Measurement of Gravitomagnetic and Acceleration Fields Around Rotating Superconductors
Sue...
<<Since the measurements of WMAP (Spergel et al., 2003), we
know that the universe is best described as being flat
and it has a non-zero cosmological constant Λ. A well known
cosmological consequence is the observed
acceleration of the expansion of the universe. Under these
circumstances, gravity can be very well described by a
first-order approximation or linearization of Einstein's general
relativity theory. Nearly all assessments up to now
only considered standard general relativity with no
cosmological constant. This leads to the so-called Einstein-
Maxwell equations, splitting gravity into gravitoelectric and
gravitomagnetic (or frame-dragging) fields very similar
to electromagnetism (Forward, 1961; Tajmar and de Matos, 2001).
This has therefore been dubbed
gravitoelectromagnetism. However, measurements such as
WMAP tell us that this is not the complete description as
we are missing the influence of the cosmological constant.
Linearizing Einstein's equation including Λ leads to a set
of equations which are very similar to the Proca equations
that describe massive spin-1 fields (e.g. including the
effect of a massive photon in electromagnetism)
(Tajmar, 2006; Argyris and Ciubotariu, 1997; de Matos, 2006).
The presence of a cosmological constant can be therefore
interpreted as a consequence of a massive graviton (or at least
a "spin-1" like graviton). >>
-- M. Tajmar, F. Plesescu, B. Seifert, K. Marhold
http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0610015
Gravitational Properties of Superconductors
--Forschung & Entwicklung
http://www.functional-materials.at/rd/rd_spa_gravitationalproperties_de.html
GP-B Scientific Papers
http://einstein.stanford.edu/content/sci_papers/
-----------
Sue...
Eric Gisse
> <<Since the measurements of WMAP (Spergel et al., 2003), we
> know that the universe is best described as being flat
> cosmological consequence is the observed
> acceleration of the expansion of the universe. Under these
> circumstances, gravity can be very well described by a
> first-order approximation or linearization of Einstein's general
> relativity theory. Nearly all assessments up to now
> only considered standard general relativity with no
> cosmological constant. This leads to the so-called Einstein-
> Maxwell equations, splitting gravity into gravitoelectric and
> gravitomagnetic (or frame-dragging) fields very similar
> to electromagnetism (Forward, 1961; Tajmar and de Matos, 2001).
> This has therefore been dubbed
> gravitoelectromagnetism. However, measurements such as
> WMAP tell us that this is not the complete description as
> we are missing the influence of the cosmological constant.
This is for the benefit of those who can learn - the linearized
version of general relativity is not cosmologically applicable as the
assumption is that the manifold is Minkowski plus a perturbation,
which is obviously not the case for FRW cosmologies.
> Linearizing Einstein's equation including Ë leads to a set
> of equations which are very similar to the Proca equations
> that describe massive spin-1 fields (e.g. including the
> effect of a massive photon in electromagnetism)
> (Tajmar, 2006; Argyris and Ciubotariu, 1997; de Matos, 2006).
BZZT, wrong. The linearized equations do NOT look like Proca's
equations.
> The presence of a cosmological constant can be therefore
> interpreted as a consequence of a massive graviton (or at least
> a "spin-1" like graviton). >>
BZZT, wrong. The graviton is spin two.
> -- M. Tajmar, F. Plesescu, B. Seifert, K. Marholdhttp://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0610015
>
> Gravitational Properties of Superconductors
> --Forschung & Entwicklunghttp://www.functional-materials.at/rd/rd_spa_gravitationalproperties_...
>
> GP-B Scientific Papershttp://einstein.stanford.edu/content/sci_papers/
>
> -----------
>
> Sue...
Why even post this?
Sue...
[...]
> Why even post this?
...just some motivation for you to study
some more electrodynamics.
http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teaching/em/lectures/lectures.html
http://web.mit.edu/8.02t/www/802TEAL3D/visualizations/light/index.htm
http://www.ee.surrey.ac.uk/Personal/D.Jefferies/antennas.html
You are less like an imbecile, but still very much an
imbecile without it.
Sue...
Eric Gisse
> On Apr 21, 4:22 am, Eric Gisse <jowr...@gmail.com> wrote:
> [...]
>
> > Why even post this?
>
> ...just some motivation for you to study
> some more electrodynamics.
>
>
> You are less like an imbecile, but still very much an
> imbecile without it.
>
> Sue...
Sure - respond to my trite one liner instead of the legit points.
greysky
"Sue..." <suzyse...@yahoo.com.au> wrote in message
news:fa1d894f-5bb5-4f3b...@d1g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
<<Since the measurements of WMAP (Spergel et al., 2003), we
know that the universe is best described as being flat
and it has a non-zero cosmological constant Ë. A well known
cosmological consequence is the observed
acceleration of the expansion of the universe. Under these
circumstances, gravity can be very well described by a
first-order approximation or linearization of Einstein's general
relativity theory. Nearly all assessments up to now
only considered standard general relativity with no
cosmological constant. This leads to the so-called Einstein-
Maxwell equations, splitting gravity into gravitoelectric and
gravitomagnetic (or frame-dragging) fields very similar
to electromagnetism (Forward, 1961; Tajmar and de Matos, 2001).
This has therefore been dubbed
gravitoelectromagnetism. However, measurements such as
WMAP tell us that this is not the complete description as
we are missing the influence of the cosmological constant.
Linearizing Einstein's equation including Ë leads to a set
of equations which are very similar to the Proca equations
that describe massive spin-1 fields (e.g. including the
effect of a massive photon in electromagnetism)
(Tajmar, 2006; Argyris and Ciubotariu, 1997; de Matos, 2006).
The presence of a cosmological constant can be therefore
interpreted as a consequence of a massive graviton (or at least
a "spin-1" like graviton). >>
-- M. Tajmar, F. Plesescu, B. Seifert, K. Marhold
http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0610015
Gravitational Properties of Superconductors
--Forschung & Entwicklung
http://www.functional-materials.at/rd/rd_spa_gravitationalproperties_de.html
GP-B Scientific Papers
http://einstein.stanford.edu/content/sci_papers/
-----------
Sue...
***************
Ahhh.... but try writing a set of linearized field equations that are
lorentz invairant, too... gravitoelectromagnetism doesn't just fall out as a
natural consequence...too bad.
Sue...
[...]
>
> Ahhh.... but try writing a set of linearized field equations that are
> lorentz invairant, too... gravitoelectromagnetism doesn't just fall out as a
> natural consequence...too bad.
Are equations for London forces Lorentz invariant?
http://www.research.ibm.com/grape/grape_ewald.htm
http://prola.aps.org/abstract/PRA/v7/i6/p1832_1
http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/print/19076
Sue...
Mike
Hello again imbecile. Why don't you give up demonstrating your
stupidity?
Spin-1 graviton couples to everything but not to itself, while a
spin-2 graviton couples to everything and to itself.
Spin-1 gravitons are graviscalars or graviphotons. There is also the
spin-3/2 gravitino. These particles result from supersymmetry. Spin-2
graviton is a bound state of two spin-1 gravitons.
Mike
>
> > -- M. Tajmar, F. Plesescu, B. Seifert, K. Marholdhttp://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0610015
>
> > Gravitational Properties of Superconductors
> > --Forschung & Entwicklunghttp://www.functional-materials.at/rd/rd_spa_gravitationalproperties_...
>
> > GP-B Scientific Papershttp://einstein.stanford.edu/content/sci_papers/
>
> > -----------
>
> > Sue...
>
> Why even post this?- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
greysky
Sue...
************
A set of gravitomagnetic and gravitoelectric forces can be derived from Van
der wall forces? As far as the articles you cite, especially the physics
world article, perhaps symmetry breaking is what is being measured with
spinning superconductors. It's an exciting possibility if true - I really
wanna buy a Jetsons gravicar.
Greysky
Sue...
> "Sue..." <suzysewns...@yahoo.com.au> wrote in message
If the car can be constructed with just a few atoms I don't
see why not:
http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0204024
Sue...
>
> Greysky