tacheon wave would be a > wave in time.
> Since it is notoriously difficult to detect graviton waves I would > instead focus on detection the tacheon waves which must accompany > them. I have seen detector designs based on tungsten rods, low > pressure noble gasses. The best detector design is completely > dependent on the pitch and amplitude of the waves you are attempting > to measure.
Unified perspective? Appearence is the theory of relativity.
Juan R. González-Álvarez <juanREM...@canonicalscience.com> wrote:
>carlip-nospam wrote on Thu, 05 Nov 2009 21:56:23 +0000: > > Could you please repost the specific journal reference? > Only if you promise to stop asking me without even > reading the stuff *first*. The reference is > Gravitational interaction in the relational approach 2008: > Grav. and Cosm. 14(1), 41???52. Vladimirov, Yu. S.
This is a pretty obscure journal, but I managed to track down a copy. The paper has nothing that addresses my question, though.
The problem with getting gravity as a "residual" electromagnetic interaction is simple: electromagnetism couples only to charge, while gravity couples to all forms of energy. Vladimirov attempts to get around this by positing that all matter is made up of elementary charged constituents with a fixed mass and a fixed charge-to-mass ratio (up to sign). A neutriono might, for example, be made up of two such constituents; a top quark might then be made of nine trillion -- though never nine trillion and one, by the exclusion principle. In this model, gravity couples to the square of the charge of the constituents.
The trouble is that we observe that gravity couples to *energy*. The electrostatic energy in a nucleus due to the repulsion of the consituent protons, for instance, contributes E/c^2 to the gravitational interaction, to an accuracy of a few parts in 10^12. The nuclear binding energy contributes (naegatively!) with the same accuracy. Energy of weak neutral currents, of magnetostatic interactions in the nucleus, of hyperfine interactions of nucleon spins, and of electron binding energy in atoms all contribute. So does *gravitational* binding energy.
Now, you might get away with a model in which, say, neutrinos are made of charge constituents. But the energy of electrostatic repulsion certainly isn't! And in Vladimirov's model, there is no apparent way -- and certainly no way the paper discusses -- to get that energy to couple to gravity.
(For that matter, it seems unlikely that the model can even get the deflection of light in a gravitational field. Light, in Vladimirov's model, is certainly not made of charged particles.)
So I repeat my question. If you want to describe gravity as a residual electromagnetic interaction, or more generally as something induced by electromagnetism, how do you reproduce the observed coupling of gravity to energy?
> Juan R. González-Álvarez <juanREM...@canonicalscience.com> wrote:
> >carlip-nospam wrote on Thu, 05 Nov 2009 21:56:23 +0000: > > > Could you please repost the specific journal reference? > > Only if you promise to stop asking me without even > > reading the stuff *first*. The reference is > > Gravitational interaction in the relational approach 2008: > > Grav. and Cosm. 14(1), 41???52. Vladimirov, Yu. S.
> This is a pretty obscure journal, but I managed to track down a copy. > The paper has nothing that addresses my question, though.
> The problem with getting gravity as a "residual" electromagnetic > interaction is simple: electromagnetism couples only to charge, > while gravity couples to all forms of energy. Vladimirov attempts > to get around this by positing that all matter is made up of > elementary charged constituents with a fixed mass and a fixed > charge-to-mass ratio (up to sign). A neutriono might, for example, > be made up of two such constituents; a top quark might then be > made of nine trillion -- though never nine trillion and one, by the > exclusion principle. In this model, gravity couples to the square > of the charge of the constituents.
> The trouble is that we observe that gravity couples to *energy*. > The electrostatic energy in a nucleus due to the repulsion of the > consituent protons, for instance, contributes E/c^2 to the > gravitational interaction, to an accuracy of a few parts in 10^12. > The nuclear binding energy contributes (naegatively!) with the > same accuracy. Energy of weak neutral currents, of magnetostatic > interactions in the nucleus, of hyperfine interactions of nucleon > spins, and of electron binding energy in atoms all contribute. So > does *gravitational* binding energy.
> Now, you might get away with a model in which, say, neutrinos are > made of charge constituents. But the energy of electrostatic > repulsion certainly isn't! And in Vladimirov's model, there is no > apparent way -- and certainly no way the paper discusses -- to get > that energy to couple to gravity.
> (For that matter, it seems unlikely that the model can even get the > deflection of light in a gravitational field. Light, in Vladimirov's > model, is certainly not made of charged particles.)
> So I repeat my question. If you want to describe gravity as a residual > electromagnetic interaction, or more generally as something induced > by electromagnetism, how do you reproduce the observed coupling > of gravity to energy?
> Steve Carlip
Moving geometry cannot be absorbed. A gravity wave would roam the universe forever. It does not exist.
>carlip-nospam wrote on Thu, 05 Nov 2009 21:56:23 +0000: > > Could you please repost the specific journal reference? > Only if you promise to stop asking me without even > reading the stuff *first*. The reference is > Gravitational interaction in the relational approach 2008: > Grav. and Cosm. 14(1), 41???52. Vladimirov, Yu. S.
This is a pretty obscure journal, but I managed to track down a copy. The paper has nothing that addresses my question, though.
The problem with getting gravity as a "residual" electromagnetic interaction is simple: electromagnetism couples only to charge,
=========================================== The problem with carlip-allspam is he doesn't accept magnetism couples to iron filings or recognise atoms are very small iron filings unless he has a paper to tell him how to think.
> Juan R. González-Álvarez <juanREM...@canonicalscience.com> wrote:
> >carlip-nospam wrote on Thu, 05 Nov 2009 21:56:23 +0000: > > > Could you please repost the specific journal reference? > > Only if you promise to stop asking me without even > > reading the stuff *first*. The reference is > > Gravitational interaction in the relational approach 2008: > > Grav. and Cosm. 14(1), 41???52. Vladimirov, Yu. S.
> This is a pretty obscure journal, but I managed to track down a copy. > The paper has nothing that addresses my question, though.
> The problem with getting gravity as a "residual" electromagnetic > interaction is simple: electromagnetism couples only to charge, > while gravity couples to all forms of energy. Vladimirov attempts > to get around this by positing that all matter is made up of > elementary charged constituents with a fixed mass and a fixed > charge-to-mass ratio (up to sign). A neutriono might, for example, > be made up of two such constituents; a top quark might then be > made of nine trillion -- though never nine trillion and one, by the > exclusion principle. In this model, gravity couples to the square > of the charge of the constituents.
> The trouble is that we observe that gravity couples to *energy*. > The electrostatic energy in a nucleus due to the repulsion of the > consituent protons, for instance, contributes E/c^2 to the > gravitational interaction, to an accuracy of a few parts in 10^12. > The nuclear binding energy contributes (naegatively!) with the > same accuracy. Energy of weak neutral currents, of magnetostatic > interactions in the nucleus, of hyperfine interactions of nucleon > spins, and of electron binding energy in atoms all contribute. So > does *gravitational* binding energy.
> Now, you might get away with a model in which, say, neutrinos are > made of charge constituents. But the energy of electrostatic > repulsion certainly isn't! And in Vladimirov's model, there is no > apparent way -- and certainly no way the paper discusses -- to get > that energy to couple to gravity.
> (For that matter, it seems unlikely that the model can even get the > deflection of light in a gravitational field. Light, in Vladimirov's > model, is certainly not made of charged particles.)
> So I repeat my question. If you want to describe gravity as a residual > electromagnetic interaction, or more generally as something induced > by electromagnetism, how do you reproduce the observed coupling > of gravity to energy? > Steve Carlip
I think the first thing is to check how one would determine gravitation can exist in a "Charge Couple", using GR, I have a brief here, http://physics.trak4.com/GR_Charge_Couple.pdf
To me it's common sense, though not simple. If you want to think in terms of "Strings", Eq.(4) therein provides the variation of the String length connecting all charges in one macroscopic body, like a planet Earth to those in the moon, with a bazillion summations. There is a residual attractive force in each string proportional to the magnitude of the potential energy of the charge, even if the bodies are electrically neutral.
The same GR solution explains electrostatic forces, with gravity being a residual of that solution. Similiar to magnetism being a residual of electro statics using SR.
At this point I think Steven asks, is that realistic, well it is if energy is expressed in terms of Electro Magnetically stored energy, as a 'definition' of mass. Mass is still not scientifically defined, it's a catch all sort of generic term, so until humans agree about that we use "MST and Mass Definition" herein, http://physics.trak4.com/
As far a coupling - via that method - to a photon, we should understand a photon carries electrical ability such as an EM wave, and quantizing the electrical portion of EMR produces the needed charges. Regards Ken S. Tucker
> I think the first thing is to check how one would > determine gravitation can exist in a "Charge Couple", > using GR, I have a brief here, > http://physics.trak4.com/GR_Charge_Couple.pdf
Yet you don't solve Maxwell's equations. You don't solve the Einstein field equations.
This is what armchair physics is all about. You write down some algebraic equations, handwave, and repost it for a few years straight all the while wondering why nobody ever takes you seriously.
> > I think the first thing is to check how one would > > determine gravitation can exist in a "Charge Couple", > > using GR, I have a brief here, > >http://physics.trak4.com/GR_Charge_Couple.pdf
> Yet you don't solve Maxwell's equations. You don't solve the Einstein field > equations.
> This is what armchair physics is all about. You write down some algebraic > equations, handwave, and repost it for a few years straight all the while > wondering why nobody ever takes you seriously.
> [...]
Einstein science was just the beginning. He had a partial theory of gravity.
On Nov 17, 2:08 pm, BURT <macromi...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > Ken S. Tucker wrote: > > > I think the first thing is to check how one would > > > determine gravitation can exist in a "Charge Couple", > > > using GR, I have a brief here, > > >http://physics.trak4.com/GR_Charge_Couple.pdf
> Einstein science was just the beginning. He had a partial theory of > gravity. > Mitch Raemsch
Steven Carlip expressed a reasonable objection, by asking hows does an electrically based gravitation couple to a photon. While the photon structure is still enigmatic, we do know of the "photo-electric effect".
We know from this, the photon conveys a 'rate' of action, and action is quantized using 'h' and expressible as units of charge^2. So it is reasonable to assume the photon consists of charges. Regards Ken S. Tucker
Ken S. Tucker wrote: > On Nov 17, 2:08 pm, BURT <macromi...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> > Ken S. Tucker wrote: >> > > I think the first thing is to check how one would >> > > determine gravitation can exist in a "Charge Couple", >> > > using GR, I have a brief here, >> > >http://physics.trak4.com/GR_Charge_Couple.pdf
>> Einstein science was just the beginning. He had a partial theory of >> gravity. >> Mitch Raemsch
> Steven Carlip expressed a reasonable objection, by > asking hows does an electrically based gravitation > couple to a photon. > While the photon structure is still enigmatic, we do > know of the "photo-electric effect".
> We know from this, the photon conveys a 'rate' of action, > and action is quantized using 'h' and expressible as units > of charge^2. So it is reasonable to assume the photon consists > of charges.
Spewing idiot. Not even wrong, and you have no idea why.
> Juan R. González-Álvarez <juanREM...@canonicalscience.com> wrote: >>carlip-nospam wrote on Thu, 05 Nov 2009 21:56:23 +0000:
>> > Could you please repost the specific journal reference?
>> Only if you promise to stop asking me without even reading the stuff >> *first*. The reference is
>> Gravitational interaction in the relational approach 2008: Grav. and >> Cosm. 14(1), 41???52. Vladimirov, Yu. S.
> This is a pretty obscure journal, but I managed to track down a copy. > The paper has nothing that addresses my question, though.
> The problem with getting gravity as a "residual" electromagnetic > interaction is simple: electromagnetism couples only to charge, while > gravity couples to all forms of energy. Vladimirov attempts to get > around this by positing that all matter is made up of elementary charged > constituents with a fixed mass and a fixed charge-to-mass ratio (up to > sign). A neutriono might, for example, be made up of two such > constituents; a top quark might then be made of nine trillion -- though > never nine trillion and one, by the exclusion principle. In this model, > gravity couples to the square of the charge of the constituents.
> The trouble is that we observe that gravity couples to *energy*. The > electrostatic energy in a nucleus due to the repulsion of the consituent > protons, for instance, contributes E/c^2 to the gravitational > interaction, to an accuracy of a few parts in 10^12. The nuclear binding > energy contributes (naegatively!) with the same accuracy. Energy of > weak neutral currents, of magnetostatic interactions in the nucleus, of > hyperfine interactions of nucleon spins, and of electron binding energy > in atoms all contribute. So does *gravitational* binding energy.
> Now, you might get away with a model in which, say, neutrinos are made > of charge constituents. But the energy of electrostatic repulsion > certainly isn't! And in Vladimirov's model, there is no apparent way -- > and certainly no way the paper discusses -- to get that energy to couple > to gravity.
> (For that matter, it seems unlikely that the model can even get the > deflection of light in a gravitational field. Light, in Vladimirov's > model, is certainly not made of charged particles.)
> So I repeat my question. If you want to describe gravity as a residual > electromagnetic interaction, or more generally as something induced by > electromagnetism, how do you reproduce the observed coupling of gravity > to energy?
> Steve Carlip
After your insistence asking me for a reference that I had given at least two times, I copied and pasted again the reference for you with the promise that you would stop from asking me idiotic questions.
But you ignored...
It is evidently posssible to explain how gravity couples to energy (photons). There is not mistery about this and, of course, the result for light bending is the same (up to the limits of current measurements) than in GR.
But, of course, I will not waste time explaining this research stuff to you.
> On Nov 17, 2:08 pm, BURT <macromi...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > Ken S. Tucker wrote: > > > > I think the first thing is to check how one would > > > > determine gravitation can exist in a "Charge Couple", > > > > using GR, I have a brief here, > > > >http://physics.trak4.com/GR_Charge_Couple.pdf
> > Einstein science was just the beginning. He had a partial theory of > > gravity. > > Mitch Raemsch
> Steven Carlip expressed a reasonable objection, by > asking hows does an electrically based gravitation > couple to a photon. > While the photon structure is still enigmatic, we do > know of the "photo-electric effect".
> We know from this, the photon conveys a 'rate' of action, > and action is quantized using 'h' and expressible as units > of charge^2. So it is reasonable to assume the photon consists > of charges. > Regards > Ken S. Tucker
If light is electric and magentic force does it act through its forces? The answer is a resounding NO. But no one has ever said it. Light's forces don't act.
> On Nov 19, 11:57 am, "Ken S. Tucker" <dynam...@vianet.on.ca> wrote:
> > On Nov 17, 2:08 pm, BURT <macromi...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > > Ken S. Tucker wrote: > > > > > I think the first thing is to check how one would > > > > > determine gravitation can exist in a "Charge Couple", > > > > > using GR, I have a brief here, > > > > >http://physics.trak4.com/GR_Charge_Couple.pdf
> > > Einstein science was just the beginning. He had a partial theory of > > > gravity. > > > Mitch Raemsch
> > Steven Carlip expressed a reasonable objection, by > > asking hows does an electrically based gravitation > > couple to a photon. > > While the photon structure is still enigmatic, we do > > know of the "photo-electric effect".
> > We know from this, the photon conveys a 'rate' of action, > > and action is quantized using 'h' and expressible as units > > of charge^2. So it is reasonable to assume the photon consists > > of charges. > > Regards > > Ken S. Tucker
> If light is electric and magentic force does it act through its > forces? > The answer is a resounding NO. But no one has ever said it. Light's > forces don't act. > Mitch Raemsch
Well I think radio's work by receiving EMR via an antenna then wiggling a current and voltage down a feed wire,
> There are many similarities between gravitational and EM waves, > but EM > waves only act on electrically charged masses;
Optical tweezers?
> however, neutron > scattering still occurs due to interference between the magnetic > dipole and spin-orbit interaction.
> The question related to gravitational and EM waves is rather what is > electrical charge? If electric charge is an expansion or contraction > of space-time then gravitational waves would only interact with > matter, which by its very nature is a distortion of the metric tensor > i.e. electrically charged.
> Has the hidden gravitational wave been EM waves all along?
> carlip-nospam wrote on Mon, 16 Nov 2009 22:17:41 +0000: > > Juan R. González-Álvarez <juanREM...@canonicalscience.com> wrote: > >>carlip-nospam wrote on Thu, 05 Nov 2009 21:56:23 +0000:
> >> > Could you please repost the specific journal reference?
> >> Only if you promise to stop asking me without even reading the stuff > >> *first*. The reference is
> >> Gravitational interaction in the relational approach 2008: Grav. and > >> Cosm. 14(1), 41???52. Vladimirov, Yu. S.
> > This is a pretty obscure journal, but I managed to track down a copy. > > The paper has nothing that addresses my question, though.
> > The problem with getting gravity as a "residual" electromagnetic > > interaction is simple: electromagnetism couples only to charge, while > > gravity couples to all forms of energy. Vladimirov attempts to get > > around this by positing that all matter is made up of elementary charged > > constituents with a fixed mass and a fixed charge-to-mass ratio (up to > > sign). A neutriono might, for example, be made up of two such > > constituents; a top quark might then be made of nine trillion -- though > > never nine trillion and one, by the exclusion principle. In this model, > > gravity couples to the square of the charge of the constituents.
> > The trouble is that we observe that gravity couples to *energy*. The > > electrostatic energy in a nucleus due to the repulsion of the consituent > > protons, for instance, contributes E/c^2 to the gravitational > > interaction, to an accuracy of a few parts in 10^12. The nuclear binding > > energy contributes (naegatively!) with the same accuracy. Energy of > > weak neutral currents, of magnetostatic interactions in the nucleus, of > > hyperfine interactions of nucleon spins, and of electron binding energy > > in atoms all contribute. So does *gravitational* binding energy.
> > Now, you might get away with a model in which, say, neutrinos are made > > of charge constituents. But the energy of electrostatic repulsion > > certainly isn't! And in Vladimirov's model, there is no apparent way -- > > and certainly no way the paper discusses -- to get that energy to couple > > to gravity.
> > (For that matter, it seems unlikely that the model can even get the > > deflection of light in a gravitational field. Light, in Vladimirov's > > model, is certainly not made of charged particles.)
> > So I repeat my question. If you want to describe gravity as a residual > > electromagnetic interaction, or more generally as something induced by > > electromagnetism, how do you reproduce the observed coupling of gravity > > to energy? > After your insistence asking me for a reference that I had given at least > two times, I copied and pasted again the reference for you with the promise > that you would stop from asking me idiotic questions. > But you ignored...
Because you cited a reference that didn't even vaguely address my questions.
> It is evidently posssible to explain how gravity couples to energy > (photons).
How, then? The reference you cited gives no such explanation. Nor does it address the deeper question of how to get induced gravity to couple to binding energy.
> There is not mistery about this and, of course, the result for light bending > is the same (up to the limits of current measurements) than in GR. > But, of course, I will not waste time explaining this research stuff to you.
OK, so you don't know. (Or you know the answer to this question, one that's puzzled people working on induced gravity for years, but it's a secret...)
These are nice articles (especially the LIving Reviews article) about induced gravity. Neither of them even hints that "gravitational waves [have been] EM waves all along."
And this is a nice article about why the simplistic formulation of gravity as a residual electromagnetic interaction *doesn't* work. Hint: look up the dependence of the van der Waals force on distance.
> These are nice articles (especially the LIving Reviews article) about > induced gravity. Neither of them even hints that "gravitational > waves [have been] EM waves all along."
> And this is a nice article about why the simplistic formulation of > gravity as a residual electromagnetic interaction *doesn't* work. > Hint: look up the dependence of the van der Waals force on > distance.
That is the false argument that Igor never offers support for.
Induction forces diminish by the square of the distance, in the far field, just as gravity does. That is the signature of a long range force.
Truncated potential
<<The exponent 12 was chosen exclusively because of ease of computation. The attractive long-range potential, however, is derived from dispersion interactions. >> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lennard-Jones_potential
> > These are nice articles (especially the LIving Reviews article) about > > induced gravity. Neither of them even hints that "gravitational > > waves [have been] EM waves all along."
> > And this is a nice article about why the simplistic formulation of > > gravity as a residual electromagnetic interaction *doesn't* work. > > Hint: look up the dependence of the van der Waals force on > > distance.
> That is the false argument that Igor never > offers support for.
> Induction forces diminish by the square of the distance, in the far > field, just as gravity does. That is the > signature of a long range force.
> Truncated potential
> <<The exponent 12 was chosen exclusively > because of ease of computation. > The attractive long-range potential, however, > is derived from dispersion interactions. >>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lennard-Jones_potential
> Sue...
> > Steve Carlip- Hide quoted text -
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
> - Show quoted text -
Light can be absorbed but a geometry wave cannot. That wave would flow around forever in the universe.
> Juan R. González-Álvarez <nowh...@canonicalscience.com> wrote: >> carlip-nospam wrote on Mon, 16 Nov 2009 22:17:41 +0000:
>> > Juan R. González-Álvarez <juanREM...@canonicalscience.com> wrote: >> >>carlip-nospam wrote on Thu, 05 Nov 2009 21:56:23 +0000:
>> >> > Could you please repost the specific journal reference?
>> >> Only if you promise to stop asking me without even reading the stuff >> >> *first*. The reference is
>> >> Gravitational interaction in the relational approach 2008: Grav. and >> >> Cosm. 14(1), 41???52. Vladimirov, Yu. S.
>> > This is a pretty obscure journal, but I managed to track down a copy. >> > The paper has nothing that addresses my question, though.
>> > The problem with getting gravity as a "residual" electromagnetic >> > interaction is simple: electromagnetism couples only to charge, while >> > gravity couples to all forms of energy. Vladimirov attempts to get >> > around this by positing that all matter is made up of elementary >> > charged constituents with a fixed mass and a fixed charge-to-mass >> > ratio (up to sign). A neutriono might, for example, be made up of >> > two such constituents; a top quark might then be made of nine >> > trillion -- though never nine trillion and one, by the exclusion >> > principle. In this model, gravity couples to the square of the >> > charge of the constituents.
>> > The trouble is that we observe that gravity couples to *energy*. The >> > electrostatic energy in a nucleus due to the repulsion of the >> > consituent protons, for instance, contributes E/c^2 to the >> > gravitational interaction, to an accuracy of a few parts in 10^12. >> > The nuclear binding energy contributes (naegatively!) with the same >> > accuracy. Energy of weak neutral currents, of magnetostatic >> > interactions in the nucleus, of hyperfine interactions of nucleon >> > spins, and of electron binding energy in atoms all contribute. So >> > does *gravitational* binding energy.
>> > Now, you might get away with a model in which, say, neutrinos are >> > made of charge constituents. But the energy of electrostatic >> > repulsion certainly isn't! And in Vladimirov's model, there is no >> > apparent way -- and certainly no way the paper discusses -- to get >> > that energy to couple to gravity.
>> > (For that matter, it seems unlikely that the model can even get the >> > deflection of light in a gravitational field. Light, in Vladimirov's >> > model, is certainly not made of charged particles.)
>> > So I repeat my question. If you want to describe gravity as a >> > residual electromagnetic interaction, or more generally as something >> > induced by electromagnetism, how do you reproduce the observed >> > coupling of gravity to energy?
>> After your insistence asking me for a reference that I had given at >> least two times, I copied and pasted again the reference for you with >> the promise that you would stop from asking me idiotic questions.
>> But you ignored...
> Because you cited a reference that didn't even vaguely address my > questions.
>> It is evidently posssible to explain how gravity couples to energy >> (photons).
> How, then? The reference you cited gives no such explanation. Nor > does it address the deeper question of how to get induced gravity to > couple to binding energy.
The reference *defines* unambiguously the theory of gravity. Author, referees, and editor did not considered that the author would do the homework for you, neither I do.
>> There is not mistery about this and, of course, the result for light >> bending is the same (up to the limits of current measurements) than in >> GR.
>> But, of course, I will not waste time explaining this research stuff to >> you.
> OK, so you don't know. (Or you know the answer to this question, one > that's puzzled people working on induced gravity for years, but it's a > secret...)
Unability to read, conspiracy theories, secretism, and ignorance of well-known results are rather typical of crackpots.
> These are nice articles (especially the LIving Reviews article) about > induced gravity. Neither of them even hints that "gravitational > waves [have been] EM waves all along."
> And this is a nice article about why the simplistic formulation of > gravity as a residual electromagnetic interaction *doesn't* work. > Hint: look up the dependence of the van der Waals force on > distance.
> Steve Carlip
Steven I agree the Van der Waals is an upper level effect with nil association with gravitation, however I do find gravitation is a residual effect in GR as magnetism is in SR as per this brief, http://physics.trak4.com/GR_Charge_Couple.pdf
I believe it is the responsibility for a skilled GR theoretician to have sufficient curiosity to opine the application of the EFE's to the energy stored in a Charge Couple, and publish the findings, especially as it relates to gravity.
Should you (Steven) ever perform such an analysis, please inform me via email, **** dynamics (at) uniserve.com **** Regards Ken S. Tucker
|
