Anti-gravitational effects demonstrated using a Van De Graaf generator
frank...@yahoo.com
using only a Van De Graff generator. My theories of gravity indicate
that gravity is caused nothing more than strong positive electric
field generated by the Earth. It does this because all bodies of mass
have a slight charge displacement toward the positive. If this is
true, then the Earth is nothing more than a positively charged ball.
Anything which is sufficiently positively charged should be repelled
from the surface of the Earth and anything negatively charged should
be attracted.
A Van De Graff generator provides an easy method of generating
positive and negative charges. As a test object, I used the lightest
thing I could find which is a soap bubble generated by a hand held
bubble generator. I elevated myself on an insulating platform and
touched the positively charged dome of the generator to positively
charge myself and my bubble machine. I then released the bubbles.
If my theory is correct, the positively charged bubble should rise
against the positive field generated by the Earth. The result of this
simple experiment was that some of the bubbles did in fact rise up to
the ceiling instead of dropping to the floor! This is anti-gravity at
work - the ability to levitate objects against the pull of gravity. I
made sure the bubble machine was as far away from the generator as
possible, so as to not be influenced by the field generated by the Van
De Graff generator.
As a control, I turned everyting off and grounded myself. I ran the
bubble machine again and verified that all of the bubbles dropped to
the ground and none behaved like the ones that went to the ceiling.
As a further test, I measured how long it took for the bubbles to drop
to the floor. It took about 10 seconds. My theory also predicts that
if you charge something negatively, it will be attracted more strongly
to the Earth - or super gravity. I reversed the terminals on my Van De
Graff generator and held on to the negative generating terminal and
repeated the experiment. The result was that the bubbles dropped
significantly faster when negatively charged - about 7 seconds to
drop.
The implications of this simple test cannot be underestimated. If I
can put enough positive charge on a soap bubble to make it rise
against the pull of the Earth, then it should be theoretically
possible to lift anything off of the Earth if you can charge it with a
sufficiently high positive charge. Not only will it lift off, but it
will accelerate or fall 'up' with no further input of energy. It will
be repelled off the Earth by the repulsion of similar charges. This
could make space travel and flying cars routine.
Now, just how this simple observation could have gone unnoticed for so
long is beyond me. I welcome your comments on the discovery of this
simple anti-gravitational effect.
-fhugravity
frank...@yahoo.com
Congratulations on your experiment. Hm... sounds like a job for
Mythbusters
and their PG&E dome of electricity. I want to see Adam stuck to the
ceiling!
Seems like there could still be a bunch of things going on. What kind
of
distance are we talking? If the distance is substantial - several
feet -
it's unlikely to be repelling such a tiny charge regardless of whether
the
floor or gravity is charged. The weight is too light to say it's
definitely
one thing or another. I'm glad you tried to reverse the field, but
just the
air motion in the room could account for the difference. Go try it
outdoors
and you'll see some bubbles go up and some go down. If the distance
is very
small, then it can probably be explained not by gravity but by the
simple
fact that the generator is truly generating a charge separation
between the
ground and your bubble - gravity isn't involved.
I also agree that I don't think anyone could have overlooked this
effect
before, so there must be an alternative explanation. Ben used to work
for
Boeing testing the effects of electricity on planes and you should
check
with him. They should have seen a similar effect for small loose
objects
which had been subjected to a huge electric field. They would have
seen
hammers flying around the room if this is true. Think about that
little
platform lifter on Mythbusters -- looks like antigravity but they
determined
it was a current of air.
To get beyond these small explanations you need to demonstrate
something
substantial. These tiny effects could be caused by something like
heat,
breath, your furnace, etc. If you could actually lift something
substantial
- even a few ounces - then you could have a real discussion. I assume
you
already sent this to everyone in the known scientific universe. I
would
have recommended you get to the stage of something heavier before
going to
real experts. Don't be another Fleischmann and Pons w/cold fusion.
frank...@yahoo.com
> <Response by George H>
>
> Congratulations on your experiment. Hm... sounds like a job for
> Mythbusters
> and their PG&E dome of electricity. I want to see Adam stuck to the
> ceiling!
>
> Seems like there could still be a bunch of things going on. What kind
> of
> distance are we talking?
Which direction are you referring to? The room I was experimenting in
has 10 foot ceilings. The bubble generator was held about a 6 foot
level and was at least 4 feet away from the generator. The bubbles
that burst on the ceiling travelled at least 4 feet up.
If the distance is substantial - several
> feet -
> it's unlikely to be repelling such a tiny charge regardless of whether
> the
> floor or gravity is charged.
I don't understand what you are saying here. A charged bubble will
respond to any electrostatic field.
The weight is too light to say it's
> definitely
> one thing or another. I'm glad you tried to reverse the field, but
> just the
> air motion in the room could account for the difference.
This is where the control experiment without the generator is
important. It could have been air motion, but there is was no air
movement in the room I was in. If you just run the bubbles, they drop
to the ground showing that the bubbles needed to be charged in order
to head to the ceiling.
Go try it
> outdoors
> and you'll see some bubbles go up and some go down. If the distance
> is very
> small, then it can probably be explained not by gravity but by the
> simple
> fact that the generator is truly generating a charge separation
> between the
> ground and your bubble - gravity isn't involved.
>
In thinking about what actually happened during the experiment, you
see that when the bubbles are positively charged, they spread out very
quickly due to the bubbles repelling each other. It still might be
that the bubbles might still have been repelled by the charge on my
body, but the bubbles did seem to rise quite high and away from me. I
will have to do more testing to exclude this possibility.
However, a key part of the experiment was the field reversal. In this
case, the bubbles do not fly away from each other and they drop to the
floor in a very similar manner as the uncharged case. In this case,
there is very little to explain why the bubbles would be attracted to
the floor since the negative terminal of my Van De Graff generator is
connected to the bottom of the unit and would have charged the floor
negatively. If anything, the bubbles should have been repelled. So the
only explaination for their faster drop is that the negatively charged
bubbles were attracted to the floor because of the Earth's positive
field coming from the floor.
> I also agree that I don't think anyone could have overlooked this
> effect
> before, so there must be an alternative explanation. Ben used to work
> for
> Boeing testing the effects of electricity on planes and you should
> check
> with him. They should have seen a similar effect for small loose
> objects
> which had been subjected to a huge electric field. They would have
> seen
> hammers flying around the room if this is true.
The problem with generating large electric charges on objects it that
the air dissipates any charge fairly quickly. So I don't think we have
seen any effects due to the fact that we currently cannot concentrate
enough charge on an object. We would need to engineer some kind of
bottle that can retain extremely high charge displacements to see a
substantial effect.
It could be that this effect has limited potential since it may not be
practical to contain large charges, however, even a small fractional
reduction in weight could have tremendous implications. For example,
if you could make an airliner 1% lighter on takeoff, this could save
huge amounts of fuel. Similarly, if you could reduce the weight of a
rocket ship 1% on takeoff, that would also be a substantial savings.
Think about that
> little
> platform lifter on Mythbusters -- looks like antigravity but they
> determined
> it was a current of air.
>
To be antigravity, it has to work in opposition to the direction of
force of gravity by neutralizing or reversing the effects of gravity.
If the electrostatic model of gravity is correct, then gravity is not
an all attractive force, it can be a repelling force if you present
the field with a positively charged object.
> To get beyond these small explanations you need to demonstrate
> something
> substantial. These tiny effects could be caused by something like
> heat,
> breath, your furnace, etc. If you could actually lift something
> substantial
> - even a few ounces - then you could have a real discussion. I assume
> you
> already sent this to everyone in the known scientific universe. I
> would
> have recommended you get to the stage of something heavier before
> going to
> real experts. Don't be another Fleischmann and Pons w/cold fusion.
I am already planning on more experiments to see if I can lift
something more substantial or at least show a significant reduction in
weight. The trick will be to charge up without dissipating the charge
to the air.
So far, this has only been posted to the sci.physics group.
Considering I just announced that I reversed gravity, I would have
thought that it would have generated some reponse. Instead it
generated no response at all - stunned silence. Everyone out there
must agree with me :)
Sue...
one of Einstein's goals so it was not overlooked.
You need to consider induction forces that can ~penetrate~
a body and distribute their force throughout its volume.
http://www.chem.purdue.edu/gchelp/liquids/inddip.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Optical_tweezers
http://www.mypage.bluewin.ch/Bizarre/GRAV.htm
http://einstein.stanford.edu/
http://www.esa.int/SPECIALS/GSP/SEM0L6OVGJE_0.html
http://www.research.ibm.com/grape/grape_ewald.htm
http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/physics/laureates/1921/einstein-lecture.html
Sue...
>
> -fhugravity
frank...@yahoo.com
>
> Unification of the Coulomb force with the gravitational force was
> one of Einstein's goals so it was not overlooked.
>
I would imagine it has not, but I haven't seen any references on the
web or the physics book that I have that directly address this
question. I was looking for something like "Why gravity can't be the
electrostatic force", but I find almost nothing in the literature or
the web. I would have liked to see how Einstein approched the Colomb
force = Gravity force problem and why he did not succeed. So far,
everything I have seen would not preclude Columb = Gravity. When you
really start to experiment with the Coulomb force, you see all kinds
of weird things happening that go way beyond simple attraction/
replulsion of charges. I really don't think we have a real good
understanding of the interactions that are possible and so I think we
have naively ruled out the most obvious possiblity for gravity being
the electrostatic force.
Sue...
The Coulomb force is about 10^32 times
greater than the gravitational force
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/electric/elefor.html
So we have to consider derivative mechanisms
like magnetism, which *is* unified.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiple_integrals#Some_practical_applications
...but that is anisotropic. So we can still explore higher order
derivatives
where computers work better than equations:
http://www.research.ibm.com/grape/grape_ewald.htm
Sue...
carlip...@physics.ucdavis.edu
[...]
> I was looking for something like "Why gravity can't be the
> electrostatic force", but I find almost nothing in the literature
> or the web.
The simplest reason is this: in gravity, all masses attract, while
in electrostatics, like charges repel.
For example, the Earth ands the Moon attract, so in an electrostatic
model, they must have opposite charges. The Earth and the Sun
attract, so they, too, must have opposite charges. But that would
make the charge of the Moon the same sign as the charge of the Sun,
so they would repel. This does not happen -- the Moon's orbit
very clearly shows that it is attracted by both the Earth and the
Sun.
(Or for a more dramatic example, what "charge" would you ascribe to
the Apollo 11 lunar lander? It was attracted to the Earth -- they
didn't have to scrape it off the ceiling during assembly -- so it
must have had the opposite charge from the Earth. But the Moon is
also attracted to the Earth, and must also have the opposite charge
from the Earth. Why, then, wasn't the lunar lander repelled from
the Moon?)
Steve Carlip
Ben Newsam
carlip...@physics.ucdavis.edu wrote:
>Why, then, wasn't the lunar lander repelled from
>the Moon?)
Because there wasn't a huge bloke standing next to it with one hand on
a Van de Graaff generator.
frank...@yahoo.com
> The Coulomb force is about 10^32 times
> greater than the gravitational forcehttp://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/electric/elefor.html
All this means is that if you took a pound of protons and compared the
force generated by that to the force generated by a pound of neutral
matter, you'd see this big difference. But the nature of the force is
very similar. The reason why gravity is so weak is because it is
nothing more than a diluted electrostatic force. If you took 10^32
neutral atoms and plucked out one electron, that mass would generate a
force with exactly the same magnitude as gravity. I believe this is
exactly what is happening. So I've completely explained the
differences in force magnitude without resorting to multiple hidden
dimensions as is the fashion these days. The difference in force
strength is no indicator of a different nature.
To put it another way, if you take a drop of red dye and dillute it
into a 100 gallons, the difference in shade between the concentrated
red dye and the dillute water does not mean that the red dye in the
100 gallons is different just because it has a lighter shade. It is
still exactly the same thing. You wouldn't say that the shade of color
in the 100 gallons is 10^32 times lighter than the original red drop,
therefore, it cannot be caused by the same thing.
Sue...
> > The Coulomb force is about 10^32 times
> > greater than the gravitational forcehttp://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/electric/elefor.html
>
> All this means is that if you took a pound of protons and compared the
> force generated by that to the force generated by a pound of neutral
> matter, you'd see this big difference.
Where do you find a pound of protons?
> But the nature of the force is
> very similar.
Yes...
Both are isotropic and diminish by 1/r^2
> The reason why gravity is so weak is because it is
> nothing more than a diluted electrostatic force.
It that the reason magnetic force and London force it
weaker than Coulomb force ?
> If you took 10^32
> neutral atoms and plucked out one electron, that mass would generate a
> force with exactly the same magnitude as gravity.
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=tate+mass+anomaly&btnG=Google+Search
> I believe this is
> exactly what is happening. So I've completely explained the
> differences in force magnitude without resorting to multiple hidden
> dimensions as is the fashion these days. The difference in force
> strength is no indicator of a different nature.
I don't know that is considered "fashionable". If a mathmatician
needs more sheets to scribble on, there is no law to prevent it.
The readers of the work judge whether the calculations are
logically grouped on an approprate number of sheets.
>
> To put it another way, if you take a drop of red dye and dillute it
> into a 100 gallons, the difference in shade between the concentrated
> red dye and the dillute water does not mean that the red dye in the
> 100 gallons is different just because it has a lighter shade. It is
> still exactly the same thing. You wouldn't say that the shade of color
> in the 100 gallons is 10^32 times lighter than the original red drop,
> therefore, it cannot be caused by the same thing.
Indeed... Can you see the same *dilution* where the Coulomb
force is ~diluted~ by the superposition of moving charges?
The result is magnetic force in the nearfield,
light in the farfield, and the patterns are anisotropic.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiple_integral#Some_practical_applications
Sue...
Time-independent Maxwell equations
Time-dependent Maxwell's equations
http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teaching/em/lectures/lectures.html
http://web.mit.edu/8.02t/www/802TEAL3D/teal_tour.htm
frank...@yahoo.com
> frankli...@yahoo.com wrote:
>
> [...]
>
> > I was looking for something like "Why gravity can't be the
> > electrostatic force", but I find almost nothing in the literature
> > or the web.
>
> The simplest reason is this: in gravity, all masses attract, while
> in electrostatics, like charges repel.
>
This is too simplistic. The main attractive force caused by an
electrostatic gravity is the attraction of neutrally charged matter to
a point electrostatic force. This is called the dielectrophoretic
force and is cause by the separation of charges within neutrally
charged matter. This is the same force that allows a charged balloon
to pick up neutrally charged bits of paper.
Since gravity is caused by an overall positive electrostatic charge on
an object, this would mean that all astronomical objects like the
Earth and Moon would be positively charged. They do not repel each
other since most of the mass (99.999999999%) of astronomical objects
is still neutrally charged. The neutrally charged matter is still
attracted to any strong electrostatic force (like that coming from the
Earth). The attraction of the neutrally charged matter (99% attracted)
overwhelms the repulsion created by the tiny amount of charged matter
(10^-38% repelled). So similarly charged objects, do not necessarily
repel. The net force is the result of the attraction of the neutral
matter versus the repelling of the similarly charged matter. So the
Earth and Moon can both be net positively charged, but still attract.
The Lunar lander is attracted to both the Earth and the Moon because
it is neutrally charged and is attracted to the positive electrostatic
force generated by both the Earth and Moon.
The assertion that gravity is all attractive is what I disproved with
my VDG experiment. Positively charged mass is repelled from a
gravitational field. So gravity can be a repelling force.
What other objections do you have against the gravity=electrostatic
theory? As a professor I would be interested in your serious input on
this matter. Please try to go beyond the simplistic answers. I took a
look at your web site - very interesting.
Sue...
> On Jan 31, 1:18 pm, carlip-nos...@physics.ucdavis.edu wrote:
>
> > frankli...@yahoo.com wrote:
>
[...]
>
> > > I was looking for something like "Why gravity can't be the
> > > electrostatic force", but I find almost nothing in the literature
> > > or the web.
>
> > The simplest reason is this: in gravity, all masses attract, while
> > in electrostatics, like charges repel.
>
> This is too simplistic. The main attractive force caused by an
> electrostatic gravity is the attraction of neutrally charged matter to
> a point electrostatic force. This is called the dielectrophoretic
> force and is cause by the separation of charges within neutrally
> charged matter. This is the same force that allows a charged balloon
> to pick up neutrally charged bits of paper.
'Tho I am considerate of induced dipole mechanisms like
dielectorphoresis, I am skeptical that your experiment
is actually an example of the effect. Aren't the domains
normally in the micron range?
Sue...
[...]
Timo A. Nieminen
> On Jan 31, 1:18 pm, carlip-nos...@physics.ucdavis.edu wrote:
>> frankli...@yahoo.com wrote:
>>
>> [...]
>>
>>> I was looking for something like "Why gravity can't be the
>>> electrostatic force", but I find almost nothing in the literature
>>> or the web.
>>
>> The simplest reason is this: in gravity, all masses attract, while
>> in electrostatics, like charges repel.
>
> This is too simplistic. The main attractive force caused by an
> electrostatic gravity is the attraction of neutrally charged matter to
> a point electrostatic force. This is called the dielectrophoretic
> force and is cause by the separation of charges within neutrally
> charged matter. This is the same force that allows a charged balloon
> to pick up neutrally charged bits of paper.
... and, since the charged object has a Coulomb field, which falls off as
1/r^2, and dielectrophoretic forces depend on the gradient [1] of the
field, they fall off as 1/r^3. Contradicted by direct experimental
measurement of gravitational forces and celestial mechanics.
Yes, you can get electrostatic attraction even between two neutral bodies,
but that tends to fall off as 1/r^6 or faster. Look up van der Waals
forces.
[1] In this case, take the derivative wrt r. If including the effect of
higher-order multipole moments induced in the neutral matter (ie higher
than dipole), then the force will fall off even faster than 1/r^3.
--
Timo Nieminen - Home page: http://www.physics.uq.edu.au/people/nieminen/
E-prints: http://eprint.uq.edu.au/view/person/Nieminen,_Timo_A..html
Shrine to Spirits: http://www.users.bigpond.com/timo_nieminen/spirits.html
frank...@yahoo.com
>
> - Show quoted text -
I would imagine the domains are actually in the atomic range. Every
hydrogen atom in your body should be responding to the local electric
field causing every hydrogen atom to separate into dipoles with the
negative side pointing down and the positive side pointing up. With
NMR technology, I would imagine it should be possible to prove this
state of affairs. Anybody hear about NMR results which depend on the
orientation of the machine with respect to the Earth? For example, it
should be much easier to polarize the hydrogen atoms in your body
along the vertical axis since most of them would already be positioned
that way.
The main effect of the experiment was to show that a positively
charged mass will rise in the presence of a gravitational field. This
is what you need to be skeptical about. If you doubt it, what else
could be happening to cause the bubbles to defy gravity?
frank...@yahoo.com
> ... and, since the charged object has a Coulomb field, which falls off as
> 1/r^2, and dielectrophoretic forces depend on the gradient [1] of the
> field, they fall off as 1/r^3. Contradicted by direct experimental
> measurement of gravitational forces and celestial mechanics.
>
This is where calculations fail
Show me a real physical experiment showing the force falls off as 1/
r^3 as calculated.
I did do a physical experiment to determine the force relationship
between a neutral body and a charged source. The result was a
suprising 1/r relationship. Not 1/r^2 or 1/r^3, but 1/r. The
calculated 1/r^3 fails experimental tests. We do not understand very
well the true nature of how the electrostatic field works.
See:
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/msg/79933608216e76d1
I haven't proven that somehow the force ends up as 1/r^2 for
astronomical objects. But between the 1/r attraction and the 1/r^2
repulsion and the general unknowns, I don't think that it is
impossible for it to end up looking like a 1/r^2 force.
I have shown that an attractive force can exist between even 2
positively charged bodies and I have previously shown to you that if
you calculate the force generated by the Earth's electric field, you
do get something close to the force of gravity.
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.electromag/msg/78fdd226a65265ab
With my VDG experiment, I have confirmed the polarity of the Earth's
field and showed that positively charged masses can defy gravity.
Even if gravity is not caused by the electric field, this is still a
useful observation because it can still be used to resist the force of
gravity.
> Yes, you can get electrostatic attraction even between two neutral bodies,
> but that tends to fall off as 1/r^6 or faster. Look up van der Waals
> forces.
>
> [1] In this case, take the derivative wrt r. If including the effect of
> higher-order multipole moments induced in the neutral matter (ie higher
> than dipole), then the force will fall off even faster than 1/r^3.
>
> --
> Timo Nieminen - Home page:http://www.physics.uq.edu.au/people/nieminen/
> E-prints:http://eprint.uq.edu.au/view/person/Nieminen,_Timo_A..html
> Shrine to Spirits:http://www.users.bigpond.com/timo_nieminen/spirits.html- Hide quoted text -
carlip...@physics.ucdavis.edu
> On Jan 31, 1:18 pm, carlip-nos...@physics.ucdavis.edu wrote:
>> frankli...@yahoo.com wrote:
>> [...]
>> > I was looking for something like "Why gravity can't be the
>> > electrostatic force", but I find almost nothing in the literature
>> > or the web.
>> The simplest reason is this: in gravity, all masses attract, while
>> in electrostatics, like charges repel.
> This is too simplistic. The main attractive force caused by an
> electrostatic gravity is the attraction of neutrally charged matter to
> a point electrostatic force. This is called the dielectrophoretic
> force and is cause by the separation of charges within neutrally
> charged matter. This is the same force that allows a charged balloon
> to pick up neutrally charged bits of paper.
This is not an inverse square force -- it goes, I believe, as the
inverse fifth power of distance. If you want to get an inverse square
attraction from an electrostatic interaction, you are restricted to
the direct Coulomb interaction between two opposite charges; all other
interactions are based on dipole and higher moments, and fall off more
strongly than an inverse square.
[...]
> What other objections do you have against the gravity=electrostatic
> theory? As a professor I would be interested in your serious input on
> this matter. Please try to go beyond the simplistic answers.
Among the more obvious ones:
1. Light is does not interact electromagnetically -- not just no charge,
but no dipole or higher multipole moments -- but it is observed to be
deflected by gravitational fields.
2. An electrostatic description would violate the equivalence principle.
We observe that materials with very different electrical properties
fall with exactly the same accelerations. This has been tested with
such substances as glass, cork, and brass in Eotvos's early experiments,
and platinum, beryllium, aluminum, lead, alnico magnets, samarium cobalt
magnets with highly polarized electrons, and single crystal silicon in
more recent ones. There is no reason for an electrostatic model to
produce exactly the same accelerations -- typically measured to a part
in 10^11 or so -- in all of these cases. (Certainly attraction based on
dielectric characteristics, as you are proposing, will depend strongly
on the dielectric constant, which differs from substance to substance,
and, in fact, on the shape and internal structure of the falling body.)
3. We observe that many forms of energy -- electrostatic energy, nuclear
binding energy, energy of weak interactions, even kinetic energy of
electrons in atoms -- gravitate. But these do not interact with electric
fields.
4. We observe that *gravitational* potential energy gravitates. (Look up the
Nordtvedt effect in the Earth-Moon orbit). This implies that gravity must
be nonlinear. Electromagnetism isn't.
5. Gravity is observed to affect the rate of clocks -- including atomic
clocks, clocks based on weak interactions, and even "mechanical clocks"
(e.g., rotating neutron stars). Electrical interactions do not; and
if one could contrive an effect on a particular kind of clock, there
would be no reason to expect it to work for others based on different
physical principles.
6. Binary pulsar systems slowly decay by emitting gravitational waves.
(Hulse and Taylor won the 1993 Physics Nobel Prize for this discovery.)
The observations show that gravitational waves couple to the mass
quadrupole moment. Electric fields, on the other hand, couple first
to dipole moments; this would lead to *much* stronger radiation,
contradicting observation.
Please keep in mind that there is a great deal more to gravity than an
inverse square force. There is, to begin with, the equivalence principle
-- the observed fact that objects fall with exactly the same acceleration,
regardless of their masses, shapes, structures, or compositions. There are
also a large number of observations testing general relativity, that go far
beyond an inverse square law -- deflection of light in a gravitational field,
Shapiro time delay, advance of the perihelia of a number of Solar System
bodies (most famously Mercury) and neutron stars, gravitational time dilation
and red shift, the de Sitter precession of the Earth-Moon system, the
gravitational radiation reaction in binary pulsar systems. A new theory
has to at least attempt to address these results, if it is to be taken
seriously.
Steve Carlip
Sue...
While you read about Van der Waals forces as Timo has suggested
take some notice of the size of the aperture that charges are
superpositioned from. That dictates the attenuaions quoted like 1/
r^2, 1/r^3, 1/r^6.
They are not balloon sized domains but atomic and molecule sized
domains.
>
> The main effect of the experiment was to show that a positively
> charged mass will rise in the presence of a gravitational field. This
> is what you need to be skeptical about. If you doubt it, what else
> could be happening to cause the bubbles to defy gravity?
Defying gravity is not the same as duplicating or manipulating
its mechanism. The Coulomb force of your experiment can easily
defy gravity with 10^32 times the force but if it duplicated gravity
the force would be only 1 times the gravitational force.
Sue...
Sue...
> Among the more obvious ones:
>
> 1. Light is does not interact electromagnetically -- not just no charge,
> but no dipole or higher multipole moments -- but it is observed to be
> deflected by gravitational fields.
Can you clarify if you are assuming a particle light model?
Sue...
[...]
> Steve Carlip
carlip...@physics.ucdavis.edu
[...]
>> This is too simplistic. The main attractive force caused by an
>> electrostatic gravity is the attraction of neutrally charged matter to
>> a point electrostatic force. This is called the dielectrophoretic
>> force and is cause by the separation of charges within neutrally
>> charged matter. This is the same force that allows a charged balloon
>> to pick up neutrally charged bits of paper.
> ... and, since the charged object has a Coulomb field, which falls off as
> 1/r^2, and dielectrophoretic forces depend on the gradient [1] of the
> field, they fall off as 1/r^3. Contradicted by direct experimental
> measurement of gravitational forces and celestial mechanics.
I thnk it's faster than 1/r^3. You would get a 1/r^3 force on a fixed
dipole in an external field, but here, the external field is also
polarizing the object it's acting on, so the dipole moment itself goes
as the external field. This gives a net 1/r^5 force. (This agrees
with Wikipedia, for what it's worth, which gives the force as being
proportional to the gradient of the square of the external field.)
> Yes, you can get electrostatic attraction even between two neutral bodies,
> but that tends to fall off as 1/r^6 or faster. Look up van der Waals
> forces.
1/r^7, I think. The potential energy for a van der Waals interaction
goes as 1/r^6.
Steve Carlip
carlip...@physics.ucdavis.edu
It makes no difference -- I am talking about observations, not models.
We observe that light is deflected by gravity, and we observe that
light does not interact with electric fields (except for *extremely*
tiny quantum effects that have only very recently become measurable,
and are nowhere close to the gravitational interactions).
Steve Carlip
frank...@yahoo.com
Thank you for your reply. This is one of the best lists of why
gravity != electrostatics that I have seen. You have given me food for
thought, and I have solutions for some of these:
> Among the more obvious ones:
>
> 1. Light is does not interact electromagnetically -- not just no charge,
> but no dipole or higher multipole moments -- but it is observed to be
> deflected by gravitational fields.
Yes, light is deflected by gravitational fields. In order to
understand why, you need to understand more about my overall model of
the universe which does include an aether. The aether is made up of
positron/electron pairs and is very similar to normal matter in that
it forms atomic dipoles and these are attracted to gravitational
(electrostatic) field. With higher gravity, it compresses the aether
like water deep in the ocean and causes the aether to become denser.
Since we have a density difference, simple refraction from the density
differences can explain the bending of light in the presence of strong
gravitational fields. I have heard that the equations involving GR
basically can be broken down into a difference in density or are
equivalent to density differences. I don't know if that is true, but
if it were, it would explain why GR gets the correct answer for the
completely wrong model of the physical universe.
> 2. An electrostatic description would violate the equivalence principle.
> We observe that materials with very different electrical properties
> fall with exactly the same accelerations. This has been tested with
> such substances as glass, cork, and brass in Eotvos's early experiments,
> and platinum, beryllium, aluminum, lead, alnico magnets, samarium cobalt
> magnets with highly polarized electrons, and single crystal silicon in
> more recent ones. There is no reason for an electrostatic model to
> produce exactly the same accelerations -- typically measured to a part
> in 10^11 or so -- in all of these cases. (Certainly attraction based on
> dielectric characteristics, as you are proposing, will depend strongly
> on the dielectric constant, which differs from substance to substance,
> and, in fact, on the shape and internal structure of the falling body.)
The gravitational attraction I am envisioning would happen at the
atomic level. In my model, the electrons and protons that make up an
atom are relatively spread apart and so each proton and electron
within an atom generates a dipole that gravity works on independently.
As far as gravity is concerned, that big red brick you see is composed
of trillions and trillions of identically sized objects which all act
independently. So naturally, it wouldn't matter what something is made
up of.
For example,If you took a tiny ball and dropped it. Then took a
thousand identical balls and dropped them all together, you'd see they
all dropped with the same rate eventhough the mass of the second event
was a thousand times more than the event with a single ball. This is
not unreasonable.
> 3. We observe that many forms of energy -- electrostatic energy, nuclear
> binding energy, energy of weak interactions, even kinetic energy of
> electrons in atoms -- gravitate. But these do not interact with electric
> fields.
I have never head of nuclear binding energy gravitating - do you have
any references? Electrons with kinetic energy definitely interact with
the electric field and are strongly deflected, so I am unsure what you
are referring to here.
> 4. We observe that *gravitational* potential energy gravitates. (Look up the
> Nordtvedt effect in the Earth-Moon orbit). This implies that gravity must
> be nonlinear. Electromagnetism isn't.
What I read in wiki indicates that the Nordtvedt effect doesn't exist.
The connection with a non-linear gravity wasn't clear. I would have
expected that if gravity were non-linear, it would be difficult to
keep planets in their neat and unchanging orbits.
> 5. Gravity is observed to affect the rate of clocks -- including atomic
> clocks, clocks based on weak interactions, and even "mechanical clocks"
> (e.g., rotating neutron stars). Electrical interactions do not; and
> if one could contrive an effect on a particular kind of clock, there
> would be no reason to expect it to work for others based on different
> physical principles.
To explain this, I once again rely on the concept of a gravitaionally
compressed aether. In such a compressed aether, you must cross many
more aether particles to go from point A to point B and this is the
source of the clock slowdown for any kind of clock. The density of the
aether sets the basic speed at which particles can interact.
> 6. Binary pulsar systems slowly decay by emitting gravitational waves.
> (Hulse and Taylor won the 1993 Physics Nobel Prize for this discovery.)
> The observations show that gravitational waves couple to the mass
> quadrupole moment. Electric fields, on the other hand, couple first
> to dipole moments; this would lead to *much* stronger radiation,
> contradicting observation.
>
A search of the net on gravitational waves and quadrapole moments
brought up nothing. Do you have any handy net references?
> Please keep in mind that there is a great deal more to gravity than an
> inverse square force. There is, to begin with, the equivalence principle
> -- the observed fact that objects fall with exactly the same acceleration,
> regardless of their masses, shapes, structures, or compositions. There are
> also a large number of observations testing general relativity, that go far
> beyond an inverse square law -- deflection of light in a gravitational field,
> Shapiro time delay, advance of the perihelia of a number of Solar System
> bodies (most famously Mercury) and neutron stars, gravitational time dilation
> and red shift, the de Sitter precession of the Earth-Moon system, the
> gravitational radiation reaction in binary pulsar systems. A new theory
> has to at least attempt to address these results, if it is to be taken
> seriously.
How does general relatively explain why positively charged bubbles
rise in the presense of a gravitational field?
>
> Steve Carlip
Timo A. Nieminen
>> ... and, since the charged object has a Coulomb field, which falls off as
>> 1/r^2, and dielectrophoretic forces depend on the gradient [1] of the
>> field, they fall off as 1/r^3. Contradicted by direct experimental
>> measurement of gravitational forces and celestial mechanics.
>
> This is where calculations fail
.. or your experiment fails.
> Show me a real physical experiment showing the force falls off as 1/
> r^3 as calculated.
Electrodynamic experiments agree to within 1% of the usual theory
of electrical forces on polarisable neutral bodies. That's with AC fields.
In this case, the field is not a Coulomb field, and you don't get a 1/r^3
result.
For DC fields, you have actually looked at the experimental work
done in electrophoresis?
Also, the 1/r^3 assumes certain conditions. Since you've been studying
this for years, you should already be aware of these. Still, it's worth
reviewing them and their effects.
Firstly, it assumes that the only significant multipole moment in the
neutral body is a dipole moment _unaffected_ by the charged body. If this
is not the case, you'll typically have a dipole moment p proportional to
the field, so you'll actually have p=A/r^2, where A is a constant
including both the polarisability of the neutral body and the charge of
the charged body. The force, which is proportional to p/r3, is thus
proportional to A/r^5, which is of course an even bigger deviation from
the 1/r^2 of gravity. If higher order multipole moments are induced in the
neutral body, it will drop off even faster. This 1/r^5 is what you get if
you explicitly calculate the grad(|E|^2) term in the formula you used in
the calculation you note below, for a Coulomb field.
Secondly, it is assumed that the charged body can be treated as a point
charge; this includes the assumption that the charge distribution on it is
unaffected by the neutral body. If it is affected, you'll have stronger
attraction at short ranges, so, again, the force will drop off faster
than 1/r^3.
Basically, 1/r^3 is what theory says is the slowest drop-off in the force
that you can expect.
> I did do a physical experiment to determine the force relationship
> between a neutral body and a charged source. The result was a
> suprising 1/r relationship. Not 1/r^2 or 1/r^3, but 1/r. The
> calculated 1/r^3 fails experimental tests. We do not understand very
> well the true nature of how the electrostatic field works.
>
> See:
> http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/msg/79933608216e76d1
Why not post the data, and the data analysis? You did, of course, make
repeated measurements for each different mass of foil, both with the same
crumpled ball and different balls?
But, anyway, assuming that contrary to existing theory, you've shown the
force is 1/r, this result is fatal to your electrostatic-gravitation
hypothesis. As you point out:
> I haven't proven that somehow the force ends up as 1/r^2 for
> astronomical objects. But between the 1/r attraction and the 1/r^2
> repulsion and the general unknowns, I don't think that it is
> impossible for it to end up looking like a 1/r^2 force.
The combination of a 1/r attraction and a 1/r^2 repulsion (which must also
sometimes be an attraction, depending on charge) _does not_ look like a
1/r^2 attraction.
In any case, since for large bodies in space (for which other forces
such as radiation pressure, solar wind, etc are negligible), the only
force we observe is gravitational attraction, which produces equal
accelerations for objects in the same gravitational field. This means that
any electrostatic attraction/replusion due to charges on the bodies is
negligible.
Conventional theory says that if gravity was due to dielectrophoretic
forces, it would be 1/r^3. Doesn't agree with observation and experiment,
thus conventional theory says gravity is not due to dielectrophoretic
forces.
Your own experiment says that if gravity was due to dielectrophoretic
forces, it would be 1/r. Doesn't agree with observation and experiment,
thus your experiment (even if correct) also says gravity is not due to
dielectrophoretic forces.
You would also need to consider that the force on a neutral body due to
charge-dipole interaction will depend on the _total_ dipole moment of the
neutral body, which, in general, will not equal the dipole moment induced
by the charged body, but by _all_ charged bodies produced a significant
field. Consider the effects of that on, say, the earth-moon-sun system.
> I have shown that an attractive force can exist between even 2
> positively charged bodies and I have previously shown to you that if
> you calculate the force generated by the Earth's electric field, you
> do get something close to the force of gravity.
>
> http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.electromag/msg/78fdd226a65265ab
Looking back at that with more attention that 3 1/2 years ago, your
calculation is completely wrong. Your polarisability of 1.6 angstroms
cubed is the polarisibility of what? That's for a single atom, or what?
Use the formula immediately to the right of the one you used to calculate
the force. epsilon in that formula is the relative permittivity aka
dielectric constant.
Secondly, as pointed out 3.5 years ago, you used 120^2 in your calculation
when the required quantity is the _gradient_ of |E|^2. My calculation from
that old thread concerning how ridiculously high the field would need to
be at the surface of the earth to obtain a sufficient gradient appears at
first glance to be correct.
Thirdly, my comments in that thread about the accompanying torque still
hold. Do graphite-core pencils stand up by themselves?
Haven't you tried to learn anything about this stuff over the last 3
years?
Timo A. Nieminen
> Timo A. Nieminen <ti...@physics.uq.edu.au> wrote:
>> On Sat, 2 Feb 2007, frank...@yahoo.com wrote:
>
> [...]
>>> This is too simplistic. The main attractive force caused by an
>>> electrostatic gravity is the attraction of neutrally charged matter to
>>> a point electrostatic force. This is called the dielectrophoretic
>>> force and is cause by the separation of charges within neutrally
>>> charged matter. This is the same force that allows a charged balloon
>>> to pick up neutrally charged bits of paper.
>
>> ... and, since the charged object has a Coulomb field, which falls off as
>> 1/r^2, and dielectrophoretic forces depend on the gradient [1] of the
>> field, they fall off as 1/r^3. Contradicted by direct experimental
>> measurement of gravitational forces and celestial mechanics.
>
> I thnk it's faster than 1/r^3. You would get a 1/r^3 force on a fixed
> dipole in an external field, but here, the external field is also
> polarizing the object it's acting on, so the dipole moment itself goes
> as the external field. This gives a net 1/r^5 force. (This agrees
> with Wikipedia, for what it's worth, which gives the force as being
> proportional to the gradient of the square of the external field.)
Yes indeed.
>> Yes, you can get electrostatic attraction even between two neutral bodies,
>> but that tends to fall off as 1/r^6 or faster. Look up van der Waals
>> forces.
>
> 1/r^7, I think. The potential energy for a van der Waals interaction
> goes as 1/r^6.
That's what happens when I operate on ancient memory. On actually looking
things up, I see the Lennard-Jones potential falls off as 1/r^6 at long
range. This is definitely a van der Waals force, but not all van der Waals
forces are this.
The best case (as in the slowest fall with distance) would be permanent
dipole-permanent dipole, which would be 1/r^4 (ie grad(E)).
Permanent-induced would be the 1/r^7 (ie grad(E^2)). I wonder if
induced-induced can be significant (I don't see how)? [Permanent could be
a very temporary "permanent", as in a fluctuation, but "permanent" as
opposed to "induced".] That's neglecting orientational effects.
Anyway, it isn't 1/r^2.
Sue...
Thank you.
Steve Carlip and Arthur Eddington will say light is deflected by
gravity.
Frankli and Sue will say the light is refracted by a density
gradient near the massive body.
I am not sure we can say either is incorrect because we
don't observe the causal agent, gravity or refraction, we
observe the light and imagine the agents.
Sue...
>
> Steve Carlip
Autymn D. C.
> Now, just how this simple observation could have gone unnoticed for so
> long is beyond me. I welcome your comments on the discovery of this
> simple anti-gravitational effect.
There were already old threads like this on usenet.
The Earth is usually positive because the sun boils off elèctròns,
which are more flihty than their atoms. If the ground were always
neutral, then we wouldn't get any lihtning or literal elèctric
grounds.
>For example,If you took a tiny ball and dropped it. Then took a
> thousand identical balls and dropped them all together, you'd see they
> all dropped with the same rate eventhough the mass of the second event
> was a thousand times more than the event with a single ball. This is
> not unreasonable.
Seeing is irrelevant. Greatter masses fall at a greatter rate, as all
bodies without infinite mass fall at some rate. Likewise, in a setup
of three alike masses at the same heiht, the two masses that are
nearrer another will reach the ground first.
-Aut
Sue...
>
> The gravitational attraction I am envisioning would happen at the
> atomic level. In my model, the electrons and protons that make up an
> atom are relatively spread apart and so each proton and electron
> within an atom generates a dipole that gravity works on independently.
> As far as gravity is concerned, that big red brick you see is composed
> of trillions and trillions of identically sized objects which all act
> independently. So naturally, it wouldn't matter what something is made
> up of.
An induction force like magnetism, London or Van der Walls happens
on an atomic scale, a molecular scale or any scale that the structure
will maintain anisotropy of its Coulomb field. A I.0 metre diameter
solenoid will do this as well as the atomic nucleus of the NMR
effects
you mentioned in this regard.
http://www.chem.purdue.edu/gchelp/liquids/inddip.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiple_integral#Some_practical_applications
Likely you are getting more support from Timo, Sue, Einstein, Tajmar
and Kouropoulos than Carlip for you notions.
I don't think any of us are comfortable with the large volume of
Coulomb charged space implied by your analysis of your experiment.
We can show you a charge moving on a circular path results in a
magnetic
force, whether it is an atom or a solenoid turn.
Your balloon analysis isn't giving enough geometric detail so that it
can claim a link to either electrophoresis, or a coherent-matter
model of gravity.
The mechanism you are describing would be a very simple
simulation in molecular dynamics so you might want to
review some of work with GRAPE and similar simulators
to find out why their teraflop supercouputers haven't stumbled
across the same solutions.
Quoting
<< As we wrote above, in principle an N-body simulation is
simple and straightforward. At each timestep, we calculate
the forces on all particles in the system, and integrate their
orbits using some appropriate integration method. In fact, in
Molecular Dynamics simulation, where one solves the N-body
problem of atoms interacting through Coulomb and
van der Waals forces, one can rely on this approach. In
astrophysics, however, the nature of the gravitational interaction
makes such approach impractical.
The problem is that the gravitational force is an attractive
force with no characteristic scale length. This fact leads to
three complications. The first one is that the inhomogeneity
develops as the system evolves. In the case of star clusters,
this is known as core collapse or gravitational catastrophe.
The central core of the cluster evolves to higher and higher
density, while its mass decreases. The timestep has to
be small enough to integrate accurately the orbits of particles
in the core. Therefore, the timestep decreases as the cluster
evolves. The second one is that even when the core density
is not very high, random close encounters of two particles
can lead to arbitrary short timesteps. >>
http://grape.c.u-tokyo.ac.jp/~makino/papers/star2000/node2.html#SECTION00020000000000000000
http://www.research.ibm.com/grape/grape_ewald.htm
Sue...
http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0107015
http://www.chem.purdue.edu/gchelp/liquids/inddip.html
G=EMC^2 Glazier
curving of space that gives the answer to space inflation. Bert
Sue...
> Sue Only motion can create a 'anti Gravity effect I have a convex
> curving of space that gives the answer to space inflation. Bert
That is interesting. What is moving in optical tweezers ?
Sue...
Mitchell Jones
carlip...@physics.ucdavis.edu wrote:
> frank...@yahoo.com wrote:
>
> [...]
> > I was looking for something like "Why gravity can't be the
> > electrostatic force", but I find almost nothing in the literature
> > or the web.
>
> The simplest reason is this: in gravity, all masses attract, while
> in electrostatics, like charges repel.
>
> For example, the Earth ands the Moon attract, so in an electrostatic
> model, they must have opposite charges.
***{That's seems rather too strong, don't you think? In the particular
electrostatic model you are discussing, they do, in fact, have opposite
charges; but if you intend to claim that must be so in all possible
electrostatic models of gravity, then I must disagree. For example,
suppose that the attraction between unlike charges is greater than the
repulsion between like charges, in the very slight amount necessary to
account for the observed strength of gravity. In such an electrostatic
model, the Earth and Luna (the Moon) attract electrostatically with
gravitational force, yet have the same charges--to wit: essentially
zero.
Let me elaborate a bit.
According to Coulomb's law, the magnitude of the electrostatic force is
equal to a constant of proportionality times the product of the charges,
divided by the square of the distance between their centers.
By such a rule, the electrostatic force between Earth and Luna would
have four components:
(1) If K is the Coulomb constant, e1 is the charge of the electrons in
the Earth, e2 is the charge of the electrons in Luna, and r is the
distance from the center of the Earth to the center of Luna, we have:
F1 = Ke1e2/r^2
(2) If p1 is the charge of the protons in the Earth and p2 is the charge
of the protons in Luna, we have:
F2 = Kp1p2/r^2
(3) If k is the ratio, slightly greater than 1, of the absolute
magnitude of the attraction between like charges to that of the
repulsion between unlike charges, then we have:
F3 = Kke1p2/r^2
(4) And, similarly, we have:
F4 = Kke2p1/r^2
Therefore the force of gravity, Fg, would be such that
Fg = F1 + F2 + F3 + F4
Fg = Ke1e2/r^2 + Kp1p2/r^2 + Kke1p2/r^2 + Kke2p1/r^2
If M is the mass of Earth, m is the mass of Luna, and <e> is the mass of
the electron, then:
e1 = -(M/1836)/<e> = -M/1836<e>
p1 = -e1 = M/1836<e>
e2 = -(m/1836)/<e> = -m/1836<e>
p2 = -e2 = m/1836<e>
Substitution into the last force equation, above, gives:
Fg = K(-M/1836<e>)(-m/1836<e>)/r^2
+ K(M/1836<e>)(m/1836<e>)/r^2
+ Kk(-M/1836<e>)(m/1836<e>)/r^2
+ Kk(-m/1836<e>)(M/1836<e>)/r^2
= [2K/(1836<e>)^2][Mm/r^2] - k[2K/(1836<e>)^2][Mm/r^2]
= [2K/(1836<e>)^2][1 - k][Mm/r^2]
For simplicity, let z = 1 - k, so that the above becomes
Fg = [2zK/(1836<e>)^2][Mm/r^2]
By Newton's law of gravitation we have
Fg = GMm/r^2
And so we conclude that
G = [2zK/(1836<e>)^2]
Of course, 1836<e> = <p>, the mass of the proton, in the notation I'm
using, so we obtain
G = 2zK/<p>^2
In SI units, G = 6.6742x10^-11 Nm^2/kg^2, K = 8.988x10^9 Nm^2/C^2, and
<e> = 9.109x10^-31 kg. Hence <p> = (1836)(9.109x10^-31) = 1.672x10^-27.
Since in this problem we want to distinguish between attractive and
repulsive forces, and since the attractive ones traditionally get a
negative sign, I'm going to treat the value of G as a negative number
when I plug it in below. (Mass and radius are clearly positive, so G is
the only palusible way to enforce that distinction.) And so we have:
z = (-6.6742x10^-11)/{2(8.988x10^9)/[(1.672x10^-27)]^2}
z = -1.038x10^-74
What the above argument accomplishes, hopefully, is to demonstrate the
theoretical possibility that gravity is electromagnetic in nature, and
arises out of Coulomb's law. That's not to say that it would be
convenient to do gravitational calculations that way, of course. Such a
demonstration would be useful in the same sense that it is useful to
note that the relativistic kinetic energy formula, Ek = m0[1/(1 -
v^2/c^2)^.5 -1]c^2, could in principle be used to calculate the kinetic
energy involved in ordinary automobile collisions, despite the practical
inconvenience of doing so. The idea is to reveal a possible
connectedness that would in most circumstances remain hidden from view.
There are lots of counterarguments that can be directed at the above
idea, of course--so many, in fact, that I don't offer it as a necessary
truth, but merely as something worthy of consideration. I have been
thinking along these lines off and on for a long time, and there is
another theory of gravitation that I feel has more explanatory power
than this one, even though the issue between them is not settled by any
means.
What would be the point of trying to unify electromagnetics and
gravitation, after all? :-)
Any errors in the above are of course mine, but the credit for the basic
idea, for what it's worth, goes to Prof. Thomas Barnes. (See his book,
Space Medium: the key to unified physics, published in 1986.)
--Mitchell Jones}***
> The Earth and the Sun
> attract, so they, too, must have opposite charges. But that would
> make the charge of the Moon the same sign as the charge of the Sun,
> so they would repel. This does not happen -- the Moon's orbit
> very clearly shows that it is attracted by both the Earth and the
> Sun.
>
> (Or for a more dramatic example, what "charge" would you ascribe to
> the Apollo 11 lunar lander? It was attracted to the Earth -- they
> didn't have to scrape it off the ceiling during assembly -- so it
> must have had the opposite charge from the Earth. But the Moon is
> also attracted to the Earth, and must also have the opposite charge
> from the Earth. Why, then, wasn't the lunar lander repelled from
> the Moon?)
>
> Steve Carlip
*****************************************************************
If I seem to be ignoring you, consider the possibility
that you are in my killfile. --MJ
Sue...
>
<< What would be the point of trying to unify
electromagnetics and > gravitation, after all? :-) >>
That is an excellent point. I can't think of a thing that
the unification of magnetic force and Coulomb force
has contributed. People that cook up stufff like this
should go out and get a real job and do something
useful:
http://www.chem.purdue.edu/gchelp/liquids/inddip.html
http://www.mypage.bluewin.ch/Bizarre/GRAV.htm
It is just more grist for the magic-cube mill. ;-)
Sue...
> --Mitchell Jones}***
>
frank...@yahoo.com
> In article <epr12a$c2...@skeeter.ucdavis.edu>,
>
> carlip-nos...@physics.ucdavis.edu wrote:
>
> - Show quoted text -
Excellent work!
To restate what you are saying - the only thing you really need to
have a electrostatic based gravity is a tiny difference in strength
between the attraction of like opposite charges versus the repulsion
of similar charges. (I think you had this worded backwards in your
post). If the ratio is something like k = .038x10^-74, we can account
for the gravitational constant found in the formula Fg = GMm/r^2 which
in turn accounts for the Newtonian Orbit equation of v^2R =GM. That
ratio is exceedingly small and we have done experiments to determine
this type of ratio - is this below our current threshold of
sensitivity?
So we can keep the 1/r^2 force relationship rather than thinking it
may be a force like dielectorphoresis which seems rather problematic.
I am willing to accept any reasonable hypothesis that allows the
gravitational force to be composed of electrostatic forces.
So what to the nay sayers of gravity=electrostatic have to say now?
You cannot so easily toss this idea into the trash bin without some
real analysis. The difference in the force strength was the only
counter argument presented, and now even this can be explained. You
are tossing out the gravity=electrostatic possibility just like people
use to throw out the possibility that the Earth wasn't flat. By
looking around, it is obvious that the Earth is flat. Don't fall for
the obvious explanations without examining the alternatives.
I think that the simplification and unification of the forces that you
would get with a gravity=electrostatic force pictures is so
appealling, that I think it has just got to be true.
frank...@yahoo.com
> In article <epr12a$c2...@skeeter.ucdavis.edu>,
>
> carlip-nos...@physics.ucdavis.edu wrote:
Sue...
[...]
> So what to the nay sayers of gravity=electrostatic have to say now?
> You cannot so easily toss this idea into the trash bin without some
> real analysis.
Indeed... that would require printing it out, possibly wasting
paper and ink. :-)
It was *your* analysis that what was called into question,
not the analysis of others. So the burden is yours.
The concept of unifying Coulomb and gravitational force
appears to have the support of at least half the respondents
in this thread but I don't hear much applause for the
rigour (or lack of) that you have applied.
It might be helpful if you review how other forces have
been formally unified with the Coulomb force.
(Magnetism, Van der Waals, London, Casimir.)
The magnetic force is the simplest because it has
a convenient axis of symmetry. The time
independent integral isn't too hard to follow.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiple_integral#Some_practical_applications
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/electric/dipole.html#c2
It is just just the superposition of charges.
For the long-range (macroatomic) paths,
we allow for the speed of light:
Time-independent Maxwell equations
Time-dependent Maxwell's equations
Relativity and electromagnetism
http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teaching/em/lectures/lectures.html
Maxwell's equations in classic electrodynamics
(classic field theory)_
a) Maxwell equations (no movement),
b) Maxwell equations (with moved bodies)
http://www.wolfram-stanek.de/maxwell_equations.htm#maxwell_classic_extended
As you include more derivatives to scale from magnetic force
to Van der Waals force, you'll probably discover the problem
in not one of concept, but rather one of computational overhead.
<< Einstein could have included terms in the
equations involving four spacetime derivatives,
or six spacetime derivatives, or any even number
of spacetime derivatives, but he limited himself
to second-order differential equations.
This could have been defended on practical grounds.
Dimensional analysis shows that the terms in the
field equations involving more than two spacetime
derivatives would have to be accompanied by
constant factors proportional to positive powers
of some length. If this length was anything like the
lengths encountered in elementary-particle physics,
or even atomic physics, then the effects of these
higher derivative terms would be quite negligible at
the much larger scales at which all observations of
gravitation are made. There is just one modification
of Einstein's equations that could have observable
effects: the introduction of a term involving no spacetime
derivatives at all-that is, a cosmological constant. >>
But Einstein did not exclude terms with higher
derivatives for this or for any other practical reason,
but for an aesthetic reason: They were not needed,
so why include them? And it was just this aesthetic
judgment that led him to regret that he had ever
introduced the cosmological constant. >>
--Steven Weinberg
"Physics Today"
November 2005, page 31
http://www.aip.org/pt/vol-58/iss-11/p31.html
Sue...
Szczepan Bialek
<frank...@yahoo.com>
> <Response by George H>
>
>
> I also agree that I don't think anyone could have overlooked this
> effect
> before, so there must be an alternative explanation.
In my country (Poland, town Rzeszów) things are a little different.
1. The surface of the Earth is negatively charged (everywhere are additional
electrons).
2. The grounded objects are also negatively charged to potential of the
Earth.
3. On sunny days thy electrons and water escape from the surface, migrate
into air and go with the wind (electrons and the Earth repell). In such case
the smoke from a chimney and bubble simmilar to yours rise.if its are
negatively charged.
4. After a few days cloud is comming. It is always negatively charged to
much higher potential than the Earth. So the smoke and the bubble folling
down if its are negatively charged. You can charge its positvely and when
its should rise.
I think that your experiment should be done without ceiling. In meantime I
try to consider thy other aspects.
S*
Mitchell Jones
frank...@yahoo.com wrote:
***{That's the sort of thing that could easily happen. I don't spend a
lot of time editing before I post, since this is, to put it mildly, an
informal group. However, when I glanced back over the material, I
didn't notice any instance of the sort you described. --MJ}***
> ). If the ratio is something like k = .038x10^-74, we can account
> for the gravitational constant found in the formula Fg = GMm/r^2 which
> in turn accounts for the Newtonian Orbit equation of v^2R =GM. That
> ratio is exceedingly small and we have done experiments to determine
> this type of ratio - is this below our current threshold of
> sensitivity?
***{It's not really an experimental thing, once the other constants (G
and K) have been determined. All that is required is the basic idea--to
wit: that the attraction of unlike charges may slightly exceed the
repulsion of like charges. If it does, then a calculation along the
lines that I attempted in my post will reveal the value of z, which I
would call the unification constant. Thomas Barnes, as I noted, is the
first person, to my knowledge, who recognized the possibility that the
attractive force might slightly exceed the repulsive one. The book in
which he mentioned that idea, however, was perceived to have other
problems--i.e., he was an aether theorist--and so his book "fell
deadborn from the press," as they used to say.
That happened because while all modern physicists admit that a medium
exists which pervades all of space, few are aware that was all the term
"aether" ever meant, back in the days when it was in general usage. Of
those who are aware, the honest ones are like Barnes: they still use the
term today; and the dishonest ones rail at them, because they resent the
fact that they refuse to conform.
Why are they resented? Because physics is like a fraternity in that it
has initiation rites, and the purpose of the rites is exactly the same
in both cases: you have to prove that fitting in is more important to
you than the truth, in order to get in. To get into a fraternity you
might, for example, have to risk choking to death or becoming infested
with some horrible parasite by swallowing a pound of raw liver. And in
physics you will, in fact, have to swallow the nonexistence of the
aether, the relativity of simultaneity, things that magically pop into
and out of existence, and a lengthy parade of other ridiculous nonsense,
in order to fit in. The idea, in both cases, is for you to demonstrate
that you will do as you are told, that you will go along in order to get
along--which means: that you will take your cues from on high, and
support the goals of those in authority, as defined by the dominant
culture (even if those ideas will lead inexorably to the destruction of
your country and the enslavement of mankind, as, in fact, they will).
As far as the mathematical derivation that I posted, that was mine,
including any mistakes it may have contained. It has been 20 years since
I looked at Barnes' book, but I have no recollection of anything like
that being there. (Looking on Amazon.com, I see that several copies of
Barnes' book are currently available, if anyone would care to check me
on this.)
I disagreed with him in lots of places, by the way. The main thing I
considered memorable about the book was his notion that the attractive
Coulomb force might be slightly stronger than the repulsive one. Don't
take my reference as an endorsement of all of his opinions.
--Mitchell Jones}***
> So we can keep the 1/r^2 force relationship rather than thinking it
> may be a force like dielectorphoresis which seems rather problematic.
> I am willing to accept any reasonable hypothesis that allows the
> gravitational force to be composed of electrostatic forces.
>
> So what to the nay sayers of gravity=electrostatic have to say now?
> You cannot so easily toss this idea into the trash bin without some
> real analysis. The difference in the force strength was the only
> counter argument presented, and now even this can be explained. You
> are tossing out the gravity=electrostatic possibility just like people
> use to throw out the possibility that the Earth wasn't flat. By
> looking around, it is obvious that the Earth is flat. Don't fall for
> the obvious explanations without examining the alternatives.
***{You seem to be implying, in the above, that the original idea you
posted wasn't wrong. But, of course, it was. Steve Carlip's post
dissected your idea quite convincingly, and nothing in what I said was
intended to dispute that. I merely thought that he had stated his
argument in too general a form, that's all. --MJ}***
> I think that the simplification and unification of the forces that you
> would get with a gravity=electrostatic force pictures is so
> appealling, that I think it has just got to be true.
***{It is a very powerful idea, but there are other theories of gravity
that have more explanatory power. The simplest theory that explains a
set of facts trumps more complex theories that explain the same facts,
but it does not necessarily trump more complex theories that explain
more facts. Thus in my mind this is a tough question, and still not
completely decided. --MJ}***
Szczepan Białek
"Mitchell Jones" :<mjo...@21cenlogic.com>wrote
news:mjones-4A2505....@news.thundernews.com...
> In article <1170745219.8...@a75g2000cwd.googlegroups.com>,
> frank...@yahoo.com wrote:
>
>> On Feb 5, 6:06 pm, Mitchell Jones <mjo...@21cenlogic.com> wrote:
>> > In article <epr12a$c2...@skeeter.ucdavis.edu>,
>> >
>> > carlip-nos...@physics.ucdavis.edu wrote:
>> > > frankli...@yahoo.com wrote:
>> >
>> > > [...]
>> > > > I was looking for something like "Why gravity can't be the
>> > > > electrostatic force", but I find almost nothing in the literature
>> > > > or the web.
In literature is Aepinus-Franklin theory.
>> >
>> > > The simplest reason is this: in gravity, all masses attract, while
>> > > in electrostatics, like charges repel.
For Aepinus and Franklin too.
>> >
> Thomas Barnes, as I noted, is the
> first person, to my knowledge,
To my knowledge F. Aepinus and B. Franklin
> who recognized the possibility that the
> attractive force might slightly exceed the repulsive one.
I promised to consider the other idea. I was thinking about Aepinus-
Franklin theory. It seems that the experiment is adequate to prove this
theory. Tomorrow I will send more.
S*
Mitchell Jones
"Szczepan Białek" <sz.b...@wp.pl> wrote:
> "Mitchell Jones" :<mjo...@21cenlogic.com>wrote
> news:mjones-4A2505....@news.thundernews.com...
> > In article <1170745219.8...@a75g2000cwd.googlegroups.com>,
> > frank...@yahoo.com wrote:
> >
> >> On Feb 5, 6:06 pm, Mitchell Jones <mjo...@21cenlogic.com> wrote:
> >> > In article <epr12a$c2...@skeeter.ucdavis.edu>,
> >> >
> >> > carlip-nos...@physics.ucdavis.edu wrote:
> >> > > frankli...@yahoo.com wrote:
> >> >
> >> > > [...]
> >> > > > I was looking for something like "Why gravity can't be the
> >> > > > electrostatic force", but I find almost nothing in the literature
> >> > > > or the web.
>
> In literature is Aepinus-Franklin theory.
> >> >
> >> > > The simplest reason is this: in gravity, all masses attract, while
> >> > > in electrostatics, like charges repel.
>
> For Aepinus and Franklin too.
> >> >
> > Thomas Barnes, as I noted, is the
> > first person, to my knowledge,
>
> To my knowledge F. Aepinus and B. Franklin
***{No. Franklin's electrical theory was not applicable to gravitation
for the reasons already explained by Steve Carlip. Franklin's idea was
that there is an electrical fluid that, when in excess in two bodies or
when deficient in two bodies, causes them to repel one another, and,
when in excess in one body and deficient in another, causes them to
attract one another. His "fluid," of course, should have been the
loosely attached outer electrons of ordinary atoms, after they have been
moved from their original locations. The excess would be in the areas to
which they had been moved, and the deficiency would be in the areas from
which they had been moved. If he had correctly identified which areas
were in surplus and which deficient, the charge on the electron would be
considered positive today, and the analogy between gas flow through a
system of pipes and that of electricity through wires would much more
useful in teaching the principles of electricity. Unfortunately there
was no way in Franklin's time to decide, when objects attracted one
another, which one was in deficiency vis-a-vis the hypothesized fluid,
and which was in surplus. Franklin had to guess, and he guessed wrong,
with the result that we are saddled to this very day with the absurd
notion that the fluid is deficient in areas where the mobile units of
charge (the electrons) are in excess, and thus millions of students of
electrical theory have had to struggle with what ought to be easy, for
no better reason than (a) that Ben Franklin had to guess, and guessed
wrong, and (b) that modern physicists are too hidebound to correct an
obvious error, once it has been incorporated into thousands of
textbooks. --MJ}***
> > who recognized the possibility that the
> > attractive force might slightly exceed the repulsive one.
***{No. Franklin's postulated electrical fluid required an excess of the
fluid in one body and a deficiency in the other, for attraction to
occur. He never, to my knowledge, speculated that the attractive force
very slightly exceeded the repulsive force, thereby explaining the
gravitational attraction between neutral masses. If you think I am wrong
about that, please cite a reference. I consider Franklin to have been a
genius, without a doubt, but the possibility that his genius reached the
level you are suggesting does not seem plausible to me. I am, of course,
open to being proven wrong, if you can find an appropriate reference.
--MJ}***
> I promised to consider the other idea. I was thinking about Aepinus-
> Franklin theory. It seems that the experiment is adequate to prove this
> theory. Tomorrow I will send more.
***{The experiment to which you refer had too many uncontrolled
variables to prove much of anything, in my opinion. --MJ}***
> S*
Autymn D. C.
> Excellent work!
Trim quotes, you retarded arsehole.
> So we can keep the 1/r^2 force relationship rather than thinking it
> may be a force like dielectorphoresis which seems rather problematic.
> I am willing to accept any reasonable hypothesis that allows the
> gravitational force to be composed of electrostatic forces.
As 1/rr needs one spring in three dimensions, you will need those
neutral elèctrets to dip in extra dimensions to shield their repulsive
ends. That would be a superCasimir-Polder interaction.
> So what to the nay sayers of gravity=electrostatic have to say now?
> You cannot so easily toss this idea into the trash bin without some
> real analysis. The difference in the force strength was the only
You'v no proof.
> counter argument presented, and now even this can be explained. You
> are tossing out the gravity=electrostatic possibility just like people
> use to throw out the possibility that the Earth wasn't flat. By
> looking around, it is obvious that the Earth is flat. Don't fall for
> the obvious explanations without examining the alternatives.
Such folks were clueles shutins. If the Earth were flat, why can't we
see all of it? (The same goes for the univers.)
> I think that the simplification and unification of the forces that you
> would get with a gravity=electrostatic force pictures is so
> appealling, that I think it has just got to be true.
"has got" = gibberish
-Aut
Szczepan Bialek
<frank...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> In thinking about what actually happened during the experiment, you
> see that when the bubbles are positively charged, they spread out very
> quickly due to the bubbles repelling each other. It still might be
> that the bubbles might still have been repelled by the charge on my
> body, but the bubbles did seem to rise quite high and away from me. I
> will have to do more testing to exclude this possibility.
That is clear for me.
>
> However, a key part of the experiment was the field reversal. In this
> case, the bubbles do not fly away from each other and they drop to the
> floor in a very similar manner as the uncharged case.
It will be difficult but try give me an answer. It was like weak repelling
or week attraction or completely neutral?
Congratulation. Your experiment ( or effect) is a real breakdown.
S*
Szczepan Białek
"Mitchell Jones"
>
> If I seem to be ignoring you, consider the possibility
> that you are in my killfile. --MJ
There was the next possibility. On my screen no your answer but in Goggle
is.
***{No. Franklin's electrical theory was not applicable to gravitation
for the reasons already explained by Steve Carlip. Franklin's idea was
that there is an electrical fluid that, when in excess in two bodies or
when deficient in two bodies, causes them to repel one another, and,
when in excess in one body and deficient in another, causes them to
attract one another. His "fluid," of course, should have been the
loosely attached outer electrons of ordinary atoms, after they have been
moved from their original locations. The excess would be in the areas to
which they had been moved, and the deficiency would be in the areas from
which they had been moved. If he had correctly identified which areas
were in surplus and which deficient, the charge on the electron would be
considered positive today, and the analogy between gas flow through a
system of pipes and that of electricity through wires would much more
useful in teaching the principles of electricity. Unfortunately there
was no way in Franklin's time to decide, when objects attracted one
another, which one was in deficiency vis-a-vis the hypothesized fluid,
and which was in surplus. Franklin had to guess, and he guessed wrong,
with the result that we are saddled to this very day with the absurd
notion that the fluid is deficient in areas where the mobile units of
charge (the electrons) are in excess, and thus millions of students of
electrical theory have had to struggle with what ought to be easy, for
no better reason than (a) that Ben Franklin had to guess, and guessed
wrong, and (b) that modern physicists are too hidebound to correct an
obvious error, once it has been incorporated into thousands of
textbooks. --MJ}***
The same is in our book. But we have two names - F.Aepinus and B. Franklin.
They do the same in the same time but separately.
> > who recognized the possibility that the
> > attractive force might slightly exceed the repulsive one.
***{No. Franklin's postulated electrical fluid required an excess of the
fluid in one body and a deficiency in the other, for attraction to
occur. He never, to my knowledge, speculated that the attractive force
very slightly exceeded the repulsive force, thereby explaining the
gravitational attraction between neutral masses.
Almost exactly the same words are in our book.
If you think I am wrong about that, please cite a reference. I consider
Franklin to have been a
genius, without a doubt, but the possibility that his genius reached the
level
He does.
you are suggesting does not seem plausible to me. I am, of course,
open to being proven wrong, if you can find an appropriate reference.
--MJ}***
Here are: Jan Weyssenhoof. Zasady Elektromagnetyki i Optyki klasycznej.
Warszawa 1957 (page 36)
In free tame I try find in German or English.
> I promised to consider the other idea. I was thinking about Aepinus-
> Franklin theory. It seems that the experiment is adequate to prove this
> theory. Tomorrow I will send more.
Today I sent one question to the author. I am waiting. I hope he do not
ignored me.
***{The experiment to which you refer had too many uncontrolled
variables to prove much of anything, in my opinion. --MJ}***
The experiment is qualitative. My explanation too.
Next will be time for mathematical calculations and measurements.
S*
Szczepan Białek
"Szczepan Białek"
> "Mitchell Jones"
>>
> If you think I am wrong about that, please cite a reference. I consider
> Franklin to have been a genius, without a doubt, but the possibility that
> his genius reached the level
> He does.
>
> you are suggesting does not seem plausible to me. I am, of course,
> open to being proven wrong, if you can find an appropriate reference.
> --MJ}***
>
> Here are: Jan Weyssenhoof. Zasady Elektromagnetyki i Optyki klasycznej.
> Warszawa 1957 (page 36)
>
> In free tame I try find in German or English.
I have found it:
http://www.zpenergy.com/modules.php?name=News&file=print&sid=1984
S*
Szczepan Białek
"Szczepan Białek"
In the 1937 Encyclopaedia Britannica article on electricity it says "Aepinus
(1724-1802) also suggested that the attractive forces between two uncharged
bodies might be very slightly greater than the repulsive forces and that
this difference might be the cause of gravitation."
S*
Mitchell Jones
"Szczepan Białek" <sz.b...@wp.pl> wrote:
***{Near the bottom of the paper the author says that "In the 1937
Encyclopaedia Britannica article on electricity it says 'Aepinus
(1724-1802) also suggested that the attractive forces between two
uncharged bodies might be very slightly greater than the repulsive
forces and that this difference might be the cause of gravitation.' Ë›
Here, between the lines of asterisks, is the article about him from the
1911 Encyclopedia Britannica:
***********************************************************
> "AEPINUS, FRANZ ULRICH THEODOR (1724-1802), German natural philosopher, was
> born at Rostock in Saxony on the 13th of December 1724. He was descended from
> John Aepinus (1499-1553), the first to adopt the Greek form (a?Ľ????s) of the
> family name Hugk or Huck, and a leading theologian and controversialist at
> the time of the Reformation. After studying medicine for a time, Franz
> Aepinus devoted himself to the physical and mathematical sciences, in which
> he soon gained such distinction that he was admitted a member of the Berlin
> academy of sciences. In 1757 he settled in St Petersburg as member of the
> imperial academy of sciences and professor of physics, and remained there
> till his retirement in 1798. The rest of his life was spent at Dorpat, where
> he died on the 10th of August 1802. He enjoyed the special favour of the
> empress Catherine II., who appointed him tutor to her son Paul, and
> endeavoured, without success, to establish normal schools throughout the
> empire under his direction. Aepinus is best known by his researches,
> theoretical and experimental, in electricity and magnetism, and his principal
> work, Tentamen Theoriae Electricitatis et Magnetismi, published at St
> Petersburg in 1759, was the first systematic and successful attempt to apply
> mathematical reasoning to these subjects. He also published a treatise, in
> 176I, De distributione caloris per tellurem, and he was the author of memoirs
> on different subjects in astronomy, mechanics, optics and pure mathematics,
> contained in the journals of the learned societies of St Petersburg and
> Berlin. His discussion of the effects of parallax in the transit of a planet
> over the sun's disc excited great interest, having appeared (in 1764) between
> the dates of the two transits of Venus that took place in the 18th century."
***********************************************************
There is no mention in the above indicating that he thought the
attractive force between unlike charges exceeded the repulsive force
between like charges. Thus the claim that he did so must have been added
later, before the 1937 edition came out, or else that claim is false.
I found the following at Answers.com:
***********************************************************
> "Aepinus, Franz Ulrich Theodosius (fränts ?l'r?kh t?'?d?'z??s âp?'n?s) ,
> 1724Â1802, German physicist. He studied at Jena and Rostock and taught
> mathematics at Rostock from 1747 to 1755. After a brief stay in Berlin he
> went to St. Petersburg as professor of physics and academician, remaining
> there until 1798 and rising to a high position as courtier to Catherine the
> Great. He made experimental and theoretical contributions to the study of
> electricity, including work on the thermoelectric properties of tourmaline
> and the invention, with J. C. Wilche, of the air capacitor. A consideration
> of the implications of this device led him to reject then current mechanical
> theories of electricity and to elaborate in his Tentamen Theoriae
> Electricitatis et Magnetismi (1759) a theory of electrostatics similar to
> Newton's gravitational theory."
***********************************************************
The last line of the above indicates a similarity between his theory of
electrostatics and Newton's theory of gravitation, but still does not
support the claim we are interested in.
At http://www.electmag.com/gravitywz.pdf I found the following comments
by Jaroslav Kopernicky:
***********************************************************
> George Hathaway from Hathaway Consulting (Toronto, Ont. Canada) relayed some
> information from Hal Puthof in Austin, TX, about the Edmund WhittakerÄ…s book
> Å‚History of the Theories of Aether and ElectricityË› (Harper Torchbooks, NY
> edition Vol. 2). It reveals on page 150 - 151 that the subject of a
> conjecture presented here was seriously considered by a man of science as
> early as in year 1836.
>
> Here are some excerpts from the book and some comments:
>
> Å‚He (Lorentz) then considered a second hypothesis, which may be regarded as
> having been foreshadowed in the one-fluid electrical theory of Watson,
> Franklin and Aepinus. According to this theory, as developed in 1836 by O. F.
> Mossotti (1791 - 1863), electricity is conceived as a continuous fluid, whose
> atoms repel each other. Material molecules are also supposed to repel each
> other, but to have with the aether-atoms a
> mutual attraction, which is somewhat greater then the mutual repulsion of the
> particles, which repel. The composition of these forces accounts for
> gravitation, except at very small distances, where the same mechanism
> accounts for cohesion.Ë› This was obviously an intuitive theorizing not
> recognizing that repulsion can be naturally weaker.
>
> The story continues:
>
> Å‚Wilhelm Weber (1804 - 91) of Goettingen and Friedrich Zollner (1834 - 82) of
> Leipzig developed this concept into the idea that all ponderable molecules
> are associations of positively and negatively charged electrical corpuscles,
> with the condition that the force of attraction between corpuscles of unlike
> sign is somewhat greater than the force of
> repulsion between corpuscles of like sign. If the force between two electric
> units of like charge at a certain distance is a dynes and the force between a
> positive and a negative unit charge at the same distance is y dynes, then,
> taking account of the fact that a neutral atom contains as much positive as
> negative electric charge, it was found that (y - a)/a need only be a quantity
> of the order 10-35 in order to account for gravitation as due to the
> difference between a and y.Ë›
>
> Sound familiar? Neither Kopernicky nor Hughes knew about the Weber-Zollner
> idea until about a week after this website was established. Our story tells
> how well that Weber-Zollner idea was suppressed such that only history
> researcher Edmund Whittaker
> discovered it. It was so well hidden that it escaped our (Hughes and
> Kopernicky) library research effort. The idea saw the light of day again
> only through the many years of coincidental research of magnets and
> electrostatics, and after this authorÄ…s conjecture, and the effort of
> Professor Hughes to test it mathematically.
>
> The book gives a pretty good picture of an anatomy of the suppression of
> those ideas to oblivion. As we read, Eddington was quite close to accepting
> it. Only - he respected MachÄ…s ideas of influence of the Å‚surrounding
> universeË› more than his own conviction.
>
> The book continues further: ˛Eddington applied Machąs general principle to
> the interaction between two electrical charges. If they are of opposite sign,
> all their lines of force run from one to the other, and the two together
> maybe regarded as a self-contained system which is independent of the rest of
> the universe; but if the two charges are of the same sign, then the lines of
> force of each of them must terminate on other bodies in the universe, and it
> is natural to expect that these other bodies will have some influence on the
> nature of the interaction between the charges.Ë› ThatÄ…s why he needed an
> addition to the electrostatic energy content, which would correspond to the
> inverse square law. Only Å‚then there would obviously be a possibility of
> accounting on these lines for gravitation.Ë›
>
> Then, the Newtonian law of gravitation was Å‚examined in the light of
> relativity theoryË›... Indeed, an inherent energy - gravity concept couldnÄ…t
> be appreciated anymore. Now when we propose that the difference between
> attraction and repulsion can be responsible for gravity, we appreciate the
> idea of Weber and Zollner and we believe that it will be
> appreciated in the future according to its significance.
***********************************************************
It would appear that if we can believe Sir Edmund Whittaker (I think we
can), then this idea traces back at least as far as Weber and Zollner in
the mid-1800's. Whether it was actually thought of by Aepinus himself,
as claimed, remains to be seen.
In any case, let me emphasize that the idea of concern--i.e., that in
neutral matter the attraction between unlike charges is slightly greater
than the repulsion between like charges--is NOT the same as the claim
that the negative charge slightly exceeds the positive charge, or
vice-versa, which I have seen conflated with it several times.
As far as why the idea has been virtually lost, the answer is rendered
obvious by the preceding quote: electrogravity, though providing the
long-sought-after "unified field theory," has the temerity to unite the
wrong fields--which means: it unites Newton's theory of universal
gravitation with the electrostatic field theory of Coulomb, while
leaving General Relativity lying in the ditch like a piece of road kill.
As I have already said, there is another theory of gravity that I
believe has more explanatory power than this one, but that is a
modernized version of LeSage's push theory of gravitation, not the
Einsteinian excrescence, and so I will not shed a tear if electrogravity
proves to be the correct way to go.
--Mitchell Jones}***
*****************************************************************
Mitchell Jones
"Szczepan Białek" <sz.b...@wp.pl> wrote:
***{Yes, but the article containing that statement seemed rather loosely
reasoned, don't you think? And my experience is that you can't trust the
citations in such articles. Therefore I will reserve judgement until I
actually see the 1937 Encyclopedia Britannica article. As already noted,
no such comment was in the 1911 article on the same topic. That, in my
view, does not augur well for the 1937 article. --MJ}***
*****************************************************************
Timo Nieminen
> "Szczepan Białek" <sz.b...@wp.pl> wrote:
> >
> > I have found it:
> > http://www.zpenergy.com/modules.php?name=News&file=print&sid=1984
> > S*
>
> ***{Near the bottom of the paper the author says that "In the 1937
> Encyclopaedia Britannica article on electricity it says 'Aepinus
> (1724-1802) also suggested that the attractive forces between two
> uncharged bodies might be very slightly greater than the repulsive
> forces and that this difference might be the cause of gravitation.' Ë›
>
> Here, between the lines of asterisks, is the article about him from the
> 1911 Encyclopedia Britannica:
[cut]
> There is no mention in the above indicating that he thought the
> attractive force between unlike charges exceeded the repulsive force
> between like charges.
The only mention I can find of gravitational forces in Aepinus' book is
paragraph 31, where Aepinus discusses the compatability of Newtonian
gravitation with the mutual repulsion of matter devoid of electric fluid
(which we would call negatively charged matter). Aepinus notes that
generally the quantity of electric fluid (ie positive charge) in matter is
generally such that the the repulsion of body A due to the "proper matter"
of body B, and the attraction of body A due to the electric fluid in body
B, cancel, so Newtonian attraction, whatever might cause it, can still
occur.
Mitchell Jones
Timo Nieminen <ti...@physics.uq.edu.au> wrote:
> On Wed, 7 Feb 2007, Mitchell Jones wrote:
>
> > "Szczepan Bia>=ek" <sz.b...@wp.pl> wrote:
> > >
> > > I have found it:
> > > http://www.zpenergy.com/modules.php?name=News&file=print&sid=1984
> > > S*
> >
> > ***{Near the bottom of the paper the author says that "In the 1937
> > Encyclopaedia Britannica article on electricity it says 'Aepinus
> > (1724-1802) also suggested that the attractive forces between two
> > uncharged bodies might be very slightly greater than the repulsive
> > forces and that this difference might be the cause of gravitation.' <=
> >
> > Here, between the lines of asterisks, is the article about him from the
> > 1911 Encyclopedia Britannica:
> [cut]
> > There is no mention in the above indicating that he thought the
> > attractive force between unlike charges exceeded the repulsive force
> > between like charges.
>
> The only mention I can find of gravitational forces in Aepinus' book is
> paragraph 31, where Aepinus discusses the compatability of Newtonian
> gravitation with the mutual repulsion of matter devoid of electric fluid
> (which we would call negatively charged matter). Aepinus notes that
> generally the quantity of electric fluid (ie positive charge) in matter is
> generally such that the the repulsion of body A due to the "proper matter"
> of body B, and the attraction of body A due to the electric fluid in body
> B, cancel, so Newtonian attraction, whatever might cause it, can still
> occur.
***{Thanks much. That would seem to settle it, then. Unless Aepinus went
further in some other piece of writing, he apparently did not come up
with the idea we have been discussing. Thus it appears that it
originated with Weber and Zollner, as Sir Edmund Whittaker suggested.
--MJ}***
Szczepan Bialek
<frank...@yahoo.com> >
> However, a key part of the experiment was the field reversal. In this
> case, the bubbles do not fly away from each other and they drop to the
> there is very little to explain why the bubbles would be attracted to
> the floor since the negative terminal of my Van De Graff generator is
> connected to the bottom of the unit and would have charged the floor
> negatively. If anything, the bubbles should have been repelled. So the
> only explaination for their faster drop is that the negatively charged
> bubbles were attracted to the floor because of the Earth's positive
> field coming from the floor.
Everywhere you write that the Earth is positively charged. Without any doubt
the surface of the Earth is negatively charged. This and the Aepinus
suggestion ("Aepinus (1724-1802) also suggested that the attractive forces
between two uncharged bodies might be very slightly greater than the
repulsive forces and that
this difference might be the cause of gravitation.") together with new my
suggestion (not presented yet) explain your experiment very nice.
But why you do not read and reply my posts?
S*
>
Szczepan Białek
"Mitchell Jones" <
> Timo Nieminen <ti...@physics.uq.edu.au> wrote:
>
> ***{Thanks much. That would seem to settle it, then. Unless Aepinus went
> further in some other piece of writing, he apparently did not come up
> with the idea we have been discussing. Thus it appears that it
> originated with Weber and Zollner, as Sir Edmund Whittaker suggested.
> --MJ}***
Again your response to my post I must read in Google. What happend?
". That would seem to settle it, then. Unless Aepinus went
> further in some other piece of writing, he apparently did not come up
> with the idea we have been discussing."
250 years ago were suggestion mainly. When Aepinus and Franklin went out
with one electric fluid theory they suggested such possibility (may be fully
accepted at that time - place for historians). Did anybody a proper
experiment? I am sure many want. . But it was not easy.Next almost all
forgottten It takes 250 years when Franklinhu made the proper one. So "to
settle it" is today not acceptable for me. But be alone is not nice.
S*
Szczepan Białek
Użytkownik "Timo Nieminen" <ti...@physics.uq.edu.au> napisał w wiadomości
news:Pine.LNX.4.50.0702081415480.8801-100000@localhost...
On Wed, 7 Feb 2007, Mitchell Jones wrote:
> "Szczepan Białek" <sz.b...@wp.pl> wrote:
> >
> > I have found it:
> > http://www.zpenergy.com/modules.php?name=News&file=print&sid=1984
> > S*
>
> ***{Near the bottom of the paper the author says that "In the 1937
> Encyclopaedia Britannica article on electricity it says 'Aepinus
> (1724-1802) also suggested that the attractive forces between two
> uncharged bodies might be very slightly greater than the repulsive
> forces and that this difference might be the cause of gravitation.' Ë›
>
> Here, between the lines of asterisks, is the article about him from the
> 1911 Encyclopedia Britannica:
[cut]
> There is no mention in the above indicating that he thought the
> attractive force between unlike charges exceeded the repulsive force
> between like charges.
I am dissccusing with MJ* who was the first with such suggestion. Prof.
Thomas Barnes or Aepinus and Franklin. It seems that many science people
simply forgeted it.
>The only mention I can find of gravitational forces in Aepinus' book is
>paragraph 31, where Aepinus discusses the compatability of Newtonian
>gravitation with the mutual repulsion of matter devoid of electric fluid
>(which we would call negatively charged matter).
Positively - Negativeli. Old problem. When we say more or less electrons all
is clear. For me more electrons means negatively charged.
>Aepinus notes that generally the quantity of electric fluid (ie positive
charge) in matter is
>generally such that the the repulsion of body A due to the "proper matter"
>of body B, and the attraction of body A due to the electric fluid in body
>B, cancel, so Newtonian attraction, whatever might cause it, can still
>occur.
It is the practicaly the same if we are talking about quantity or forces.
When and now nobody knows if in neutral matter is a little more electrons
ore the forces are not equal. But in near future - who knows.
S*
Mitchell Jones
"Szczepan Białek" <sz.b...@wp.pl> wrote:
> "Mitchell Jones" <
> > Timo Nieminen <ti...@physics.uq.edu.au> wrote:
> >
> > ***{Thanks much. That would seem to settle it, then. Unless Aepinus went
> > further in some other piece of writing, he apparently did not come up
> > with the idea we have been discussing. Thus it appears that it
> > originated with Weber and Zollner, as Sir Edmund Whittaker suggested.
> > --MJ}***
>
> Again your response to my post I must read in Google. What happend?
***{I assume that you are posting from Poland and, when you look at
sci.physics on your usenet server, you are not finding my posts.
Therefore, your server is deleting my posts. Why? I would guess that you
have a censor there, and he doesn't like my political views, which are
indicated in several other threads in this group. Does that sound
plausible? --MJ}***
> ". That would seem to settle it, then. Unless Aepinus went
> > further in some other piece of writing, he apparently did not come up
> > with the idea we have been discussing."
>
> 250 years ago were suggestion mainly. When Aepinus and Franklin went out
> with one electric fluid theory they suggested such possibility (may be fully
> accepted at that time - place for historians). Did anybody a proper
> experiment? I am sure many want. . But it was not easy.Next almost all
> forgottten It takes 250 years when Franklinhu made the proper one. So "to
> settle it" is today not acceptable for me.
***{All I meant when I said "That would seem to settle it, then," was
that the question of whether Aepinus really did originate the theory was
settled: he did not. It was originated later, by Weber and Zollner. This
is not something you settle by experiment, but by looking in the history
books. --MJ}***
> But be alone is not nice.
***{I'm sorry if sci.physics is being censored in Poland, but there
isn't anything I can do about it. In the present day, all governments
are run by criminals. That's just the way it is. --MJ}***
> S*
Ben Newsam
<mjo...@21cenlogic.com> wrote:
>He was descended from
>> John Aepinus (1499-1553), the first to adopt the Greek form (a?ź????s) of the
>> family name Hugk or Huck, and a leading theologian and controversialist at
>> the time of the Reformation.
"Controversialist", I like that. He would have fitted in here! :-)
Ben Newsam
<mjo...@21cenlogic.com> wrote:
>***{I assume that you are posting from Poland and, when you look at
>sci.physics on your usenet server, you are not finding my posts.
>Therefore, your server is deleting my posts. Why? I would guess that you
>have a censor there, and he doesn't like my political views, which are
>indicated in several other threads in this group. Does that sound
>plausible? --MJ}***
No. Poland is a member of the EC, and not behind the Iron Curtain any
more.
Mitchell Jones
Ben Newsam <ben.n...@ukonline.co.uk> wrote:
***{I'm aware of all that. I would suggest to you that the world is
awash with countries where censorship is applied, despite not being
behind any putative "iron curtain." In France, for example, the idiots
who deny the Holocaust are treated differently from, say, idiots who
advocate communism: they go to jail. Who is to say that there are not
censors in Poland, without specific facts about what is going on there?
What law of nature ensures that is not the case? --MJ}***
frank...@yahoo.com
>
> I think that your experiment should be done without ceiling. In meantime I
> try to consider thy other aspects.
>
> S*
I conducted further experiments. The most likely alternate explanation
for the bubbles rising is that the positively charged bubbles are
still being repelled away by the positively charged VDG rather than
being repelled by the Earth positive field.
To test this, I arranged to shut down the VDG field by quickly turning
off the VDG and grounding it. If it is the Earth field the bubbles are
reacting to, then the bubbles should continue to rise. If it is the
VDG field they are reacting to, they should stop and drop. I conducted
the experiment in both indoor and outdoor conditions.
The results were inconclusive. During the indoor test, the bubbles did
appear to stop rising when the VDG was grounded, but didn't appear to
drop as quickly as uncharged bubbles. So it would appear that at least
part of the effect is due to repulsion directly from the VDG. During
the outdoor test, it was quite apparent that the bubbles travel very
high into the air when charged (30-40ft) - much farther than when
uncharged. Grounding the VDG did not have such a big effect as the
bubbles rose very high into the air. The variable I cannot control in
the outdoor situation is the wind. The wind is also able to loft
bubbles high into the air, but it didn't seem to occur as often as
when the bubbles were charged. Just the distances travelled away from
the VDG would tend to rule out the VDG as the source of the repulsion
in these outdoor tests.
What I really need is to conduct this experiment in a large indoor
space like a school gymnasium with high ceilings and no wind. I'll let
you know if I ever get the chance to do this experiment.
Sue...
[...]
>
> What I really need is to conduct this experiment in a large indoor
> space like a school gymnasium with high ceilings and no wind. I'll let
> you know if I ever get the chance to do this experiment.
I would suggest that you first do some research to determine
if it is even plausible. Remember the ratio of Coulomb to
gravity is about 10^42. Tajamar and de Matos get a weak
signal with two forms of amplification, super-conductivity
and high rotation rate.
It seems plausible you too could be getting two forms of
amplification. The VDG is producing an enormous potential
compared to that nomally used in electrophoresis and the
balloon membrane may be thin enough to approach the
1 to 1000 micron domain size usually associated with
electrophoresis. The mass of the balloon is practically all
at a surface. That may be an important consideration.
Sue...
Ben Newsam
>What I really need is to conduct this experiment in a large indoor
>space like a school gymnasium with high ceilings and no wind. I'll let
>you know if I ever get the chance to do this experiment.
If you want to see things flying away from a VDG, cut a card collar to
fit the top of the main dome like a crown such that the top of the
collar is just higher than the top of the dome. Place a pile of
aluminium pie plates upside down on top and start the VDG. They will
all spectacularly fly into the air one by one. It's not anti-gravity,
by the way.
Ben Newsam
<mjo...@21cenlogic.com> wrote:
> Who is to say that there are not
>censors in Poland, without specific facts about what is going on there?
I suggest to you that if usenet posts were being "deleted" as you say,
by a national government, that dact would be known about and discussed
in a worldwide forum. <shrug>
Phineas T Puddleduck
Ben Newsam <ben.n...@ukonline.co.uk> wrote:
Plus the distributed nature of Usenet, a fact not always appreciated by those
who may be using it through web gateways.
--
<-Coffee Boy-> = Preferably white, with two sugars
Saucerheads - denying the blatantly obvious since 2000.
carlip...@physics.ucdavis.edu
> On Feb 2, 1:36 pm, carlip-nos...@physics.ucdavis.edu wrote:
>> frankli...@yahoo.com wrote:
>> > On Jan 31, 1:18 pm, carlip-nos...@physics.ucdavis.edu wrote:
>> >> frankli...@yahoo.com wrote:
>> >> [...]
>> >> > I was looking for something like "Why gravity can't be the
>> >> > electrostatic force", but I find almost nothing in the literature
>> >> > or the web.
>> >> The simplest reason is this: in gravity, all masses attract, while
>> >> in electrostatics, like charges repel.
>> > This is too simplistic. The main attractive force caused by an
>> > electrostatic gravity is the attraction of neutrally charged matter to
>> > a point electrostatic force. This is called the dielectrophoretic
>> > force and is cause by the separation of charges within neutrally
>> > charged matter. This is the same force that allows a charged balloon
>> > to pick up neutrally charged bits of paper.
>> This is not an inverse square force -- it goes, I believe, as the
>> inverse fifth power of distance. If you want to get an inverse square
>> attraction from an electrostatic interaction, you are restricted to
>> the direct Coulomb interaction between two opposite charges; all other
>> interactions are based on dipole and higher moments, and fall off more
>> strongly than an inverse square.
I notice that you didn't address this. It's the simplest flaw in your
model.
>> [...]
>> > What other objections do you have against the gravity=electrostatic
>> > theory?
[...]
>> Among the more obvious ones:
>>
>> 1. Light is does not interact electromagnetically -- not just no charge,
>> but no dipole or higher multipole moments -- but it is observed to be
>> deflected by gravitational fields.
> Yes, light is deflected by gravitational fields. In order to
> understand why, you need to understand more about my overall model of
> the universe which does include an aether. The aether is made up of
> positron/electron pairs and is very similar to normal matter in that
> it forms atomic dipoles and these are attracted to gravitational
> (electrostatic) field. With higher gravity, it compresses the aether
> like water deep in the ocean and causes the aether to become denser.
> Since we have a density difference, simple refraction from the density
> differences can explain the bending of light in the presence of strong
> gravitational fields.
Physics is a quantitative science. How much deflection do you predict,
as a function of the mass of the object deflecting the light and as a
function of the distance the light passes from the object?
Suppose the object that is deflecting the light is moving relative to
the source and receiver of the light. How much, if at all, does the
deflection depend on the velocity? Numbers, please.
In all observed instances of refraction of light, the amount of refraction
depends on the frequency of the light. Deflection by a gravitational field,
on the other hand, is observed to be achromatic, that is, independent of
frequency. How does your model explain this?
> I have heard that the equations involving GR basically can be broken
> down into a difference in density or are equivalent to density differences.
> I don't know if that is true,
It's definitely not true.
>> 2. An electrostatic description would violate the equivalence principle.
>> We observe that materials with very different electrical properties
>> fall with exactly the same accelerations. This has been tested with
>> such substances as glass, cork, and brass in Eotvos's early experiments,
>> and platinum, beryllium, aluminum, lead, alnico magnets, samarium cobalt
>> magnets with highly polarized electrons, and single crystal silicon in
>> more recent ones. There is no reason for an electrostatic model to
>> produce exactly the same accelerations -- typically measured to a part
>> in 10^11 or so -- in all of these cases. (Certainly attraction based on
>> dielectric characteristics, as you are proposing, will depend strongly
>> on the dielectric constant, which differs from substance to substance,
>> and, in fact, on the shape and internal structure of the falling body.)
> The gravitational attraction I am envisioning would happen at the
> atomic level. In my model, the electrons and protons that make up an
> atom are relatively spread apart and so each proton and electron
> within an atom generates a dipole that gravity works on independently.
> As far as gravity is concerned, that big red brick you see is composed
> of trillions and trillions of identically sized objects which all act
> independently. So naturally, it wouldn't matter what something is made
> up of.
First: we can observe the effect of gravity on single neutrons. We don't
need "trillions and trillions" of atoms.
Second: if gravity depends ony on the "electrons and protons that make up
an atom," then different isotopes of the same element -- with equal numbers
of protons and electrons, but different numbers of neutrons -- would fall
differently (same gravitational force, but different masses). They don't,
observably.
Third: take two identical collections of protons, neutrons, and electrons.
Use one to make a bunch of beryllium atoms, and the other to make a bunch
of copper atoms. The resulting two masses have identical constituents,
but different nuclear binding energies. The inertial mass of an object
includes a contribution E/c^2 from the binding energy. In your model, the
two bodies would therefore experience equal gravitational forces, but they
would have different inertial masses, so they would accelerate at different
rates. They don't: observably, the acceleration is the same, to a precision
of parts per trillion.
We thus *observe* that nuclear binding energy gravitates. So, also from
observation, does electrostatic energy, magnetostatic energy, the energy
of weak interactions, gravitational binding energy, and even the kinetic
energy of electrons. How does your model explain this? Why, in your model,
should the gravitational force an object experiences depend on how fast the
electrons are moving in its atoms?
[...]
>> 3. We observe that many forms of energy -- electrostatic energy, nuclear
>> binding energy, energy of weak interactions, even kinetic energy of
>> electrons in atoms -- gravitate. But these do not interact with electric
>> fields.
> I have never head of nuclear binding energy gravitating - do you have
> any references? Electrons with kinetic energy definitely interact with
> the electric field and are strongly deflected, so I am unsure what you
> are referring to here.
A good technical reference is Will's review Living Reviews article,
http://relativity.livingreviews.org/Articles/lrr-2006-3/index.html, section 2.1.
If you want something less technical, get Will's book, _Was Einstein Right?_
For kinetic energy of electrons, see http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/9909014.
>> 4. We observe that *gravitational* potential energy gravitates. (Look up the
>> Nordtvedt effect in the Earth-Moon orbit). This implies that gravity must
>> be nonlinear. Electromagnetism isn't.
> What I read in wiki indicates that the Nordtvedt effect doesn't exist.
> The connection with a non-linear gravity wasn't clear. I would have
> expected that if gravity were non-linear, it would be difficult to
> keep planets in their neat and unchanging orbits.
Gravitational energy gravitates. If it did not, the Earth and the Moon would
experience slightly different accelerations toward the Sun, since they have
different proportions of gravitational binding energy. These different
accelerations would lead to changes in the Moon's orbit, called the Nordtvedt
effect. The fact that this effect is not observed is an experimental test
of the fact that gravitational energy gravitates.
That's what nonlinearity means. It causes no problems with orbits; I don't
know why you think it would.
Again, Will's _Was Einstein Right?_ has a very nice, clear discussion.
>> 5. Gravity is observed to affect the rate of clocks -- including atomic
>> clocks, clocks based on weak interactions, and even "mechanical clocks"
>> (e.g., rotating neutron stars). Electrical interactions do not; and
>> if one could contrive an effect on a particular kind of clock, there
>> would be no reason to expect it to work for others based on different
>> physical principles.
> To explain this, I once again rely on the concept of a gravitaionally
> compressed aether. In such a compressed aether, you must cross many
> more aether particles to go from point A to point B and this is the
> source of the clock slowdown for any kind of clock. The density of the
> aether sets the basic speed at which particles can interact.
Where are the numbers? How much does a clock slow down? Why, specifically
(i.e., by calculation, not verbiage) should a clock based on weak interactions
slow by exactly the same amount as, say, a clock based on atomic transitions,
or one based on simply measuring the spin rate of a neutron star?
Why does a clock *at rest* in a gravitational field (not "go[ing] from point
A to point B") slow down?
>> 6. Binary pulsar systems slowly decay by emitting gravitational waves.
>> (Hulse and Taylor won the 1993 Physics Nobel Prize for this discovery.)
>> The observations show that gravitational waves couple to the mass
>> quadrupole moment. Electric fields, on the other hand, couple first
>> to dipole moments; this would lead to *much* stronger radiation,
>> contradicting observation.
>>
> A search of the net on gravitational waves and quadrapole moments
> brought up nothing. Do you have any handy net references?
Will's Living Reviews article has a discussion, but it's fairly technical.
The best less-technical discussion I know of is section 36.1 of the textbook
by Misner, Thorne, and Wheeler, which I don't think you'll find on the net.
Sometimes you just have to break down and go to a library...
Steve Carlip
carlip...@physics.ucdavis.edu
[...]
> Steve Carlip and Arthur Eddington will say light is deflected by
> gravity.
> Frankli and Sue will say the light is refracted by a density
> gradient near the massive body.
You've invented a new kind of refraction, where the deflection is
completely independent of the frequency of light?
OK, here's a simple question. Suppose a source and receiver are
at rest in some frame, and that a massive body is moving at a
velocity v. How, if at all, does the deflection by the massive
body depend on v? Numbers, please, and a quantitative derivation
from "refraction"...
Steve Carlip
Sue...
> Sue... <suzysewns...@yahoo.com.au> wrote:
>
> [...]
>
> > Steve Carlip and Arthur Eddington will say light is deflected by
> > gravity.
> > Frankli and Sue will say the light is refracted by a density
> > gradient near the massive body.
>
> You've invented a new kind of refraction, where the deflection is
> completely independent of the frequency of light?
I don't have Bertotti's Cassini paper availible but I am quite sure
it did not indicate that.
>
> OK, here's a simple question. Suppose a source and receiver are
> at rest in some frame, and that a massive body is moving at a
> velocity v. How, if at all, does the deflection by the massive
> body depend on v? Numbers, please, and a quantitative derivation
> from "refraction"...
I think you'll find some attempts at that as a
correction factor here:
Bertotti et al. 2003 Nature 425 374
Bertotti B and Giampieri G 1998 Solar Phys. 178 85
<< Cassini's experiments, with all their wealth
of data, will also be very useful to investigate the
dynamical structure of the corona. >>
http://www.sp.ph.ic.ac.uk/~giacomo/Papers/doppler.pdf
Are you at all troubled that corrections for the solar
corona are applied *before* it is investigated?
Sue...
>
> Steve Carlip
Szczepan Białek
"Mitchell Jones" wrote (the copy from Google):
In article <eqenb6$94...@node1.news.atman.pl>,
"Szczepan Bia3ek" <sz.bia...@wp.pl> wrote:
> "Mitchell Jones" <
> > Timo Nieminen <t...@physics.uq.edu.au> wrote:
> > ***{Thanks much. That would seem to settle it, then. Unless Aepinus went
> > further in some other piece of writing, he apparently did not come up
> > with the idea we have been discussing. Thus it appears that it
> > originated with Weber and Zollner, as Sir Edmund Whittaker suggested.
> > --MJ}***
> Again your response to my post I must read in Google. What happend?
>***{I assume that you are posting from Poland and, when you look at
sci.physics on your usenet server, you are not finding my posts.
Therefore, your server is deleting my posts.
Not all. Only that to me.
>Why? I would guess that you have a censor there, and he doesn't like my
>political views, which are
indicated in several other threads in this group. Does that sound
plausible? --MJ}***
If we consider above, not. Probably technical problem. But it is not
problem. I read all the post in Google. It has advetages. I read them very
carefully ( wiithout links) and I have found 3 sentences for which the
thread exists:
1. "We do not understand very well the true nature of how the electrostatic
field works"
You all know too much. It is enough to know that the Coumbus equation is
precise TO POINT CHARGE ONLY. R^2 is experimentaly proved for electrons on
the empty metal ball.
Regarding charge bodys I have found (in your language) such unfortunate
explanation:
"Coulomb's law (k'lomz) , in physics, law stating that the electrostatic
force between two charged bodies is proportional to the product of the
amount of charge on the bodies divided by the square of the distance between
them. If the bodies are oppositely charged, one positive and one negative,
they are attracted toward one another; if the bodies are similarly charged,
both positive or both negative, the force between them is repulsive (see
charge). Coulomb's law applies exactly only when the charged bodies are much
smaller than the distance separating them and therefore can be treated
approximately as point charges. When combined with principles of quantum
physics, Coulomb's law helps describe the forces that bind electrons to an
atomic nucleus, that bind atoms together into molecules, and that hold
together solids and liquids. The law was deduced in 1785 by C. A. de Coulomb
from experimental measures of the forces between charged bodies; the
experiments were made using his torsion balance."
What will be when samebody read only the first lines?
Charged bodys are attracted or repulsed depending of thy ratio beetwin the
electron and the rest. It is neccesary use the equation for times with three
different "K" and make calculations like presented here by MJ*
2. " gravity=electrostatic ". No. Gravity works in the Faraday's cage.
Frakly speaking I do not know exactly who and when suggested it.
3. "As a professor I would be interested in your serious input on this
matter. Please try to go beyond the simplistic answers"
The Franklinhu experiment my be a breakdown in teaching electrostatics.
Thanks it will be possible to demonstrate that:
- the surface of the Earth is always negatively charged (exces of electrons)
- clouds are always negatively charged to higher potential than the Earth
- "K" for electrons is smaller than for the rest (different spreading of the
bubbles)
- whole exces and deficyt of electrons is on the surface of the bubbles
- and so on
>***{I'm sorry if sci.physics is being censored in Poland, but there
isn't anything I can do about it. In the present day, all governments
are run by criminals. That's just the way it is. --MJ}***
The Lanlords (or the runners) always were, are and will be doing what they
wants. Earier they were above the low. Low is changed and we can them call
as you do.
I appreciate any comments.
S*
We do not understand very
well the true nature of how the electrostatic field works.
> What other objections do you have against the gravity=electrostatic
> theory? As a professor I would be interested in your serious input on
> this matter. Please try to go beyond the simplistic answers.
Sue...
> I have done an experiment to demonstrate anti-gravitational effects
> using only a Van De Graff generator.
There is a very simple way you can qualify your
experimental setup.
You only need to show a direct and repeatable correlation
with the results and the position of the sun and moon wrt
the earth. The ocean tides have demonstrated the repeatability
of this method for quite some time.
Sue...
> -fhugravity
carlip...@physics.ucdavis.edu
> On Feb 8, 6:46 pm, carlip-nos...@physics.ucdavis.edu wrote:
>> Sue... <suzysewns...@yahoo.com.au> wrote:
>> [...]
>> > Steve Carlip and Arthur Eddington will say light is deflected by
>> > gravity.
>> > Frankli and Sue will say the light is refracted by a density
>> > gradient near the massive body.
>> You've invented a new kind of refraction, where the deflection is
>> completely independent of the frequency of light?
> I don't have Bertotti's Cassini paper availible but I am quite sure
> it did not indicate that.
Certainly it did. The time delay measured by Bertotti et al. contained
a plasma component, which depended on frequency, and a "nondispersive
part" independent of frequency. By measuring at several different
frequencies, they were able to isolate these. This is all explained
in their paper. Furthermore, their nondispersive component agrees with
measurements using visible light (*vastly* different frequencies) and
Earth-based VLBI measurements using a very wide range of frequencies.
The observations are clear -- the deflection of light by the Sun is
independent of frequency. So how does your model explain this?
>> OK, here's a simple question. Suppose a source and receiver are
>> at rest in some frame, and that a massive body is moving at a
>> velocity v. How, if at all, does the deflection by the massive
>> body depend on v? Numbers, please, and a quantitative derivation
>> from "refraction"...
> I think you'll find some attempts at that as a
> correction factor here:
> Bertotti et al. 2003 Nature 425 374
> Bertotti B and Giampieri G 1998 Solar Phys. 178 85
Nope, nothing there remotely relevant to my question. Anyway, though,
we're talking about *you* model -- what are *your* predictions?
[...]
> Are you at all troubled that corrections for the solar
> corona are applied *before* it is investigated?
For the Cassini tiome delay experiment, the effect of the Solar corona
is *measured*, and then subtracted out to find the remaining frequency-
independent effect. Does this trouble you?
Steve Carlip
Sue...
> Sue... <suzysewns...@yahoo.com.au> wrote:
> > On Feb 8, 6:46 pm, carlip-nos...@physics.ucdavis.edu wrote:
> >> Sue... <suzysewns...@yahoo.com.au> wrote:
> >> [...]
> >> > Steve Carlip and Arthur Eddington will say light is deflected by
> >> > gravity.
> >> > Frankli and Sue will say the light is refracted by a density
> >> > gradient near the massive body.
> >> You've invented a new kind of refraction, where the deflection is
> >> completely independent of the frequency of light?
> > I don't have Bertotti's Cassini paper availible but I am quite sure
> > it did not indicate that.
>
> Certainly it did. The time delay measured by Bertotti et al. contained
> a plasma component, which depended on frequency, and a "nondispersive
> part" independent of frequency. By measuring at several different
> frequencies, they were able to isolate these. This is all explained
> in their paper. Furthermore, their nondispersive component agrees with
> measurements using visible light (*vastly* different frequencies) and
> Earth-based VLBI measurements using a very wide range of frequencies.
>
> The observations are clear -- the deflection of light by the Sun is
> independent of frequency. So how does your model explain this?
My model is Einsteins concept that gravity/inertia is coupled by
light. The notion that one beam of light would affect another seems
absurd. Headlamp beams don't collide at intersections.
>
> >> OK, here's a simple question. Suppose a source and receiver are
> >> at rest in some frame, and that a massive body is moving at a
> >> velocity v. How, if at all, does the deflection by the massive
> >> body depend on v? Numbers, please, and a quantitative derivation
> >> from "refraction"...
> > I think you'll find some attempts at that as a
> > correction factor here:
> > Bertotti et al. 2003 Nature 425 374
> > Bertotti B and Giampieri G 1998 Solar Phys. 178 85
>
> Nope, nothing there remotely relevant to my question. Anyway, though,
> we're talking about *you* model -- what are *your* predictions?
Why would we make predictons for an implausible interaction?
If the path deviates from free-space propertes, you attribute the
deviations
to the plasma and file it away with your body of knowledge about
solar plama.
>
> [...]
>
> > Are you at all troubled that corrections for the solar
> > corona are applied *before* it is investigated?
>
> For the Cassini tiome delay experiment, the effect of the Solar corona
> is *measured*, and then subtracted out to find the remaining frequency-
> independent effect. Does this trouble you?
Yes... and I am not alone in this. There are two interpretations
of Pound-Rebka-Snider. I consider the earlier one with "falling
photons"
absurd, just as L.B. Okun does.
It is just as absurd to consider photons drawn toward the
the sun. The photon is not a propagation model and
the space-time that is curved by the suns gravity
is imaginary.
You only need to read a few of the threads concerning the
"mass of a photon" to see that Eddington's experiment
was perhaps not such a good idea and it continues to
be an albotroross around GR's neck.
Sue...
>
> Steve Carlip
frank...@yahoo.com
Yes, I knew this was problematic, but the post by Mitchell Jones
provides another way.
Seems with a straight forward application of Coulomb's law and the
assumption that the positive and negative charge do not exaclty cancel
each other with a ratio in the range of 1 X 10^-74, then we can fully
account for the gravitational constant. 10^-74 is extremely, extremely
small, well below our abilities to experimentally determine the charge
ratio of a proton/electron which is currently around 10^-20. I was
originally thinking dipole forces, but this seems to be a better way.
I will have to look into it more. So with that, your inverse square
argument falls away. Thanks Mitchell Jones.
>
> >> [...]
> >> > What other objections do you have against the gravity=electrostatic
> >> > theory?
>
> [...]
>
> >> Among the more obvious ones:
>
> >> 1. Light is does not interact electromagnetically -- not just no charge,
> >> but no dipole or higher multipole moments -- but it is observed to be
> >> deflected by gravitational fields.
> > Yes, light is deflected by gravitational fields. In order to
> > understand why, you need to understand more about my overall model of
> > the universe which does include an aether. The aether is made up of
> > positron/electron pairs and is very similar to normal matter in that
> > it forms atomic dipoles and these are attracted to gravitational
> > (electrostatic) field. With higher gravity, it compresses the aether
> > like water deep in the ocean and causes the aether to become denser.
> > Since we have a density difference, simple refraction from the density
> > differences can explain the bending of light in the presence of strong
> > gravitational fields.
>
> Physics is a quantitative science. How much deflection do you predict,
> as a function of the mass of the object deflecting the light and as a
> function of the distance the light passes from the object?
I'm sure this can be calculated. Since time is limited, I will outline
how the calculation will have to go since the actual calculations
require more research than I have time. There should be a formula
relating density of a gas relative to a gravitational source. This is
the same thing that determines air pressure at differing levels of
altitude. From this and mathematical formulas describing the effects
of refaction depending on density, one should be able to calculate the
degree of refraction expected. One thing we don't know is the actual
density, so we may have to work backwards by determining what the
density is based on actual deflection measurements and then working
forward again to see that it meets other experimental conditions.
>
> Suppose the object that is deflecting the light is moving relative to
> the source and receiver of the light. How much, if at all, does the
> deflection depend on the velocity? Numbers, please.
>
Movement may induce dialation based effects. These effects should be
calulated using the same 1 - v^2/c^2 formulas as relativity since the
model used to explain these dialation effects which is typically shown
as a boater travelling across a running river is actually based on an
aether model - what do you think the running river is? It isn't
nothing - it's absolute space.
> In all observed instances of refraction of light, the amount of refraction
> depends on the frequency of the light. Deflection by a gravitational field,
> on the other hand, is observed to be achromatic, that is, independent of
> frequency. How does your model explain this?
>
I did have a previous discussion with PD on this exact subject. I
think the real question is what causes the frequency dependent
refraction? If you think about it, if a wave is travelling through a
perfectly elastic lossless medium, why should the speed of light
through a material change with frequency? Really, it should not if it
is such a perfect medium. The only thing I could think of is that in
the process of absorbing and re-radiating the light, the atoms induce
frequency dependent delays in the propogation of the light waves.
Perhaps the inertia of the atoms slow down the propagation and the
inertia has different effects at different frequences. There are a
number of possibiities and is an interesting question in of itself.
However, the aether takes a priveleged position in the transmission of
EM waves since it does not pass waves by absorbing and then emission.
It simply passes the wave directly through mechanical motion like
waves passing through balls connected with springs. Therefore, this
truly is a lossless medium and it transmits EM as we would expect
which is achromatic.
> > I have heard that the equations involving GR basically can be broken
> > down into a difference in density or are equivalent to density differences.
> > I don't know if that is true,
>
> It's definitely not true.
>
I seemed to have lost my reference to this. The point of the article
was that the effects attributed to relativity either really didn't
exist or must have been lost in the other effects which can cause a
similar bending. This isn't the reference I was thinking of, but it
certainly puts a doubt in my head that the bending of starlight by the
sun has been accurately measured even to this day. This is the sort of
thing which should be done on a spacecraft.
http://www.newtonphysics.on.ca/ECLIPSE/Eclipse.html
>
> >> 2. An electrostatic description would violate the equivalence principle.
> >> We observe that materials with very different electrical properties
> >> fall with exactly the same accelerations. This has been tested with
> >> such substances as glass, cork, and brass in Eotvos's early experiments,
> >> and platinum, beryllium, aluminum, lead, alnico magnets, samarium cobalt
> >> magnets with highly polarized electrons, and single crystal silicon in
> >> more recent ones. There is no reason for an electrostatic model to
> >> produce exactly the same accelerations -- typically measured to a part
> >> in 10^11 or so -- in all of these cases. (Certainly attraction based on
> >> dielectric characteristics, as you are proposing, will depend strongly
> >> on the dielectric constant, which differs from substance to substance,
> >> and, in fact, on the shape and internal structure of the falling body.)
> > The gravitational attraction I am envisioning would happen at the
> > atomic level. In my model, the electrons and protons that make up an
> > atom are relatively spread apart and so each proton and electron
> > within an atom generates a dipole that gravity works on independently.
> > As far as gravity is concerned, that big red brick you see is composed
> > of trillions and trillions of identically sized objects which all act
> > independently. So naturally, it wouldn't matter what something is made
> > up of.
>
> First: we can observe the effect of gravity on single neutrons. We don't
> need "trillions and trillions" of atoms.
This is my point exactly, the force which creates gravity effectively
ONLY acts on individual proton/electron or neutron (made up of
positron/electron) pairs. That they congolmerate into larger units is
of no consequence.
>
> Second: if gravity depends ony on the "electrons and protons that make up
> an atom," then different isotopes of the same element -- with equal numbers
> of protons and electrons, but different numbers of neutrons -- would fall
> differently (same gravitational force, but different masses). They don't,
> observably.
>
Of course, they wouldn't. Mass at this scale is irrelevant. Everything
falls in a gravitational field as a relatively loose collection of
charged pairs.
> Third: take two identical collections of protons, neutrons, and electrons.
> Use one to make a bunch of beryllium atoms, and the other to make a bunch
> of copper atoms. The resulting two masses have identical constituents,
> but different nuclear binding energies. The inertial mass of an object
> includes a contribution E/c^2 from the binding energy. In your model, the
> two bodies would therefore experience equal gravitational forces, but they
> would have different inertial masses, so they would accelerate at different
> rates. They don't: observably, the acceleration is the same, to a precision
> of parts per trillion.
This is an interesting question, although I could probably just say
that inetial mass is irrelevant at this scale as well. But I will have
to think about the relationship between inertial mass and binding
energy. That is an interesting question.
>
> We thus *observe* that nuclear binding energy gravitates.
I would say that nuclear binding has no effect upon the observed
effects of gravity. Not that binding energy gravitates. There is a
subtle difference in interpretation. My model indicates no
experimental difference between a hydrogen atom and a block of steel
since the block of steel is effectively made up of individual hydrogen
atoms as far as the gravitational force is concerned.
So, also from
> observation, does electrostatic energy, magnetostatic energy, the energy
> of weak interactions, gravitational binding energy, and even the kinetic
> energy of electrons. How does your model explain this? Why, in your model,
> should the gravitational force an object experiences depend on how fast the
> electrons are moving in its atoms?
I am unfamiliar with the kinetic energy of electrons. The reasoning
follow the same reasoning as the binding energy - basically a NULL
result of gravity rather than a real change in gravitational action.
If so, then my same comments apply.
>
> [...]
>
> >> 3. We observe that many forms of energy -- electrostatic energy, nuclear
> >> binding energy, energy of weak interactions, even kinetic energy of
> >> electrons in atoms -- gravitate. But these do not interact with electric
> >> fields.
> > I have never head of nuclear binding energy gravitating - do you have
> > any references? Electrons with kinetic energy definitely interact with
> > the electric field and are strongly deflected, so I am unsure what you
> > are referring to here.
>
> A good technical reference is Will's review Living Reviews article,http://relativity.livingreviews.org/Articles/lrr-2006-3/index.html, section 2.1.
> If you want something less technical, get Will's book, _Was Einstein Right?_
> For kinetic energy of electrons, seehttp://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/9909014.
All interactions happen at the speed of light c. Clocks slow down due
to a decrease in the effective speed of light due to increasing aether
density. Therefore all physical interactions are slowed. For example
between a fixed point A and B are 10 aether particles. It takes 10
absolute units of time for anything to traverse from A to B. Now the
aether density increases such there are now 12 aether particles
between the same 2 points. It now take 12 absoulte units of time or
20% more time for it to do the same interaction.
>
For a mathematical description, check this reference.
http://www.egtphysics.net/GPS/RelGPS.htm
See the section starting with the quote "The effects of gravitational
potential described above can be easily matched to the effects of
ether density." I think I could agree with most of what is being said
here - lots of math to prove it for those who are in to that.
> Why does a clock *at rest* in a gravitational field (not "go[ing] from point
> A to point B") slow down?
>
Once, again, aether density increases the number of particles that
have to traversed to get from point A to point B even in a motionless
clock. (A clock always must have some motion associated with it to
determine the length of the click).
> >> 6. Binary pulsar systems slowly decay by emitting gravitational waves.
> >> (Hulse and Taylor won the 1993 Physics Nobel Prize for this discovery.)
> >> The observations show that gravitational waves couple to the mass
> >> quadrupole moment. Electric fields, on the other hand, couple first
> >> to dipole moments; this would lead to *much* stronger radiation,
> >> contradicting observation.
>
> > A search of the net on gravitational waves and quadrapole moments
> > brought up nothing. Do you have any handy net references?
>
> Will's Living Reviews article has a discussion, but it's fairly technical.
> The best less-technical discussion I know of is section 36.1 of the textbook
> by Misner, Thorne, and Wheeler, which I don't think you'll ...
>
> read more »- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Szczepan Bialek
<frank...@yahoo.com> Wrote on Feb 9, 21:27 (copy from Google):
On Feb 6, 1:47 am, "Szczepan Bialek" <sz.bia...@wp.pl> wrote:
> I think that your experiment should be done without ceiling. In meantime I
> try to consider thy other aspects.
> S*
>I conducted further experiments. The most likely alternate explanation
for the bubbles rising is that the positively charged bubbles are
still being repelled away by the positively charged VDG rather than
being repelled by the Earth positive field.
Are You talking about the Earth positive electric field or about a
mysteryous Earth positive field?
The Earth electric field may be positive or negative or zero. It is
weather dependent.
>To test this, I arranged to shut down the VDG field by quickly turning
off the VDG and grounding it. If it is the Earth field the bubbles are
reacting to, then the bubbles should continue to rise. If it is the
VDG field they are reacting to, they should stop and drop. I conducted
the experiment in both indoor and outdoor conditions.
>The results were inconclusive. During the indoor test, the bubbles did
appear to stop rising when the VDG was grounded, but didn't appear to
drop as quickly as uncharged bubbles. So it would appear that at least
part of the effect is due to repulsion directly from the VDG. During
the outdoor test, it was quite apparent that the bubbles travel very
high into the air when charged (30-40ft) - much farther than when
uncharged.
Outdors the Earth electric field is always stronger. Indoor is partly
Faraday's cage.
>Grounding the VDG did not have such a big effect as the
bubbles rose very high into the air. The variable I cannot control in
the outdoor situation is the wind. The wind is also able to loft
bubbles high into the air, but it didn't seem to occur as often as
when the bubbles were charged. Just the distances travelled away from
the VDG would tend to rule out the VDG as the source of the repulsion
in these outdoor tests.
The source of the repulsion in these outdoor tests is the stronger Earth
electric field.
>What I really need is to conduct this experiment in a large indoor
space like a school gymnasium with high ceilings and no wind. I'll let
you know if I ever get the chance to do this experiment
You should take the two seperate ways:
1. Investigation of the Earth electric field - its should be done outdoor
or indoor made of metal- free materials
2. Investigation of the Earth gravity field - in Faraday cage
S*
Szczepan Białek
In article <pr7ns2toan63hf664so00l1bck31pj7...@4ax.com>,
Ben Newsam <ben.new...@ukonline.co.uk> wrote: (copy from Google)
> On Thu, 08 Feb 2007 11:36:14 -0600, Mitchell Jones
> <mjo...@21cenlogic.com> wrote:
> > Who is to say that there are not
> >censors in Poland, without specific facts about what is going on there?
> I suggest to you that if usenet posts were being "deleted" as you say,
> by a national government, that dact would be known about and discussed
> in a worldwide forum. <shrug>
Plus the distributed nature of Usenet, a fact not always appreciated by
those
who may be using it through web gateways.
Please stop this plot. You all simply write too much and my serwer has not
enough place. The usenet posts were NOT being "deleted". I have all of
them.
S*
Szczepan Białek
"Szczepan Bialek" wrote: > Please stop this plot. You all simply write too
> enough place. The usenet posts were NOT being "deleted". I have all of
> them.
> S*
>
me. The reason is simple. My PC is ON only 2 - 3 hours per day. The posts
are not deleted. Its disappear.
S*
Autymn D. C.
> The best less-technical discussion I know of is section 36.1 of the textbook
> by Misner, Thorne, and Wheeler, which I don't think you'll find on the net.
> Sometimes you just have to break down and go to a library...
or Barnes&Noble
Mitchell Jones
carlip...@physics.ucdavis.edu wrote:
***{It has long been known that photons are subject to gravitational
influence, though those influences have heretofore been classified as
being non-electromagnetic in nature. But if we now decide to entertain
the possibility that gravity is ultimately due to a slight excess of the
attraction of unlike charges over the repulsion of like charges, no
conflict arises: we simply reclassify the gravitational effect under the
rubric of electromagnetism, and move on.
Moreover, that would be an entirely plausible thing to do, since it has
been known for a very long time that light is an electromagnetic
phenomenon, that photons exhibit perpendicularly oriented, oscillating
electric and magnetic fields, that they can be produced by the union of
oppositely charged particles, etc. Who is to say, therefore, that a
photon is not an assemblage of fractionally charged, neutral electric
dipoles, at some level of analysis? If it is, then the same sort of
mathematical reasoning I applied earlier to the attraction between the
Earth and Luna would apply to them.
Speaking more generally, I would note that the fact that the old way of
classifying something differs from what is proposed is NOT the same
thing as a contradiction. If gravity is electromagnetic, it was
electromagnetic all along. In that case when, in the past, we talked
about the susceptibility of photons to gravity, we were talking about an
electromagnetic effect. We just didn't know that was what we were
talking about. The fact that we didn't know it is not evidence one way
or the other regarding the truth of the new interpretation.
--Mitchell Jones}***
> > Yes, light is deflected by gravitational fields. In order to
> > understand why, you need to understand more about my overall model of
> > the universe which does include an aether. The aether is made up of
> > positron/electron pairs and is very similar to normal matter in that
> > it forms atomic dipoles and these are attracted to gravitational
> > (electrostatic) field. With higher gravity, it compresses the aether
> > like water deep in the ocean and causes the aether to become denser.
> > Since we have a density difference, simple refraction from the density
> > differences can explain the bending of light in the presence of strong
> > gravitational fields.
>
> Physics is a quantitative science.
***{Any meaningful reference to a quantity presupposes an answer to a
qualitative question--to wit: what quality is it that has been
quantified? If you walk up to someone and say "How much?" he is going to
look at you oddly, and say "How much of what?" It follows that physics
must, by being a quantitative science, be a qualitative science as well.
Bottom line: communication by means of words is as much a part of
science as is communication by means of mathematical symbolism. --MJ}***
> How much deflection do you predict,
> as a function of the mass of the object deflecting the light and as a
> function of the distance the light passes from the object?
***{First, understanding progresses to the point where a deflection can
be predicted. Second, it progresses to the point where the magnitude of
the deflection can be predicted. Third, it progresses to the point where
the magnitude of the deflection can be measured with sufficient accuracy
to verify/falsify the prediction. Fourth, it progresses to the point
where the theory can be classified as either "supported by measurement"
or "false." Every step in the process depends on all of its
predecessors. You cannot have step two until you have gone through step
one; you can't have step three unless you have had step two; and so on.
All stages in the process are part of science. --MJ}***
> Suppose the object that is deflecting the light is moving relative to
> the source and receiver of the light. How much, if at all, does the
> deflection depend on the velocity? Numbers, please.
***{Logically, two effects are involved when a massive body deflects
light.
First, there is the gravitational effect: light passing near a large
mass such as a star would be deflected toward that mass in accordance
with F = GmM/r^2 which, for the purpose of this discussion, we are
regarding as an alternative form of Coulomb's law--which means: mass is
electromagnetic in nature. Since this putative electrogravity arises
classically, it follows that in this discussion we are working within
the classical paradigm. That means we are not discussing the notion of
gravity as due to "curved space" or any of that, and so we are free to
make use of the "effective mass" of a photon in calculations--to wit: m
= hf/c^2. (It is well known that when a system absorbs a photon, its
mass increases by the amount hf/c^2, and when it emits a photon, its
mass decreases by hf/c^2. Hence hf/c^2, by definition, is the "effective
mass" of a photon.) Thus using m as the photon mass and M as the mass of
the star, we would have F = GmM/r^2 as the force contributing to the
gravitational deflection of photons. In the case of photons arriving at
Earth after transiting near the surface of Sol (the sun), the predicted
deflection would be about .87 arcseconds
Second, we would have a lensing effect, due to the gravitational
compression of the medium that pervades all of space, whether we call
that medium by its proper name, the aether, or by one of the various
contemporary misnomers (the Dirac sea, quantum foam, zpe, or whatever).
Whatever you call it, Sol is unarguably immersed in it, and the medium's
constituent particles (electron-positron pairs, etc.) are unarguably
subject to gravity. Result: an immense sphere of that material is
gravitationally entrained around Sol, and its pressure rises as altitude
decreases, just as atmospheric pressure on Earth rises as altitude
decreases. And, of course, as pressure rises, the density of the medium
increases. The result is a lensing effect similar to what one would
expect if the gaseous atmosphere of Sol extended much further out than
is actually the case. Thus we would expect the actual deflection to be
substantially greater than that predicted by gravitation alone, and that
is, in fact, the case. Thus I interpret the excess (about .88
arcseconds) as being due to aether lensing.
As for the effect the velocity of the gravitating mass would have on the
deflection of the light, are you talking about the effect of velocity
perpendicular to the path of the light beam, or parallel to it?
--Mitchell Jones}***
> In all observed instances of refraction of light, the amount of refraction
> depends on the frequency of the light. Deflection by a gravitational field,
> on the other hand, is observed to be achromatic, that is, independent of
> frequency. How does your model explain this?
***{As noted above, within the context of the present discussion the
gravitational force on a photon would be F = GmM/r^2. That force is
proportional to the "effective mass" of the photon, m, but it is also
the force accelerating the photon, F = ma. Result: ma = GmM/r^2 , and m
drops out, leaving a = GM/r^2 for all photons irrespective of their
mass. Result: all photons deflect by the same amount, irrespective of
their masses, just as all projectiles launched from a catapult and
moving with the same initial velocity follow the same ballistic
trajectory, irrespective of their masses. Further, since m = hf/c^2, it
follows that frequency has also dropped out, meaning that photons all
deflect by the same amount, regardless of their frequencies. --MJ}***
> > I have heard that the equations involving GR basically can be broken
> > down into a difference in density or are equivalent to density differences.
> > I don't know if that is true,
>
> It's definitely not true.
***{Um, it's not entirely true, but there is a component (roughly half)
of the deflection of a photon passing near the sun that can reasonably
be attributed to a density gradient, as explained above. Einstein didn't
explain it that way, of course, but his explanation is irrelevant in
this discussion, since we are considering an approach that has nothing
to do with GR. (When you discuss an alternative to a theory, however
broadly accepted that theory may be, you are not bound by its concepts
and definitions. Your goal is to explain the facts, period. You are not
required to work within the interpretative framework of the other
theory.) --MJ}***
> >> 2. An electrostatic description would violate the equivalence principle.
> >> We observe that materials with very different electrical properties
> >> fall with exactly the same accelerations. This has been tested with
> >> such substances as glass, cork, and brass in Eotvos's early
> >> experiments,
> >> and platinum, beryllium, aluminum, lead, alnico magnets, samarium
> >> cobalt
> >> magnets with highly polarized electrons, and single crystal silicon in
> >> more recent ones. There is no reason for an electrostatic model to
> >> produce exactly the same accelerations -- typically measured to a part
> >> in 10^11 or so -- in all of these cases.
***{The postulate being considered is that the attraction between unlike
charges very slightly exceeds the repulsion between like charges, in the
amount needed to account for the gravitational interactions that have
been observed. I actually derived Newton's law of universal gravitation
from Coulomb's law, based on an admittedly somewhat inexact application
of that premise.
Why was it inexact? Because the underlying premise of the analysis would
have to be that all materials subject to gravitational attraction are
composed, ultimately, of neutral electric dipoles the oppositely charged
components of which would be equal in gravitation and inertial mass.
Possibilities would include positron-electron pairs, plus any
fractionally charged electric dipoles of that sort which may exist. The
gravitational mass of the proton, however, exceeds that of the electron,
and so one would expect a group of protons to gravitate more strongly
than an equally numerous collection of electrons. However, that does not
necessarily pose a problem, since the proton may be composed of
positron-electron pairs with one extra positron, or of some similar
accumulation of fractionally charged dipoles, leading to the same
result: an excess of 1 unit of charge.
Of course, as previously noted, I am not yet convinced that this
electromagnetic theory of gravity is true. My intent here is to defend
it as best I can, and see how successful I am. If electrogravity turns
out to be the conclusion of the strongest arguments, then I will of
course accept it. But I have not yet determined that to be the case.
--Mitchell Jones}***
> >> (Certainly attraction based
> >> on
> >> dielectric characteristics, as you are proposing, will depend strongly
> >> on the dielectric constant, which differs from substance to substance,
> >> and, in fact, on the shape and internal structure of the falling
> >> body.)
***{The Coulomb constant, K, is such that K = 1/[4(pi)e0], where e0 is
the permittivity of free space. Measurement, in short, says that the
dielectric constant is not involved in the operation of Coulomb's law,
and logic says it is not involved in the operation of a gravitational
force derived from it. --MJ}***
> > The gravitational attraction I am envisioning would happen at the
> > atomic level. In my model, the electrons and protons that make up an
> > atom are relatively spread apart and so each proton and electron
> > within an atom generates a dipole that gravity works on independently.
> > As far as gravity is concerned, that big red brick you see is composed
> > of trillions and trillions of identically sized objects which all act
> > independently. So naturally, it wouldn't matter what something is made
> > up of.
>
> First: we can observe the effect of gravity on single neutrons. We don't
> need "trillions and trillions" of atoms.
***{A neutron may itself be composed of lesser electric dipoles. A free
neutron, for example, will shortly decay into a proton with the emission
of an electron and an antineutrino. Thus we know it contains the
constituents of at least one unit of positive and one unit of negative
charge, and it is reasonable to suppose that it contains neutral dipoles
bearing many others. --MJ}***
> Second: if gravity depends ony on the "electrons and protons that make up
> an atom," then different isotopes of the same element -- with equal numbers
> of protons and electrons, but different numbers of neutrons -- would fall
> differently (same gravitational force, but different masses). They don't,
> observably.
***{Not if protons and neutrons are themselves composed of smaller
electric dipoles. That would of course affect the value of z in the
calculation I did earlier, since in that case fully 1/2 of the mass of
an uncharged body would consist of negative charges, rather than the
1/1836th figure that I used. But that sort of adjustment would be easily
made, and would not pose a problem for the concept itself. --MJ}***
> Third: take two identical collections of protons, neutrons, and electrons.
> Use one to make a bunch of beryllium atoms, and the other to make a bunch
> of copper atoms.
***{Not limited to stable isotopes, of course, since the ratio of
protons to neutrons must be the same for the two types of atoms chosen.
For example, 8Be4 and 58Cu29. One "bunch" might, for example, consist of
29 atoms of 8Be4 and the other of 4 atoms of 58Cu29. --MJ}***
> The resulting two masses have identical constituents,
> but different nuclear binding energies.The inertial mass of an object
> includes a contribution E/c^2 from the binding energy.
***{Yes, a negative contribution: the greater the binding energy of an
atomic system, the greater the mass deficit of the system when compared
to its constituents in their unbound state. That's why, for example,
nuclear fusion--the bringing together of previously separated nucleons
to form a new atom--releases such an enormous amount of energy: photons
must escape from the separated constituents, in order for them to be
brought together.
How did the separated constituents acquire those extra photons? They
absorbed them while in a prior, non-separated state. For example, from
the neoclassical perspective (QM true believers may now cover their eyes
:-), the higher the stable orbit occupied by the electron of a neutral H
atom, the greater its total energy (kinetic plus potential). As the
electron hops upward, into higher and higher stable orbits, the binding
energy of the system decreases--which means: its mass deficit becomes
less and less when compared to the same constituents when completely
separated from one another.
But how can that be? Where is the additional mass located? What is the
source of the addition to the mass of the system, as the electron hops
into higher and higher stable orbits? The answer: quanta of radiation
must be absorbed into the system in order to kick the electron into the
higher and higher orbits that it occupies as the binding energy of the
system decreases. Hence differences in binding energy, whether within
the nucleus or in the electron cloud above it, correspond to differences
in the quantity of absorbed electromagnetic radiation, if identical
collections of protons, neutrons, and electrons are being compared, as
per the above example.
Thus this argument about binding energies is just the earlier argument
about light not interacting electromagnetically, put in a slightly
different form. And the answer to it is the same: the mass of a system
that absorbs a photon increments by hf/c^2, and, as it does so, the
binding energy of the system decreases by that amount. Eventually, if
photons continue to be absorbed, the nucleons in the system will be
completely separated; and, while they are in that completely separated
state, they will have greater mass than they had in their prior, bound
states, in amounts equal to the sums of the effective masses of the
photons that they absorbed.
--Mitchell Jones}***
> In your model, the
> two bodies would therefore experience equal gravitational forces, but they
> would have different inertial masses, so they would accelerate at different
> rates. They don't: observably, the acceleration is the same, to a precision
> of parts per trillion.
***{The atomic system with the lower binding energy, other things equal,
contains more absorbed photons. We know for a fact that the union of a
positron and an electron produces photons; hence it reasonably follows
that the original charges may live on within the photon, perhaps in the
form of large numbers of lesser dipoles, bearing fractional charges. It
is a small step to suppose that all photons are composed of dipoles, at
some level of analysis, and hence that those dipoles remain within
atomic systems after photons have been absorbed. --MJ}***
> We thus *observe* that nuclear binding energy gravitates.
***{You have it backwards. The "binding energy" of a system is a measure
of energy that has already been lost. It is no longer present in the
system. Nuclear binding energy decreases as photons are absorbed into an
atomic system, and photons gravitate. That means the mass of an atomic
system increases as its binding energy decreases. --MJ}***
> So, also from
> observation, does electrostatic energy, magnetostatic energy, the energy
> of weak interactions, gravitational binding energy, and even the kinetic
> energy of electrons. How does your model explain this?
***{Absorption/desorption of photons underlies all of the above. When a
system absorbs a photon, its mass is incremented by hf/c^2, and when it
emits a photon, its mass is decremented by hf/c^2. That's why the
neoclassical approach, which treats the mass of the photon as equal to
hf/c^2, makes far, far more sense than the conventional view that the
mass of the photon is zero. That, of course, is a side issue. The point
here is that all differences in gravitation due to mass differences can
be explained by the idea of electromagnetic gravitation, if photons are
assemblies of tiny, fractionally charged dipoles, and if all masses are
assemblies of photons. --MJ}***
> Why, in your model,
> should the gravitational force an object experiences depend on how fast the
> electrons are moving in its atoms?
***{To speed them up, photons had to be absorbed, and the mass of a
system that absorbs a photon is increased by the amount hf/c^2. That's
all there is to it. --MJ}***
***{If all matter consists of photons (as E = mc^2 requires), albeit
rearranged into various forms, and if all photons consist of electric
dipoles, then since the accumulation of gravitational potential energy
by, say, the moon, involves the absorption of photons, it follows that
any event which contributes to gravitational mass will also contribute
to inertial mass: more tiny dipoles means more things for electrogravity
to attract; and more tiny dipoles means more things to produce drag as
the object moves through the aether (or through the quantum foam, or
through the zpf, or through the Dirac sea, or through whatever you want
to call the medium that pervades all of space). Result: no Nordtvedt
effect, because all the Nordtvedt effect would mean, if it were real,
would be that gravitational potential energy would add to gravitational
mass without adding to inertial mass. But that is baloney: more
gravitational mass means more aether drag (inertia), so the absence of a
Nordtvedt effect is entirely to be expected, if the electrogravity
theory is correct. --MJ}***
> That's what nonlinearity means. It causes no problems with orbits; I don't
> know why you think it would.
***{Did Sue say she thought it would? How could a non-existent effect
cause problems? I would see a problem only if the Nordtvedt effect were
real--which means: if the accumulation of photons associated with an
accumulation of gravitational potential energy increased gravitational
mass more than inertial mass. --MJ}***
> Again, Will's _Was Einstein Right?_ has a very nice, clear discussion.
>
> >> 5. Gravity is observed to affect the rate of clocks -- including atomic
> >> clocks, clocks based on weak interactions, and even "mechanical
> >> clocks"
> >> (e.g., rotating neutron stars). Electrical interactions do not; and
> >> if one could contrive an effect on a particular kind of clock, there
> >> would be no reason to expect it to work for others based on different
> >> physical principles.
>
> > To explain this, I once again rely on the concept of a gravitaionally
> > compressed aether. In such a compressed aether, you must cross many
> > more aether particles to go from point A to point B and this is the
> > source of the clock slowdown for any kind of clock. The density of the
> > aether sets the basic speed at which particles can interact.
>
> Where are the numbers?
***{I suggest you use the formulae claimed, without justification, by
Einstein, if you want to do a calculation. Relativity, after all, is
just a natural language interpretive framework applied to equations that
for the most part were originated by others. There is no reason to
calculate changes in the rates of clocks using any equations other than
those that match up with the experimental data. The gravitationally
entrained aether theory supplies a better interpretive framework for
those equations than does the "theory of relativity," and is to be
preferred on that ground alone. It simply makes more sense to say that,
for example, the aether density is higher at the surface of the sun,
and, thus, that clocks run slower there (just as they would run slower
in molasses), than it makes to say that time runs slower there. --MJ}***
> How much does a clock slow down?
***{Again, use the equations unjustifiably claimed by Einstein. In
arguments about the gravitationally entrained aether theory, the issue
is not whether the generally accepted equations work, but how to make
sense out of them. The theory that makes the most sense is always to be
preferred, when the equations themselves are not being disputed. --MJ}***
> Why, specifically
> (i.e., by calculation, not verbiage) should a clock based on weak
> interactions
> slow by exactly the same amount as, say, a clock based on atomic transitions,
> or one based on simply measuring the spin rate of a neutron star?
***{You can't answer a "why" question by doing a calculation. Verbiage
is what is required. The equations of physics are (a) descriptions of
experimental data points expressed in the language of mathematics, or
(b) extrapolations from such descriptions based on mathematical rules.
They express what is now known and, as such, are not properly in dispute
except by those who have new data. In the absence of new data, as here,
the dispute is over whether the gravitationally entrained aether
verbiage makes more sense out of the equations than does Einstein's
verbiage or that of his acolytes. And that dispute, of necessity, must
take place via the medium of words.
As to why the various sorts of clocks would all slow at the same rates,
the answer is that motion through the medium that pervades all of space,
like motion through any other fluid, is resisted. The fluid in question,
however, is composed of units that are small enough to penetrate
throughout material objects and fill the interstices between them.
Result: it resists motion at the atomic and subatomic levels, rather
than at the macroscopic level. What does that mean? It means that when
you move through water, the water flows around your macroscopic body,
and does not flow into your body. The aether, however, does not flow
around your body; it flows around the elementary particles of which the
atoms in your body are composed. Result: an increase in its density
slows all material motions within it by the same amount. Result: only
particles that are themselves very small relative to the constituents of
the aether--small enough to pass through them as easily as aether
particles pass through human bodies--can escape the influence of the
aether's motion retarding effects.
--Mitchell Jones}***
> Why does a clock *at rest* in a gravitational field (not "go[ing] from point
> A to point B") slow down?
***{Because the Dirac sea, the substrate of the aether that has the
largest particles, is gravitationally entrained. (Positrons and
electrons have gravitational mass.) It forms a roughly spherical pool
around the center of mass of each celestial body. That pool extends
throughout the region of gravitational dominance of the body, moves with
it, and its density increases toward the level of maximal gravitational
acceleration. That means a clock at rest on the surface of a celestial
body is running, in effect, in molasses, and the greater the
gravitational acceleration at the level where it is running, the thicker
is the molasses. That, not the relativistic nonsense about "time
dilation," is the proper explanation for the fact that stationary clocks
slow down as gravitational acceleration increases. --MJ}***
> >> 6. Binary pulsar systems slowly decay by emitting gravitational waves.
> >> (Hulse and Taylor won the 1993 Physics Nobel Prize for this
> >> discovery.)
> >> The observations show that gravitational waves couple to the mass
> >> quadrupole moment. Electric fields, on the other hand, couple first
> >> to dipole moments; this would lead to *much* stronger radiation,
> >> contradicting observation.
***{The "electric fields" you are talking about arise from matter where
there is an imbalance of charge--i.e., more positive charges than
negative, or vice versa. However, the supposed electrogravity arises
from a very slightly greater strength of the attractive electrical
forces as compared to the repulsive electrical forces, in cases where
the numbers of positive and negative charges are in balance. Obviously
this is a vastly weaker effect, and it is by no means clear to me why
you would expect it to not produce the observed results. --MJ}***
> > A search of the net on gravitational waves and quadrapole moments
> > brought up nothing. Do you have any handy net references?
>
> Will's Living Reviews article has a discussion, but it's fairly technical.
> The best less-technical discussion I know of is section 36.1 of the textbook
> by Misner, Thorne, and Wheeler, which I don't think you'll find on the net.
> Sometimes you just have to break down and go to a library...
>
> Steve Carlip
*****************************************************************
Mitchell Jones
Mitchell Jones <mjo...@21cenlogic.com> wrote:
[snip]
> > Why, in your model,
> > should the gravitational force an object experiences depend on how fast the
> > electrons are moving in its atoms?
>
> ***{To speed them up, photons had to be absorbed, and the mass of a
> system that absorbs a photon is increased by the amount hf/c^2. That's
> all there is to it. --MJ}***
***{The above should have read as follows:
"To raise them up (to higher energy levels) photons had to be absorbed,
and the mass of a system that absorbs a photon is increased by the
amount hf/c&2. That's all there is to it."
Insufficient editing strikes again! :-)
The point of the change: at higher energy levels, the speed of an
electron does not increase; it decreases.
--Mitchell Jones}***
[snip]
frank...@yahoo.com
> electromagnetic theory of gravity is true. My intent here is to defend
> it as best I can, and see how successful I am. If electrogravity turns
> out to be the conclusion of the strongest arguments, then I will of
> course accept it. But I have not yet determined that to be the case.
>
> --Mitchell Jones}***
Wow, for someone who is not yet convinced, you sure make a convincing
argument. I wonder what Steve Carlip has to say in response? Your
arguments really put some meat on the bones of an electrostatic
gravity argument. I'm not sure I agree with your statement that
photons are absorbed into an atom creating mass. I could believe that
a photon raises an electron energy level, thus making it "bigger" and
harder to push through the aether which increases mass, but there
should be no concept of energy being converted into matter or vice-
versa. Although, this is not a matter directly related to the
elecrostatic gravity hypothesis.
carlip...@physics.ucdavis.edu
>> Of course, as previously noted, I am not yet convinced that
>> this electromagnetic theory of gravity is true. My intent
>> here is to defend it as best I can, and see how successful
>> I am. If electrogravity turns out to be the conclusion of
>> the strongest arguments, then I will of course accept it.
>> But I have not yet determined that to be the case.
>> --Mitchell Jones}***
> Wow, for someone who is not yet convinced, you sure make a
> convincing argument. I wonder what Steve Carlip has to say
> in response?
First: this model has the same problems with the principle of
equivalence that I described earlier. Since my description was
apparently not very clear, let me try again.
1. We observe that an electron moving at a finite velocity
has a larger inertial mass than an electron at rest. The
inertia, as measured by response to an external force,
is increased by E/c^2. (There are some tricky issues of
reference frames if you consider a single electron, but
there's no ambiguity if you consider abound system and
look at the velocities of the electrons relative to the
center of mass.)
2. We observe that despite their greater inertial masses,
objects in which electrons are moving rapidly fall at
exactly the same acceleration as objects in which electrons
are moving more slowly. By Newton's second law, this means
that the *gravitational* mass must also increase by E/c^2.
3. The same argument holds for other forms of energy, including
electrostatic energy, magnetostatic energy, energy of weak
neutral currents, and gravitational binding energy.
This means that, *observationally*, energy gravitates. Since electric
charges (again, observably) don't change with energy, this excludes
any model in which gravity is a result of electric charge. Note that
the relevant experiments typically have accuracies of a few parts in
10^11 or better, so you can't just dismiss this as an oddity -- any
serious model of gravity that's based on electric charge has to
explain why energy, which is uncharged, contributes *exactly* E/c^2
to gravitational interactions.
Second: this model fails the binary pulsar test. We observe that
binary neutron star orbits slowly decay, with an energy loss that
precisely matches the amount predicted by general relativity from
emission of gravitational radiation. This amount depends on the
mass quadrupole moment of the binary system. Electromagnetic
radiation, on the other hand, depends on electric *dipole* moments.
This means that if the two neutron stars had unbalanced electromagnetic
interactions, the amount of radiation would be much higher -- dipole
radiation is much stronger than quadrupole radiation. (Note, again,
that this is a precise quantitative issue.)
Third: despite some hand-waving, this model does not explain the
deflection of light by a gravitational field. The nature of light
follows directly from Maxwell's equations -- it is a propagating
electromagnetic field, and is, in particular, uncharged. It should
therefore not be affected by an interaction that is based on unbalanced
interactions of charges. If you want to somehow throw out this picture
and claim that light is made of charged particles, you need to be clear
that you are completely junking Maxwell's equations. If you want to
do that, then explaining gravity is the least of your problems -- you
first need to explain the *enormous* numbers of tests of conventional
electrodynamics.
Fourth: there are a large number of precision measurements of gravity
that go beyond a Newtonian inverse square interaction. These include
precession of perihelia in the Solar System (Mercury, Mars, Icarus)
and in neutron star binaries; gravitational red shift and time dilation;
Shapiro time delay; de Sitter precession of the Earth-Moon system; a
number of strong field tests of gravity in binary pulsar systems (the
"r" and "s" parameters); and probably frame-dragging (we'll hear the
results from Gravity Probe B in April). Physics is a quantitative
science; a proposed alternative to general relativity has to explain
these observations quantitatively at least as well as general relativity
does.
Steve Carlip
rick_...@hotmail.com
I think that GR is correct, although what is a gravity wave?
Now mass, causes space-time to bend, in on itself, like in a black
hole for instance, and so what you have are like high and low pressure
areas. The rubber sheet, with the ball bearing etc.
And, if the universe is made of atoms, then gravity too,
must be in the atom.
The cumulative effects of gravity, being much more noticeable
as it bends light around the sun for instance because space-time
is curved, or you could say compressed, around the sun.
If you were to say it had shells like concentric rings,
that you could see, which laid out the gravitational field,
these would be getting closer together as you approached
the sun.
So then, if we look at a model of the universe, the loaf
of bread, and it has raisins, in it, and the loaf rises,
because of the yeast, the universe expands, in all
areas in all directions that way.
And perhaps it does this, because outside of that,
is the void, and it is traveling out, because of high
and low pressure effects.
There is pressure within the universe, no pressure without,
so it expands into the lesser pressurized area, which
is the void, or hyperspace.
Now it doesn't just do this, at the outer edges, of the
observable universe, it does it everywhere, even into the
space between things.
Each atom, expanding into hyperspace.
Yet because there is no resistance to that, hyperspace
being void of any thing, hence it can do so, at the speed
with which it was originally propelled by the big bang
and it can do it locally, in unison, and that is the key.
If you draw a ruler, on an expanding balloon, an inch
will still be an inch, when the balloon is inflated.
If you have two balloons, both with rulers painted on them,
in a void space, and expand the two balloons,
and then measure each balloon, with the rulers from
the other balloon, or from their own rulers, their
size would not appear to have changed.
And that is gravity.
The expansion of the universe, into hyperspace.
Now the reason you get high and low pressure areas,
around a large mass, for instance, is because, you do
get some resistance to expansion.
And you get that, when the atom, sends out a
spherical wave, which we call black body radiation
and it is repelled, by another wave, from another atom.
Given enough atoms, and enough waves bombarding
each other, it sets up a resistance to expansion.
But stand on that expanding balloon, and your feet are
pressed onto the floor of it.
So the universe is filled with blackbody radiation,
and radiation of all types, an electric universe,
and electrostatic and electromagnetic attraction
and repulsion plays a large part when things are
reasonably neutral gravitationally.
Hence solar wind could propel a ship.
So if there were such a thing, as a gravitational wave,
it would look like, blackbody radiation.
Dark energy.
Because when it is not dark, and that wave is at the
proper distance from the atom, at a crest of a spherical wave,
we call it an electron.
rick_...@hotmail.com
Those two balloons, in the void, as they expanded, they would
appear to be, getting closer together, or being attracted,
to each other. In fact, an observer, expanding with the two
balloons, would not see them getting bigger, just the space
between them, getting smaller.
Now if each balloon, was also sending out waves,
to repel each other, you would have our observable universe.
rick_...@hotmail.com
And the reason, that glaxies appear to be heading away from
each other at almost the speed of light, is because they
are not attracted, to each other, but repelled, from each other,
by the waves from other galaxies.
Those waves travel at c.
The space between them, shrinking, but not as quickly,
as they are being repelled.
The fact that they would be as they expand in size,
using up that space between them, it is a minuscule
effect, compared to the distance between them
and the ratio of their size.
So gravity, appears to be a local phenomena,
that is to say, that in a solar system, yes,
there is gravity, and it is noticeable,
but between galaxies, there is no attractive force.
Only a shrinking space, but at the same time,
the universe of matter, and waves, is expanding out,
to compensate for that, and hence we have a universe
which is almost flat.
You can get the appearance of attractive force, if things
are merely heading towards each other, say two galaxies
heading towards each other, because they are being
repelled by some other force.
And you can look at the great wall, of galaxies, and say
it is attracting other galaxies to it, and maybe, there
are some currents, in space-time, which things may
follow, so it also, looks attractive.
But little charged particles, gravitons, are not the cause.
rick_...@hotmail.com
A bit more...
Here you can see, some of those currents,
http://www.solstation.com/x-objects/ga2cwall.jpg
you can see that galaxies are in clusters,
now with an attractive gravity, in a homogeneous universe
things on that scale, would be rounder, the galaxies in rounder
clumps.
Inertia, or the mass of an atom, is that expansion,
in 4D. space-time.
Given no outside influence, one atom in the void,
it would be in one spot. Not moving horizontally
or vertically, and in fact, because it has some force,
forcing it outward, G, that would tend to make it resist
some force from a horizontal or vertical direction.
Its intrinsic mass, resisting outside force.
So combine the atoms, into a planet, and it is round,
still expanding in unison, and resisting, pressure
from solar wind, but falling towards the sun,
as the space between the earth and the sun,
shrinks.
The outward expansion, tends to make things spin,
and if you examine the old universe, old galaxies,
say from a 2 billion year old universe, the universe
was not as homogeneous in pressure, so things
expanded like they were exploding out, with less
resistance.
But in a 14 billion year old universe, galaxies become
spiral galaxies, as the universal pressure is more
homogeneous.
http://hubblesite.org/newscenter/archive/releases/1994/52/image/c/
An asteroid, with insufficient mass, is not usually round,
but a planet, with sufficient mass, and age, is usually round,
because the combined expansion, of each atom, homogenizes,
the mass, so that it ends up more round, and round,
is the path of least resistance, also, because it will spin,
and it will rotate, around the sun, and all these things,
bleed off that energy, caused by resistance.
It is a very complex system, when you consider centripetal
force, and all the factors, so it is no wonder, that it took a great
genius, like Einstein, to see that Newtonian gravity was close,
that an attractive universal gravity, was a close approximation,
but it did not explain everything.
And spooky action at a distance, would have to be really
spooky, for gravity to surpass c. It would have to be
instantaneous. But in a way, it is instantaneous, in that
at one point in the universe, the universe is expanding
at the same rate as another. So their commonality,
is what provides simultaneity. But only a common purpose,
which expands the universe shrinking the empty space
between things. But the energy of matter, repelling all other
matter it can effect with em waves within its range.
And when that energy finally does get played out,
then will be the heat death, of the universe.
rick_...@hotmail.com
> > But little charged particles, gravitons, are not the cause.
>
> >http://www.science-frontiers.com/sf067/sf067a08.htm
>
> A bit more...
>
Now things are so finely balanced, between the expansion,
of the universe, and the repulsive force that dark energy
exuded from matter, has on other matter, that a moon,
like ours, can appear to be falling towards the earth,
as the space shrinks between them, and yet is pushed
away, by the repulsive force, the pressure of dark energy,
so it stays in orbit.
And tidally locked as well.
Moving away at a mere meter per year.
Another curious part of that dark energy being that it comes
as a wave, and waves can cancel out, and if they do,
you get a low pressure area, or they combine, to give you
a high pressure area, attractive and repellent forces, but
all in all, those waves are coming out, from the atom,
so although some will cancel out, right away even, and
form the covalent bond of matter, most of that energy
will go out, and repel other matter keeping the moon,
from crashing into the earth, but falling in a geodesic.
That dark energy, is like the energy you feel when you bring
to like poles of a magnet together.
You can feel it, spongy, cushiony, but switch one pole,
and click, right away, the poles come together.
The waves cancel out.
We suspect, that there is a great deal of dark energy in the universe.
rick_...@hotmail.com
Einstein never got as far as dark energy.
He instead, knew that it must exist,
and came up with the cosmological constant,
because without it, his equations didn't work.
So he had the foresight, to know what he was looking for,
but science had not progressed to the point where
we could examine atoms in detail, under a scanning
tunneling microscope.
He knew about Brownian motion, he won his Nobel for that,
he could see, these specks being moved around bombarded
by other specs, being hit by something, some sort of quanta,
and he knew about Einstein Bose condensate,
and how waves can cancel out, to reduce that vibrational energy,
but never quite got to dark energy.
He even knew that gravity waves must exist.
He was all over it, but never quite put the final pieces
together and that is why some people say that GR is
an incomplete theory, and why people say they are
still looking for a quantum theory of gravity.
That is to say, as if gravity, was a force, like the other forces.
But its not.
The other forces are em forces, even the nuclear force,
is just that same wave energy closer in to the nucleus,
hence stronger,
but gravity, is the universe itself, and all matter in it,
expanding into the void.
rick_...@hotmail.com
If you were to speak of one quanta of gravity, like
one wave packet, of that force, then it would be,
along the t axis, universal time is all from the center
of an atom, to the radius, of an atom, that is the
direction the universe expands, and that expansion
is universal time, and one quanta of energy,
would be some derivative along that line of Plank's
constant, with a wave of energy traveling at c.
At least that is what you would expect.
And you would expect to approximate G as the force
of expansion.
rick_...@hotmail.com
The reason that Einstein just couldn't see that
last bit, that dark energy, was simple.
Firstly, if you are on one of those balloons in
the above gedanken, how can you prove,
that the balloon is expanding?
Its expanding into hyperspace but so is your ruler,
and you.
You could maybe, try to stop one of the balloons
from expanding to see what happens I suppose.
Lets say you could take a circle of dynamite around
it and explode it, and try, to prevent it, from
expanding.
rick_...@hotmail.com
Yes there was something else he was good at e=mc2
but on another note, did you hear that we finally
got sophisticated enough to detect radio signals,
from space, from other civilizations like ours?
Mm hm, we can't make it public though,
because they are all crying for help.
lol
grindel
nothing to point at gravity being some type of mysterious dark energy.
Gravity is spaces resistance to matter. matter get pushed together by
space. Because matter warps space. Something else warps space energy. No
w you say you can effect gravity by let's say dumping 1.21 jigawatt's
into an electro magnetic field. Well yeah that is what Einstein said.
You did have some nice descriptives of particles orbiting nuclei and
binary neutron stars. It was all very creative.