Gravitational waves could be electromagnetic waves
rim31...@yahoo.co.uk
waves only act on electrically charged masses; however, neutron
scattering still occurs due to interference between the magnetic
dipole and spin-orbit interaction.
The question related to gravitational and EM waves is rather what is
electrical charge? If electric charge is an expansion or contraction
of space-time then gravitational waves would only interact with
matter, which by its very nature is a distortion of the metric tensor
i.e. electrically charged.
Has the hidden gravitational wave been EM waves all along?
Juan R.
snip nonsense
> Has the hidden gravitational wave been EM waves all along?
Nobody knows. In emergent approaches to gravity, gravity is a 'residual'
interaction arising from electromagnetism. In this speculative picture,
gravitational waves are just certain non-linear bundles of EM waves.
One of those approaches has been recently analized in
http://www.canonicalscience.org/en/publicationzone/canonicalsciencereports/20092.html
See the reference #11 cited therein.
--
http://www.canonicalscience.org/
BLOG:
http://www.canonicalscience.org/en/publicationzone/canonicalsciencetoday/canonicalsciencetoday.html
eric gisse
> There are many similarities between gravitational and EM waves
No.
[snip rest]
eric gisse
> rim317-ben wrote on Sun, 01 Nov 2009 04:02:07 -0800:
>
> snip nonsense
>
>> Has the hidden gravitational wave been EM waves all along?
>
> Nobody knows. In emergent approaches to gravity, gravity is a 'residual'
> interaction arising from electromagnetism. In this speculative picture,
> gravitational waves are just certain non-linear bundles of EM waves.
Why are you citing speculative theories that have no observational support?
>
> One of those approaches has been recently analized in
>
>
http://www.canonicalscience.org/en/publicationzone/canonicalsciencereports/20092.html
>
> See the reference #11 cited therein.
>
>
Be honest. Has anyone actually paid money for your articles yet?
dlzc
On Nov 1, 5:02 am, rim317-...@yahoo.co.uk wrote:
> There are many similarities between
> gravitational and EM waves,
No. The falloffs are way different.
> but EM waves only act on electrically
> charged masses;
Electrical *charges*, mass is not a requirement.
> however, neutron scattering still occurs
> due to interference between the magnetic
> dipole and spin-orbit interaction.
>
> The question related to gravitational
> and EM waves is rather what is electrical
> charge? If electric charge is an
> expansion or contraction of space-time
No.
> then gravitational waves would only
> interact with matter,
No.
> which by its very nature is a
> distortion of the metric tensor
> i.e. electrically charged.
>
> Has the hidden gravitational wave been
> EM waves all along?
Try this. Mass is proportional (in most cases) to magnetic moment.
Net magnetic moment of a system is reduced when the charged bits are
brought closer together (gravitation), and net energy is released.
Every bit in this Universe is bathed in EM radiation, which could
"power" gravitation.
However, gravitational acceleration does not cause charges to
radiate. EM driven acceleration does.
David A. Smith
BURT
Gravity waves and light waves move at the speed of light but gravity
geometry wave cannot be absorbed like light and is destined to roam
the universe forever.
Mitch Raemsch
Ken S. Tucker
> There are many similarities between gravitational and EM waves, but EM
> waves only act on electrically charged masses; however, neutron
> scattering still occurs due to interference between the magnetic
> dipole and spin-orbit interaction.
That's advanced, please provide an online ref.
> The question related to gravitational and EM waves is rather what is
> electrical charge? If electric charge is an expansion or contraction
> of space-time then gravitational waves would only interact with
> matter, which by its very nature is a distortion of the metric tensor
> i.e. electrically charged.
> Has the hidden gravitational wave been EM waves all along?
That's what I think, see Eq.(2) herein,
http://physics.trak4.com/GR_Charge_Couple.pdf
The philosophy is straightforward == GR applies to
all configurations of energy, thus including electrical,
so when mass is expressed in terms of an electrical
configuration then g-waves become EM waves.
In theoretics, the term "mass" has NO definition, it's
generic, so I'm using an electrical definition of energy.
Regards
Ken S. Tucker
Juan R.
> Juan R. González-Álvarez wrote:
>
>> rim317-ben wrote on Sun, 01 Nov 2009 04:02:07 -0800:
>>
>> snip nonsense
>>
>>> Has the hidden gravitational wave been EM waves all along?
>>
>> Nobody knows. In emergent approaches to gravity, gravity is a
>> 'residual' interaction arising from electromagnetism. In this
>> speculative picture, gravitational waves are just certain non-linear
>> bundles of EM waves.
>
> Why are you citing speculative theories that have no observational
> support?
I am not.
>> One of those approaches has been recently analized in
>>
>>
> http://www.canonicalscience.org/en/publicationzone/canonicalsciencereports/20092.html
>>
>> See the reference #11 cited therein.
>>
>>
>>
> Be honest. Has anyone actually paid money for your articles yet?
:_-D
eric gisse
> eric gisse wrote on Sun, 01 Nov 2009 06:33:23 -0800:
>
>> Juan R. Gonz�lez-�lvarez wrote:
>>
>>> rim317-ben wrote on Sun, 01 Nov 2009 04:02:07 -0800:
>>>
>>> snip nonsense
>>>
>>>> Has the hidden gravitational wave been EM waves all along?
>>>
>>> Nobody knows. In emergent approaches to gravity, gravity is a
>>> 'residual' interaction arising from electromagnetism. In this
>>> speculative picture, gravitational waves are just certain non-linear
>>> bundles of EM waves.
>>
>> Why are you citing speculative theories that have no observational
>> support?
>
> I am not.
Then why bring it up?
>
>>> One of those approaches has been recently analized in
>>>
>>>
>>
http://www.canonicalscience.org/en/publicationzone/canonicalsciencereports/20092.html
>>>
>>> See the reference #11 cited therein.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>> Be honest. Has anyone actually paid money for your articles yet?
>
> :_-D
>
>
I've never been clear on if you really seriously expect people to pay money
to you just to read your poorly sourced articles.
Igor
EM radiation has spin one and gravitational radiation has spin two.
EM is dipole and Gravitational is quadrupole. They are completely
different animals.
BURT
There is no rotation. A point particle can't. If it did it would have
infinite degrees of freedom or different spin speeds and orientation
of speeds. Spin is bunk. Point particles can't rotate. They are
infinitely small.
Mitch Raemsch
Igor
We learn by asking questions. But first, you need to ask the
questions, lest you remain hopelessly ignornant. And unfortunately,
helplessly ignorant, as in your case.
Ken S. Tucker
Is it possible to emit 2 photons, each with spin 1?
I find so, the math is straightforward if you're ok
with basic Maxwell Equations.
Regards
Ken S. Tucker
eric gisse
No, Ken, it isn't.
> I find so, the math is straightforward if you're ok
> with basic Maxwell Equations.
You don't even know what Maxwell's equations are or how to solve them.
> Regards
> Ken S. Tucker
Ben
> On Nov 1, 4:02 am, rim317-...@yahoo.co.uk wrote:
> That's advanced, please provide an online ref.
http://prola.aps.org/abstract/PRC/v7/i5/p1926_1
>
> > The question related to gravitational and EM waves is rather what is
> > electrical charge? If electric charge is an expansion or contraction
> > of space-time then gravitational waves would only interact with
> > matter, which by its very nature is a distortion of the metric tensor
> > i.e. electrically charged.
> > Has the hidden gravitational wave been EM waves all along?
>
> That's what I think, see Eq.(2) herein,http://physics.trak4.com/GR_Charge_Couple.pdf
> The philosophy is straightforward == GR applies to
> all configurations of energy, thus including electrical,
> so when mass is expressed in terms of an electrical
> configuration then g-waves become EM waves.
>
> In theoretics, the term "mass" has NO definition, it's
> generic, so I'm using an electrical definition of energy.
> Regards
> Ken S. Tucker
This is a simple and straightforward solution resolving EM and
gravity.
It then can be expanded to understand the quantum world. If matter is
simply a contraction/expansion of the metric tensor then particles
would be able to disappear/reappear and would have to possess a wave/
particle duality by their very construction. The probabilities of
quantum mechanics then appear logical.
PD
Mitch, this is a problem in vocabulary. Quantum mechanics uses the
term "spin" but in that context doesn't mean anything is rotating. It
is a *borrowed* term. To laypeople, this gets confusing, not knowing
which terms are being used in a specialized way and which ones are
not. This is unfortunate, but not a reason to whine.
PD
Nope. This has already been checked out. Thoroughly. Do you need some
background?
Juan R.
> Juan R. González-Álvarez wrote:
>
>> eric gisse wrote on Sun, 01 Nov 2009 06:33:23 -0800:
>>
>>> Juan R. González-Álvarez wrote:
>>>
>>>> rim317-ben wrote on Sun, 01 Nov 2009 04:02:07 -0800:
>>>>
>>>> snip nonsense
>>>>
>>>>> Has the hidden gravitational wave been EM waves all along?
>>>>
>>>> Nobody knows. In emergent approaches to gravity, gravity is a
>>>> 'residual' interaction arising from electromagnetism. In this
>>>> speculative picture, gravitational waves are just certain non-linear
>>>> bundles of EM waves.
>>>
>>> Why are you citing speculative theories that have no observational
>>> support?
>>
>> I am not.
>
> Then why bring it up?
>
>
>>>> One of those approaches has been recently analized in
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
> http://www.canonicalscience.org/en/publicationzone/canonicalsciencereports/20092.html
>>>>
>>>> See the reference #11 cited therein.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>> Be honest. Has anyone actually paid money for your articles yet?
>>
>> :_-D
>>
>>
>>
> I've never been clear on if you really seriously expect people to pay
> money to you just to read your poorly sourced articles.
:_-D
Juan R.
(...)
> EM radiation has spin one and gravitational radiation has spin two. EM
> is dipole and Gravitational is quadrupole. They are completely
> different animals.
In emergent gravity, gravitational waves are derived from bundles of EM waves.
Check literature given in previous message.
I have even showed how the spin-2 of gravitons emerges from the spin-1
of photons.
Ken S. Tucker
> On 2 Nov, 05:13, "Ken S. Tucker" <dynam...@vianet.on.ca> wrote:
>
> > On Nov 1, 4:02 am, rim317-...@yahoo.co.uk wrote:
> > That's advanced, please provide an online ref.
>
> http://prola.aps.org/abstract/PRC/v7/i5/p1926_1
Thanks, I recall (mainly from Scientic American) back then
a developement of the Neutron structure consisting of shells.
> > > The question related to gravitational and EM waves is rather what is
> > > electrical charge? If electric charge is an expansion or contraction
> > > of space-time then gravitational waves would only interact with
> > > matter, which by its very nature is a distortion of the metric tensor
> > > i.e. electrically charged.
> > > Has the hidden gravitational wave been EM waves all along?
>
> > That's what I think, see Eq.(2) herein,http://physics.trak4.com/GR_Charge_Couple.pdf
> > The philosophy is straightforward == GR applies to
> > all configurations of energy, thus including electrical,
> > so when mass is expressed in terms of an electrical
> > configuration then g-waves become EM waves.
>
> > In theoretics, the term "mass" has NO definition, it's
> > generic, so I'm using an electrical definition of energy.
> > Regards
> > Ken S. Tucker
>
> This is a simple and straightforward solution resolving EM and
> gravity.
Yes I think so, it sure looks like a Unified Field Theory,
where EM and gravity are concerned, and is deduced as a
prediction directly from GR and our knowledge of electric
fields, potentials and electrical energies.
About waves, a quick look at Eq.(2) in the ref
g_00= 1 -A.B == 1 - ab/^2 , Eq.(2)
and a classical EM-wave results from a partial diff as,
&g_00/&t = a*&E(b)/&t = b*&E(a)/&t
where the &E/&t is referred to as "Maxwell's displacement
current" and is the source of EMR.
> It then can be expanded to understand the quantum world. If matter is
> simply a contraction/expansion of the metric tensor then particles
> would be able to disappear/reappear and would have to possess a wave/
> particle duality by their very construction. The probabilities of
> quantum mechanics then appear logical.
Yes, though there is the caveat of how the math is intrepreted,
in to words. For example consider Eq.(4) from the ref,
S^2 = X^2 + ab , Eq.(4)
then setting Plancks action to h = ab gives
(Action unit == charge units ^2)
S^2 = X^2 + h .
In words, X is an orthogonal Newtonian distance, and S
is a Generally Relativistic departure to a nonorthogonal
"curved" spacetime, with the "departure" in units of "h",
that quantizes the g-field, based on the constant invariant
of the "fundamental charge".
What I see is how GR can provide a snap-shot of the Unified
Field Theory permitting a quantized g-field as well, seems
quite versatile.
Regards
Ken S. Tucker
carlip...@physics.ucdavis.edu
> I have even showed how the spin-2 of gravitons emerges from the spin-1
> of photons.
In what journal is this published?
(It seems rather implausible. Gravitons couple universally; photons
don't. How does your "energent" graviton couple two neutral
particles?)
Steve Carlip
eric gisse
> Igor wrote on Mon, 02 Nov 2009 06:53:59 -0800:
>
> (...)
>
>> EM radiation has spin one and gravitational radiation has spin two. EM
>> is dipole and Gravitational is quadrupole. They are completely
>> different animals.
>
> In emergent gravity, gravitational waves are derived from bundles of EM
> waves.
>
> Check literature given in previous message.
It isn't literature when no libraries carry it and can only be read by
paying the author an unreasonable sum of money.
BURT
>
> - Show quoted text -
moving geometry can't be absorbed like light. You can't get rid of it.
It floats through space forever.
Mitch Raemsch
Juan R.
> Juan R. González-Álvarez wrote:
>
>> Igor wrote on Mon, 02 Nov 2009 06:53:59 -0800:
>>
>> (...)
>>
>>> EM radiation has spin one and gravitational radiation has spin two. EM
>>> is dipole and Gravitational is quadrupole. They are completely
>>> different animals.
>>
>> In emergent gravity, gravitational waves are derived from bundles of EM
>> waves.
>>
>> Check literature given in previous message.
>
> It isn't literature when no libraries carry it and can only be read by
> paying the author an unreasonable sum of money.
:_-D
>> I have even showed how the spin-2 of gravitons emerges from the spin-1
>> of photons.
>>
>>
--
Juan R.
This seems a crackpot question. Can you write first the macroscopic
gravitational action derived from the EM action in the aproach cited?
By simplicity consider only linear coupling.
Ben
It's good to hear you're open minded to new concepts. I'm surprised
most people in this group agree with GR!
Ben
Yes, I would be interested to see how relevant it is.
PD
Kaluza (1921). "Zum Unitätsproblem in der Physik". Sitzungsber.
Preuss. Akad. Wiss. Berlin. (Mathematical Physics) 1921.
Klein (1926). "Quantentheorie und fünfdimensionale
Relativitätstheorie". Zeitschrift für Physik 37 (12).
and in a more recent retrospective:
Witten (1981). "Search for a realistic Kaluza-Klein theory". Nuclear
Physics B 186 (3).
carlip...@physics.ucdavis.edu
> carlip-nospam wrote on Tue, 03 Nov 2009 20:57:52 +0000:
> > Juan R. González-Álvarez <juanR...@canonicalscience.com> wrote:
> >> I have even showed how the spin-2 of gravitons emerges from the spin-1
> >> of photons.
> > In what journal is this published?
> > (It seems rather implausible. Gravitons couple universally; photons
> > don't. How does your "energent" graviton couple two neutral particles?)
> This seems a crackpot question. Can you write first the macroscopic
> gravitational action derived from the EM action in the aproach cited?
I am reasonably familiar with most of the published approaches to induced
gravity. But I don't know what "the aproach cited" is. That's why I asked
> > In what journal is this published?
(I'm not going to poke around in a bunch of random blogs or web pages by
people who I only know from Usenet -- for the most part, that would be a
huge waste of time. But if you can point to something published, I'll be
happy to take a look. )
In the meantime, my question stands. Some emergent gravity models, like
Sakharov's, have a metric already present; other fields just give it some
dynamics. The other models that I know of typically have an extremely
hard time getting their "graviton" to couple universally -- if it arises
from a field with a nonuniversal coupling, it remembers that.
This is a basic conceptual issue. If you have a convincing way of resolving
it, you should be able to explain that, not just throw around "crackpot"
accusations and point to some personal website.
Steve Carlip
Ken S. Tucker
The lack of a detection of GRB's (such as this one)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GRB_080319B
doesn't bode well for the reality of g-waves, so LIGO
may point the way to a Unified Field Theory, I guess
wait and see.
Ken
Juan R.
I did no accusation (read what I wrote: "It seems...").
However, you are now confirming that you asked without reading first.
And being unable to write the macroscopic action, you cannot know
to *what* couples the induced gravitational h_ab of the theory.
I.e. you cannot know to *what* couples its corresponding quantum.
I already *cited* the literature in this thread. The theory I
analized and about which I did my remarks on gravitons is not a
field or a metric theory but an AAAD theory.
For instance, *that* graviton has not the unphysical self-interaction
modes that other models of gravitons have.
I do not usually waste my time giving mathematical or physical details
to guys who do not even check the literature *cited* (you also sniped
from my message to Igor one remark about that literature) or who do not
know basic stuff like what is the "relaxed form" of Hilbert-Einstein
equations :_-D
eric gisse
> I already *cited* the literature in this thread. The theory I
> analized and about which I did my remarks on gravitons is not a
> field or a metric theory but an AAAD theory.
By what standard is self publication on a personal homepage "the literature"
?
>
> For instance, *that* graviton has not the unphysical self-interaction
> modes that other models of gravitons have.
>
> I do not usually waste my time giving mathematical or physical details
> to guys who do not even check the literature *cited*
The "literature", as stated, is behind a password protected portal on your
personal home page with the expectation that readers will either pay 425
euro for lifetime access (HA HA HA HA HA) of 17 euros for an individual
article (HA HA HA HA HA).
But let's look at your executive summary. This is fun - you haven't
corrected your errors since the last time you posted something in PDF form.
The important ones, at least. Ten points for polishing that turd! Your PDF
is much more well presented than your previous effort, though it is in
desperate need of an editor who speaks English as his native tounge.
I like how you say "One may intutively realize that the authors of htose
textbook[sic] are really computing..." where you then write something that
not only does not appear in any reasonable derivation of the weak field
limit but rather is *completely wrong*. This is what is known as a "straw-
man attack" in which you falsely represent a wide swath of literature and
textbooks on the subject, then pummel the strawman with explanations of how
wrong it is.
The weak field limit is NOT defined as taking the limit of the magnitude of
the perturbation and taking it to zero. You've read Wald, MTW, Carroll, and
god knows what else. But apparently you've absorbed none of it.
Continuing, you assert that authors [no cites! wee!] 'force flat spatial
geometry', which is exceptionally curious because the manifold is flat with
perturbations and a manifestly non-zero curvature tensor. This is
inconsistent with your claims.
I'd like to congratulate your half decade long quest of missing the forest
for the trees by continuing to 'research' the irrelevant. Yes, it is quite
well known that the temporal parameter in Newton is not the same as in GR
given the /obvious/ nature of instantaneous vs delayed interactions. But you
continue to beat that dead horse, naysayers be damned.
> (you also sniped
> from my message to Igor one remark about that literature) or who do not
> know basic stuff like what is the "relaxed form" of Hilbert-Einstein
> equations :_-D
You know it is quite unacceptable for you to make personal attacks like that
against physicists with numerous published works involving general
relativity, right?
>
>
Juan R.
> Juan R. González-Álvarez wrote:
> [...]
>
>> I already *cited* the literature in this thread. The theory I analized
>> and about which I did my remarks on gravitons is not a field or a
>> metric theory but an AAAD theory.
>
> By what standard is self publication on a personal homepage "the
> literature" ?
Can you even read? :-(
>> For instance, *that* graviton has not the unphysical self-interaction
>> modes that other models of gravitons have.
>>
>> I do not usually waste my time giving mathematical or physical details
>> to guys who do not even check the literature *cited*
>
> The "literature", as stated, is behind a password protected portal on
> your personal home page with the expectation that readers will either
> pay 425 euro for lifetime access (HA HA HA HA HA) of 17 euros for an
> individual article (HA HA HA HA HA).
Please stop, my stomach hurts from laughing so hard :_-D
> But let's look at your executive summary. This is fun - you haven't
> corrected your errors since the last time you posted something in PDF
> form. The important ones, at least.
I agree that your pretension to revise stuff beyond your undergrad edu is
very fun!
> Ten points for polishing that turd!
> Your PDF is much more well presented than your previous effort, though
> it is in desperate need of an editor who speaks English as his native
> tounge.
>
> I like how you say "One may intutively realize that the authors of htose
> textbook[sic] are really computing..."
You are not an editor Eric, you are fantasizing again :-D
Just a few words below says "textbooks". It is evident that was a minor
typo in that line. However, this 57 pages long report will be improved in
a future version.
Your fantasy is still more laughable because *you* wrote "intutively" and
"htose" instead the correct words in the PDF that you pretend edit using
your "tounge" :_-D
> where you then write something
> that not only does not appear in any reasonable derivation of the weak
> field limit but rather is *completely wrong*. This is what is known as a
> "straw- man attack" in which you falsely represent a wide swath of
> literature and textbooks on the subject, then pummel the strawman with
> explanations of how wrong it is.
>
> The weak field limit is NOT defined as taking the limit of the magnitude
> of the perturbation and taking it to zero. You've read Wald, MTW,
> Carroll, and god knows what else. But apparently you've absorbed none of
> it.
Your above is a straw man argument; i.e., an informal fallacy based on
misrepresentation of an opponent's position. Your goal is to argue
indefinitely over a moot point :-D
> Continuing, you assert that authors [no cites! wee!] 'force flat spatial
> geometry', which is exceptionally curious because the manifold is flat
> with perturbations and a manifestly non-zero curvature tensor. This is
> inconsistent with your claims.
The surprise of an undergrad dropout on the absence of citations in an
Executive Summary is very related to his complete ignorance of the
academic world that rejected him :_-D
Evidently, I will ignore the rest of your straw man.
> I'd like to congratulate your half decade long quest of missing the
> forest for the trees by continuing to 'research' the irrelevant. Yes, it
> is quite well known that the temporal parameter in Newton is not the
> same as in GR given the /obvious/ nature of instantaneous vs delayed
> interactions.
I would like to congratulate you by missing the point again :-D
> But you continue to beat that dead horse, naysayers be damned.
A horse that hits your head with every kicks :_-D
>> (you also sniped
>> from my message to Igor one remark about that literature) or who do not
>> know basic stuff like what is the "relaxed form" of Hilbert-Einstein
>> equations :_-D
>
> You know it is quite unacceptable for you to make personal attacks like
> that against physicists with numerous published works involving general
> relativity, right?
To remind that certain folk asked in his message for the "relaxed form" of
Hilbert-Einstein equations because he did not know is not a personal
attack.
Personal attack is, for instance, when you call someone dishonest, a
crying bitch... You may know all this very well because you have been
blocked and/or warned in several forums by this same reason :-(
Do you need some links to your own messages to refresh your memory Eric?
carlip...@physics.ucdavis.edu
> carlip-nospam wrote on Wed, 04 Nov 2009 16:30:26 +0000:
[...]
> > I am reasonably familiar with most of the published approaches to
> > induced gravity. But I don't know what "the aproach cited" is. That's
> > why I asked
> >
> >> > In what journal is this published?
> >
> > (I'm not going to poke around in a bunch of random blogs or web pages by
> > people who I only know from Usenet -- for the most part, that would be a
> > huge waste of time. But if you can point to something published, I'll
> > be happy to take a look. )
[...]
> I already *cited* the literature in this thread. The theory I
> analized and about which I did my remarks on gravitons is not a
> field or a metric theory but an AAAD theory.
I'm sorry, I must have missed this -- all I saw was a link to a personal
website. Could you please repost the specific journal reference?
[...]
> I do not usually waste my time giving mathematical or physical details
> to guys who do not even check the literature *cited* (you also sniped
> from my message to Igor one remark about that literature) or who do not
> know basic stuff like what is the "relaxed form" of Hilbert-Einstein
> equations :_-D
I think you're mixing me up with someone else -- I certainly know what
the "relaxed form" of the Einstein field equations is.
Steve Carlip
BURT
A gravity wave cannot be absorbed.
Mitch Raemsch
eric gisse
[...]
Imagine that. No substantive argument.
And this is why the "literature" is on a personal homepage instead of what
is actually called literature.
BURT
Light cannot derive any of its energy from its motion. C is a constant
and that would mean that light would always have the same energy from
motion. No light's energy is from its waves oscillation frequency.
Mitch Raemsch
Juan R.
One important remark. The author calls it an AAAD theory of gravitation.
Wheeler, Feynman, Hoyle, and Narlikar also call their underlying theory
of EM an "AAAD theory", but they are not true AAAD theories.
Juan R.
> Juan R. González-Álvarez wrote:
> [...]
>
> Imagine that. No substantive argument...
because you sniped all.
> And this is why the "literature" is on a personal homepage instead of
> what is actually called literature.
:_-D
Juan R.
> Juan R. González-Álvarez <juanR...@canonicalscience.com> wrote:
>> carlip-nospam wrote on Wed, 04 Nov 2009 16:30:26 +0000:
>
> [...]
>> > I am reasonably familiar with most of the published approaches to
>> > induced gravity. But I don't know what "the aproach cited" is.
>> > That's why I asked
>> >
>> >> > In what journal is this published?
>> >
>> > (I'm not going to poke around in a bunch of random blogs or web pages
>> > by people who I only know from Usenet -- for the most part, that
>> > would be a huge waste of time. But if you can point to something
>> > published, I'll be happy to take a look. )
>
> [...]
>> I already *cited* the literature in this thread. The theory I analized
>> and about which I did my remarks on gravitons is not a field or a
>> metric theory but an AAAD theory.
>
> I'm sorry, I must have missed this -- all I saw was a link to a personal
> website.
Go to oculist then!
> Could you please repost the specific journal reference?
Only if you promise to stop asking me without even
reading the stuff *first*. The reference is
Gravitational interaction in the relational approach 2008: Grav. and Cosm. 14(1), 41—52. Vladimirov, Yu. S.
> [...]
>
>> I do not usually waste my time giving mathematical or physical details
>> to guys who do not even check the literature *cited* (you also sniped
>> from my message to Igor one remark about that literature) or who do not
>> know basic stuff like what is the "relaxed form" of Hilbert-Einstein
>> equations :_-D
>
> I think you're mixing me up with someone else -- I certainly know what
> the "relaxed form" of the Einstein field equations is.
I didn't mix you. Above I am explaining my phylosophy in front of different
situations. I did not give names above. I know who he is because I replied
to him about this giving a link to Will living review. He also knows who is
and remain silent now :-D.
> Steve Carlip
eric gisse
> eric gisse wrote on Thu, 05 Nov 2009 19:18:54 -0800:
>
>> Juan R. Gonz�lez-�lvarez wrote:
>> [...]
>>
>> Imagine that. No substantive argument...
>
> because you sniped all.
...because you didn't actually respond with anything approaching a
substantive explanation of the issues I raised.
For example, why is it you feel that the weak field limit is defined as
taking the limit of the magnitude of the perturbation as it goes to zero
instead of simply being a perturbation as explained in every book on the
subject?
Juan R.
> Juan R. González-Álvarez wrote:
>
>> eric gisse wrote on Thu, 05 Nov 2009 19:18:54 -0800:
>>
>>> Juan R. González-Álvarez wrote:
>>> [...]
>>>
>>> Imagine that. No substantive argument...
>>
>> because you sniped all.
>
> ...because you didn't actually respond with anything approaching a
> substantive explanation of the issues I raised.
You usually receive funny responses fitting to your funny level.
> For example, why is it you feel that the weak field limit is defined as
> taking the limit of the magnitude of the perturbation as it goes to zero
> instead of simply being a perturbation as explained in every book on the
> subject?
Learn to read before asking your usual idiocies :-D
eric gisse
> eric gisse wrote on Fri, 06 Nov 2009 03:55:34 -0800:
>
>> Juan R. Gonz�lez-�lvarez wrote:
>>
>>> eric gisse wrote on Thu, 05 Nov 2009 19:18:54 -0800:
>>>
>>>> Juan R. Gonz�lez-�lvarez wrote:
>>>> [...]
>>>>
>>>> Imagine that. No substantive argument...
>>>
>>> because you sniped all.
>>
>> ...because you didn't actually respond with anything approaching a
>> substantive explanation of the issues I raised.
>
> You usually receive funny responses fitting to your funny level.
>
>> For example, why is it you feel that the weak field limit is defined as
>> taking the limit of the magnitude of the perturbation as it goes to zero
>> instead of simply being a perturbation as explained in every book on the
>> subject?
>
> Learn to read before asking your usual idiocies :-D
If you don't think the weak field limit is defined that way, you should
probably read your 'summary' and fix the repeated error then.
>
>
BURT
> Juan R. González-Álvarez wrote:
> > eric gisse wrote on Fri, 06 Nov 2009 03:55:34 -0800:
>
>
> >>> eric gisse wrote on Thu, 05 Nov 2009 19:18:54 -0800:
>
> >>>> [...]
>
> >>>> Imagine that. No substantive argument...
>
> >>> because you sniped all.
>
> >> ...because you didn't actually respond with anything approaching a
> >> substantive explanation of the issues I raised.
>
> > You usually receive funny responses fitting to your funny level.
>
> >> For example, why is it you feel that the weak field limit is defined as
> >> taking the limit of the magnitude of the perturbation as it goes to zero
> >> instead of simply being a perturbation as explained in every book on the
> >> subject?
>
> > Learn to read before asking your usual idiocies :-D
>
> If you don't think the weak field limit is defined that way, you should
> probably read your 'summary' and fix the repeated error then.
>
>
>
>
>
> - Show quoted text -
There is no limit to the radioactivity force. I don't think
radioactivity even needs a force. Why not some form of atomic
configuration instability that occures when they get too big?
Mitch Raemsch
Juan R.
> Juan R. González-Álvarez wrote:
>
>> eric gisse wrote on Fri, 06 Nov 2009 03:55:34 -0800:
>>
>>> Juan R. González-Álvarez wrote:
>>>
>>>> eric gisse wrote on Thu, 05 Nov 2009 19:18:54 -0800:
>>>>
>>>>> Juan R. González-Álvarez wrote:
>>>>> [...]
>>>>>
>>>>> Imagine that. No substantive argument...
>>>>
>>>> because you sniped all.
>>>
>>> ...because you didn't actually respond with anything approaching a
>>> substantive explanation of the issues I raised.
>>
>> You usually receive funny responses fitting to your funny level.
>>
>>> For example, why is it you feel that the weak field limit is defined
>>> as taking the limit of the magnitude of the perturbation as it goes to
>>> zero instead of simply being a perturbation as explained in every book
>>> on the subject?
>>
>> Learn to read before asking your usual idiocies :-D
>
> If you don't think the weak field limit is defined that way, you should
> probably read your 'summary' and fix the repeated error then.
Before asking for fixings you would:
* First learn to read
* Second learn to write
* Third learn physics
* Fourth learn some research.
* Five learn some good manners.
Did you do the first point? Nope and you ask for idiocies :-D
Did you do the second point? Nope and you suggested 'editor' changes like
"intutively", "htose", and "tounge" :-D
Did you do the third? Nope you are and dropout undergrad and for years
you are been saying nonsense about both special and general relativity.
One of your last fiascos was when you pretended to review a paper but
you could not do elementary computations as g_ab g^bc, explained in
GR textbooks:
http://canonicalscience.blogspot.com/2008/08/some-samples-of-usenet-fauna-ii.html
It is interesting that the profile in your behavior said:
"After this new fiasco Eric Gisse stooped from reviewing the paper.
But don't be confused. In some few time, when the waters calm down
and Eric think that everyone has forgotten his mistakes, Eric will
return claiming how wrong the scientist was and how right and smart
he is."
And the prediction was mostly verified becasue the day 17 you attacked
again him
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/msg/def283a7014a4157
where, of course, your hillaring superb mistake was relabelled by you
as minor "tangential point" :_D
Did you do the fourth point? Nope and then you get suprised because
Executive summaries have no citations. Well, really your emphasized this
as another of your attempts to show how smart and knowledeable you are
but finally once again you were exposed Eric. How unsurprising, true? :-D
Did you did the five point? Nope. Many readers, moderators, and friends have
warned you about your bad manners. Myself said you this last vacations you
would relax and think about your future. You ignored all of us and
continue your agressive insulting liar style :-D
In one of your last crisis, you have been trolling certain academician blog
with truly hillaric stuff as:
"Great, wrote up a nice fat comment then stupidly clicked a link to
read something so I have to write it aaaaaaaaalllllll over again.
Double the snark now!"
"The quantity being considered is not the “curvature” of space-time,
which is horrifically misleading, "
"Juan: Thanks for being a cosmic jackass by importing an argument you
lost onto a medium that has people who are capable of reading for
comprehension."
"As I was reduced to explaining things using small words and pantomime
to a child with a learning disability, the overall argument should be
simple to follow for people who can read for comprehension."
"Taganov’s argument is, quite frankly, as full of shit as you are."
"I skimmed this thread and noticed an incredibly amusing similarity
between two other loud and stupid groups of people: anti-relativity
kooks, and “apollo hoax” kooks.
All the hallmarks are there. Wingnut supporters, rampant intellectual
dishonest, inability to stay on topic, constantly moving goalposts, etc."
"I wish my professors dressed like Capecchi once in awhile. The most
exciting outfit I have seen any of them wear was a leather jacket and
that was for one day."
"Holy shit I love this guy.
Sean, you write good textbook(s?) but this guy knows how to get a solid
laff out of me."
"The most dressed up any of my professors get for class is shirt and
slacks. If I saw any of them wearing a tie, I’d wonder what the event
is.
Hm, that makes me realize something – I have never seen a woman wear
a tie. You’d think a tie would be something that works /with/ cleavage."
"Oh dear, the replies are extra cranky today."
"What, are we playing by pottery barn rules now?"
"The horrors of perspective geometry – not everything is where you
expect it to be."
"Sucks to be the guy parked at (0,0)."
"Isn’t that just fucking peachy?"
"Shut the hell up."
Now more people knows *you* really, including the one
who replied to you:
"who the hell is Eric Gisse, and what is his problem, exactly? Was he
dropped on his head when a baby?"
Congrats Eric, you are spreading your fame to places where you were unknown.
P.S: those messages and your recent nonsenses and lies will added to a new
update of the page devoted in your honor :-D
Don't thanks me. All the merit is your.
eric gisse
[...]
>> If you don't think the weak field limit is defined that way, you should
>> probably read your 'summary' and fix the repeated error then.
>
> Before asking for fixings you would:
>
> * First learn to read
>
> * Second learn to write
>
> * Third learn physics
>
> * Fourth learn some research.
>
> * Five learn some good manners.
I'm baffled as to why you refuse to acknowledge what you wrote on your own
site. I say your characterization of the weak field limit is horribly wrong.
if you can't show why your argument is correct, well that kinda proves my
point doesn't it?
[...]
> One of your last fiascos was when you pretended to review a paper but
> you could not do elementary computations as g_ab g^bc, explained in
> GR textbooks:
I like how you only comment on things like this after the fact. You never
participate in conversations - you sit on the sidelines and snipe, then crow
when I fumble once in awhile. I'm not sure how this is admirable but you
seem to like doing it a lot.
>
> http://canonicalscience.blogspot.com/2008/08/some-samples-of-usenet-fauna-
ii.html
Inept and oafish attempts at character assassination are /awesome/.
>
> It is interesting that the profile in your behavior said:
>
> "After this new fiasco Eric Gisse stooped from reviewing the paper.
> But don't be confused. In some few time, when the waters calm down
> and Eric think that everyone has forgotten his mistakes, Eric will
> return claiming how wrong the scientist was and how right and smart
> he is."
Considering how you are so willing to poke through several years of my
postings to find something to use against me, I cannot help but wonder why
you won't discuss my little review of your manuscript draft.
If my comments didn't have merit you would have long ago expanded on your
thousand line rant against me on your blog to include how I was being
incorrect. That you don't even link to the review as you link to plenty of
things that don't even support your conclusions drawn from hindsight and/or
intellectual dishonesty is rather interesting.
>
> And the prediction was mostly verified becasue the day 17 you attacked
> again him
>
> http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/msg/def283a7014a4157
Ilja's theory is still a nonsense theory with no verified solutions or
contact with observation. Would you like to step into the fray and make a
solid prediction you would stand by, or would you prefer to snipe from the
sidelines?
>
> where, of course, your hillaring superb mistake was relabelled by you
> as minor "tangential point" :_D
>
> Did you do the fourth point? Nope and then you get suprised because
> Executive summaries have no citations. Well, really your emphasized this
> as another of your attempts to show how smart and knowledeable you are
> but finally once again you were exposed Eric. How unsurprising, true? :-D
Actually that's your emphasis, I don't toot my own horn nearly as frequently
as you like to think I do.
What hasn't changed is the massive misrepresentation of the weak field limit
in your executive summary. I have no expectation that the main paper is any
different, because I've been reading your arguments for *years* and have
seen a copy of the draft before. I even commented heavily on it, without
getting any response back except for 6 months of passive aggression and a
muffled "oh shit" as you realize you left your paper public long enough for
me to get it.
>
> Did you did the five point? Nope. Many readers, moderators, and friends
> have warned you about your bad manners.
I wasn't aware I was posting to alt.my.little.pony. Bawwww?
> Myself said you this last
> vacations you would relax and think about your future. You ignored all of
> us and continue your agressive insulting liar style :-D
>
> In one of your last crisis, you have been trolling certain academician
> blog with truly hillaric stuff as:
>
> "Great, wrote up a nice fat comment then stupidly clicked a link to
> read something so I have to write it aaaaaaaaalllllll over again.
> Double the snark now!"
>
> "The quantity being considered is not the ?curvature? of space-time,
> which is horrifically misleading, "
I love it when you reflexively disagree with my comments but still manage to
not have enough spine to put yourself on the spot and reply with a technical
argument.
>
> "Juan: Thanks for being a cosmic jackass by importing an argument you
> lost onto a medium that has people who are capable of reading for
> comprehension."
>
> "As I was reduced to explaining things using small words and pantomime
> to a child with a learning disability, the overall argument should be
> simple to follow for people who can read for comprehension."
When I paste something from an article and you simply say 'nuh-uh, it
doesn't say that', I have the god given right to question your ability to
read for comprehension.
[...]
>
> "Sucks to be the guy parked at (0,0)."
I wonder what the context for this one was.
>
> "Isn?t that just fucking peachy?"
>
> "Shut the hell up."
>
> Now more people knows *you* really, including the one
> who replied to you:
>
> "who the hell is Eric Gisse, and what is his problem, exactly? Was he
> dropped on his head when a baby?"
>
> Congrats Eric, you are spreading your fame to places where you were
> unknown.
Oh /noes/, I perturbed an 'interested layman' who had nothing substantial to
contribute. I can see why that would bother you.
>
> P.S: those messages and your recent nonsenses and lies will added to a new
> update of the page devoted in your honor :-D
How many hours did it take for you to find and read every comment I ever put
on Cosmic Variance? I mean, seriously? How pathetic are you?
>
> Don't thanks me. All the merit is your.
>
Why don't you take a minute from your daily life of navel gazing and being a
stalker to explain what you honestly hope to accomplish by looking like a
goddamn loon and being a general creep? I mean damn, you kept a copy of my
photo? That's creepy as shit, yo.
Juan R.
> Juan R. González-Álvarez wrote:
> [...]
>
>>> If you don't think the weak field limit is defined that way, you
>>> should probably read your 'summary' and fix the repeated error then.
>>
>> Before asking for fixings you would:
>>
>> * First learn to read
>>
>> * Second learn to write
>>
>> * Third learn physics
>>
>> * Fourth learn some research.
>>
>> * Five learn some good manners.
>
> I'm baffled as to why you refuse to acknowledge what you wrote on your
> own site. I say your characterization of the weak field limit is
> horribly wrong. if you can't show why your argument is correct, well
> that kinda proves my point doesn't it?
It proves that you cannot read. As said above "First learn to read" :-D
> [...]
>
>> One of your last fiascos was when you pretended to review a paper but
>> you could not do elementary computations as g_ab g^bc, explained in GR
>> textbooks:
>
> I like how you only comment on things like this after the fact. You
> never participate in conversations
Never? Really?
>> http://canonicalscience.blogspot.com/2008/08/some-samples-of-usenet-fauna-
> ii.html
>
> Inept and oafish attempts at character assassination are /awesome/.
Agree, your attempts at character assassination of many academics
(mathematicians, astronomers, physicists, numerical relativists, etc.) and
even of communities (e.g. your last blanket deprecation of the
entire engineering community in s.p.research) are awesome :-D
>> It is interesting that the profile in your behavior said:
>>
>> "After this new fiasco Eric Gisse stooped from reviewing the paper.
>> But don't be confused. In some few time, when the waters calm down
>> and Eric think that everyone has forgotten his mistakes, Eric will
>> return claiming how wrong the scientist was and how right and smart
>> he is."
>
> Considering how you are so willing to poke through several years of my
> postings to find something to use against me, I cannot help but wonder
> why you won't discuss my little review of your manuscript draft.
There was several sound laughs that day. This week you were playing to be
Editor. Please try one fantasy at once Eric!
> If my comments didn't have merit you would have long ago expanded on
> your thousand line rant against me on your blog to include how I was
> being incorrect.
Your messages have *a lot of merit* :-D
Why do you believe that you were selected in the category of
crackpots for the USENET fauna sample? Why do you believe you
receive warnings in all forums and blogs where you participate? Why do
you think so many people has complained against you both in moderated
and unmoderated newsgroups? Why do you think that spr moderators
blocked you? Why do you think that spf moderators warned you in public?
Why do you think that Groups guys warned you in public? Why do you think
you deleted your photo in facebook? Why do you think you are a dropout?
Exactly, because the merit you deserve! :-D
> That you don't even link to the review as you link to
> plenty of things that don't even support your conclusions drawn from
> hindsight and/or intellectual dishonesty is rather interesting.
Thanks by suggestion but it is unneded to link any nonsense, lie, insult,
and dishonesty post from you. I think that your profile is rather complete
with just some hundred of them.
The best you can do to improve your profile is to spread your behavior to
new places where you remain still unknown. Some idea?
>> And the prediction was mostly verified becasue the day 17 you attacked
>> again him
>>
>> http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/msg/def283a7014a4157
>
> Ilja's theory is still a nonsense theory with no verified solutions or
> contact with observation. Would you like to step into the fray and make
> a solid prediction you would stand by, or would you prefer to snipe from
> the sidelines?
The same prediction cannot be verified twice :-D
>> where, of course, your hillaring superb mistake was relabelled by you
>> as minor "tangential point" :_D
>>
>> Did you do the fourth point? Nope and then you get suprised because
>> Executive summaries have no citations. Well, really your emphasized
>> this as another of your attempts to show how smart and knowledeable you
>> are but finally once again you were exposed Eric. How unsurprising,
>> true? :-D
>
> Actually that's your emphasis, I don't toot my own horn nearly as
> frequently as you like to think I do.
>
> What hasn't changed is the massive misrepresentation of the weak field
> limit in your executive summary. I have no expectation that the main
> paper is any different, because I've been reading your arguments for
> *years* and have seen a copy of the draft before. I even commented
> heavily on it, without getting any response back except for 6 months of
> passive aggression and a muffled "oh shit" as you realize you left your
> paper public long enough for me to get it.
Above I gave you five magic issues. In a single paragraph you violate four
of them :-D
>> Did you did the five point? Nope. Many readers, moderators, and friends
>> have warned you about your bad manners.
>
> I wasn't aware I was posting to alt.my.little.pony. Bawwww?
You were in each one of your sobs.
>> Myself said you this last
>> vacations you would relax and think about your future. You ignored all
>> of us and continue your agressive insulting liar style :-D
>>
>> In one of your last crisis, you have been trolling certain academician
>> blog with truly hillaric stuff as:
>>
>> "Great, wrote up a nice fat comment then stupidly clicked a link to
>> read something so I have to write it aaaaaaaaalllllll over again.
>> Double the snark now!"
>>
>> "The quantity being considered is not the ?curvature? of space-time,
>> which is horrifically misleading, "
>
> I love it when you reflexively disagree with my comments but still
> manage to not have enough spine to put yourself on the spot and reply
> with a technical argument.
You don't.
>> "Juan: Thanks for being a cosmic jackass by importing an argument
>> you
>> lost onto a medium that has people who are capable of reading for
>> comprehension."
>>
>> "As I was reduced to explaining things using small words and
>> pantomime
>> to a child with a learning disability, the overall argument should
>> be simple to follow for people who can read for comprehension."
>
> When I paste something from an article and you simply say 'nuh-uh, it
> doesn't say that', I have the god given right to question your ability
> to read for comprehension.
You have. But the question is why cannot you accept that your trolling here,
there, elsewhere was ignored (after the corresponding laugh of course)?
> [...]
>
>
>> "Sucks to be the guy parked at (0,0)."
>
> I wonder what the context for this one was.
>
>
>> "Isn?t that just fucking peachy?"
>>
>> "Shut the hell up."
>>
>> Now more people knows *you* really, including the one who replied to
>> you:
>>
>> "who the hell is Eric Gisse, and what is his problem, exactly? Was he
>> dropped on his head when a baby?"
>>
>> Congrats Eric, you are spreading your fame to places where you were
>> unknown.
>
> Oh /noes/, I perturbed an 'interested layman' who had nothing
> substantial to contribute. I can see why that would bother you.
Sure you perturbed more people, Eric. Only one replied you because he
did not know you, still his analysis was rather accurate, wasn't Eric?
>
>> P.S: those messages and your recent nonsenses and lies will added to a
>> new update of the page devoted in your honor :-D
>
> How many hours did it take for you to find and read every comment I ever
> put on Cosmic Variance? I mean, seriously? How pathetic are you?
I don't get payed per hour, thus you would not worry by your money :-D
>> Don't thanks me. All the merit is your.
>>
>>
> Why don't you take a minute from your daily life of navel gazing and
> being a stalker to explain what you honestly hope to accomplish by
> looking like a goddamn loon and being a general creep? I mean damn, you
> kept a copy of my photo? That's creepy as shit, yo.
Yeah, you posted your photo in a public share place and was automatically
cached by bots. But don't worry Eric nobody will call you again
"sad lonely virgin loser with no friends"
"Psycoptath fat head loser stuffed with junk food"
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/msg/fcba2ad8c7544feb
because they *cannot* comment your profile here :-D
eric gisse
[snip long boring whine about how I make you cry...]
Nothing left! Notice how you'll talk for pages and pages and pages about how
I've slighted you in the past, but refuse to do the same about your work.
Thanks for letting me live rent free in your head. God knows there's enough
space in there.
Juan R.
> Juan R. González-Álvarez wrote:
>
> [snip long boring whine about how I make you cry...]
Did you even read your own post?
> Nothing left! Notice how you'll talk for pages and pages and pages about
> how I've slighted you in the past, but refuse to do the same about your
> work.
I think I have been also using present tense. Did not read?
> Thanks for letting me live rent free in your head. God knows there's
> enough space in there.
As said before you do not need thank me for your first class profile.
All the merit is yours Eric:
http://canonicalscience.blogspot.com/2008/08/some-samples-of-usenet-fauna-ii.html
Recall that your profile will be updated with the recent episode when you
dreamed that you was an English Editor and suggested changes as
"intutively", "htose", and "tounge" :-D
Don't doubt to contact me again if you have some new suggestion to maintain
your current ranking or if you decide to jump to new arenas to spread
yourself :_-D
Unified_Perspective
> There are many similarities between gravitational and EM waves, but EM
> waves only act on electrically charged masses; however, neutron
> scattering still occurs due to interference between the magnetic
> dipole and spin-orbit interaction.
>
Since we both use and measure charge all the time and know in great
detail how EM waves interact with charge I suppose that we understand
electric charge quite well.
The question then becomes what is a gravitational wave. Since
relativity has established that gravitation can be better explained as
a curvature of space and time I propose that gravity waves as they are
called would be better termed as graviton and tacheon waves. A
graviton wave would be a wave in space and a tacheon wave would be a
wave in time.
Since it is notoriously difficult to detect graviton waves I would
instead focus on detection the tacheon waves which must accompany
them. I have seen detector designs based on tungsten rods, low
pressure noble gasses. The best detector design is completely
dependent on the pitch and amplitude of the waves you are attempting
to measure.
BURT
Unified perspective? Appearence is the theory of relativity.
Mitch Raemsch
carlip...@physics.ucdavis.edu
> > Could you please repost the specific journal reference?
> Only if you promise to stop asking me without even
> reading the stuff *first*. The reference is
> Gravitational interaction in the relational approach 2008:
> Grav. and Cosm. 14(1), 41???52. Vladimirov, Yu. S.
This is a pretty obscure journal, but I managed to track down a copy.
The paper has nothing that addresses my question, though.
The problem with getting gravity as a "residual" electromagnetic
interaction is simple: electromagnetism couples only to charge,
while gravity couples to all forms of energy. Vladimirov attempts
to get around this by positing that all matter is made up of
elementary charged constituents with a fixed mass and a fixed
charge-to-mass ratio (up to sign). A neutriono might, for example,
be made up of two such constituents; a top quark might then be
made of nine trillion -- though never nine trillion and one, by the
exclusion principle. In this model, gravity couples to the square
of the charge of the constituents.
The trouble is that we observe that gravity couples to *energy*.
The electrostatic energy in a nucleus due to the repulsion of the
consituent protons, for instance, contributes E/c^2 to the
gravitational interaction, to an accuracy of a few parts in 10^12.
The nuclear binding energy contributes (naegatively!) with the
same accuracy. Energy of weak neutral currents, of magnetostatic
interactions in the nucleus, of hyperfine interactions of nucleon
spins, and of electron binding energy in atoms all contribute. So
does *gravitational* binding energy.
Now, you might get away with a model in which, say, neutrinos are
made of charge constituents. But the energy of electrostatic
repulsion certainly isn't! And in Vladimirov's model, there is no
apparent way -- and certainly no way the paper discusses -- to get
that energy to couple to gravity.
(For that matter, it seems unlikely that the model can even get the
deflection of light in a gravitational field. Light, in Vladimirov's
model, is certainly not made of charged particles.)
So I repeat my question. If you want to describe gravity as a residual
electromagnetic interaction, or more generally as something induced
by electromagnetism, how do you reproduce the observed coupling
of gravity to energy?
Steve Carlip
BURT
Moving geometry cannot be absorbed. A gravity wave would roam the
universe forever. It does not exist.
Mitch Raemsch
Androcles
<carlip...@physics.ucdavis.edu> wrote in message
news:hdsj25$6f3$1...@skeeter.ucdavis.edu...
Juan R. Gonz�lez-�lvarez <juanR...@canonicalscience.com> wrote:
>carlip-nospam wrote on Thu, 05 Nov 2009 21:56:23 +0000:
> > Could you please repost the specific journal reference?
> Only if you promise to stop asking me without even
> reading the stuff *first*. The reference is
> Gravitational interaction in the relational approach 2008:
> Grav. and Cosm. 14(1), 41???52. Vladimirov, Yu. S.
This is a pretty obscure journal, but I managed to track down a copy.
The paper has nothing that addresses my question, though.
The problem with getting gravity as a "residual" electromagnetic
interaction is simple: electromagnetism couples only to charge,
===========================================
The problem with carlip-allspam is he doesn't accept magnetism
couples to iron filings or recognise atoms are very small iron filings
unless he has a paper to tell him how to think.
Ken S. Tucker
On Nov 16, 2:17 pm, carlip-nos...@physics.ucdavis.edu wrote:
I think the first thing is to check how one would
determine gravitation can exist in a "Charge Couple",
using GR, I have a brief here,
http://physics.trak4.com/GR_Charge_Couple.pdf
To me it's common sense, though not simple.
If you want to think in terms of "Strings", Eq.(4)
therein provides the variation of the String length
connecting all charges in one macroscopic body, like
a planet Earth to those in the moon, with a bazillion
summations.
There is a residual attractive force in each string
proportional to the magnitude of the potential energy
of the charge, even if the bodies are electrically
neutral.
The same GR solution explains electrostatic forces,
with gravity being a residual of that solution.
Similiar to magnetism being a residual of electro
statics using SR.
At this point I think Steven asks, is that realistic,
well it is if energy is expressed in terms of Electro
Magnetically stored energy, as a 'definition' of mass.
Mass is still not scientifically defined, it's a catch
all sort of generic term, so until humans agree about
that we use "MST and Mass Definition" herein,
http://physics.trak4.com/
As far a coupling - via that method - to a photon, we
should understand a photon carries electrical ability
such as an EM wave, and quantizing the electrical
portion of EMR produces the needed charges.
Regards
Ken S. Tucker
eric gisse
[...]
> I think the first thing is to check how one would
> determine gravitation can exist in a "Charge Couple",
> using GR, I have a brief here,
> http://physics.trak4.com/GR_Charge_Couple.pdf
Yet you don't solve Maxwell's equations. You don't solve the Einstein field
equations.
This is what armchair physics is all about. You write down some algebraic
equations, handwave, and repost it for a few years straight all the while
wondering why nobody ever takes you seriously.
[...]
BURT
Einstein science was just the beginning. He had a partial theory of
gravity.
Mitch Raemsch
Ken S. Tucker
> > Ken S. Tucker wrote:
> > > I think the first thing is to check how one would
> > > determine gravitation can exist in a "Charge Couple",
> > > using GR, I have a brief here,
> > >http://physics.trak4.com/GR_Charge_Couple.pdf
>
> Einstein science was just the beginning. He had a partial theory of
> gravity.
> Mitch Raemsch
Steven Carlip expressed a reasonable objection, by
asking hows does an electrically based gravitation
couple to a photon.
While the photon structure is still enigmatic, we do
know of the "photo-electric effect".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photoelectric_effect#Einstein:_light_quanta
We know from this, the photon conveys a 'rate' of action,
and action is quantized using 'h' and expressible as units
of charge^2. So it is reasonable to assume the photon consists
of charges.
Regards
Ken S. Tucker
eric gisse
Spewing idiot. Not even wrong, and you have no idea why.
> Regards
> Ken S. Tucker
Juan R.
After your insistence asking me for a reference that I had given at least
two times, I copied and pasted again the reference for you with the promise
that you would stop from asking me idiotic questions.
But you ignored...
It is evidently posssible to explain how gravity couples to energy (photons).
There is not mistery about this and, of course, the result for light bending
is the same (up to the limits of current measurements) than in GR.
But, of course, I will not waste time explaining this research stuff to you.
BURT
If light is electric and magentic force does it act through its
forces?
The answer is a resounding NO. But no one has ever said it. Light's
forces don't act.
Mitch Raemsch
Ken S. Tucker
Well I think radio's work by receiving EMR via an antenna
then wiggling a current and voltage down a feed wire,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dipole_antenna
and then music comes out.
Ken
Sue...
> There are many similarities between gravitational and EM waves,
> but EM
> waves only act on electrically charged masses;
Optical tweezers?
> however, neutron
> scattering still occurs due to interference between the magnetic
> dipole and spin-orbit interaction.
>
> The question related to gravitational and EM waves is rather what is
> electrical charge? If electric charge is an expansion or contraction
> of space-time then gravitational waves would only interact with
> matter, which by its very nature is a distortion of the metric tensor
> i.e. electrically charged.
>
> Has the hidden gravitational wave been EM waves all along?
Probably...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Induced_gravity
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Van_der_Waals_force
http://relativity.livingreviews.org/Articles/lrr-2005-12/articlesu25.html#x34-720006.3
Sue...
carlip...@physics.ucdavis.edu
> After your insistence asking me for a reference that I had given at least
> two times, I copied and pasted again the reference for you with the promise
> that you would stop from asking me idiotic questions.
> But you ignored...
Because you cited a reference that didn't even vaguely address my questions.
> It is evidently posssible to explain how gravity couples to energy
> (photons).
How, then? The reference you cited gives no such explanation. Nor
does it address the deeper question of how to get induced gravity to
couple to binding energy.
> There is not mistery about this and, of course, the result for light bending
> is the same (up to the limits of current measurements) than in GR.
> But, of course, I will not waste time explaining this research stuff to you.
OK, so you don't know. (Or you know the answer to this question, one that's
puzzled people working on induced gravity for years, but it's a secret...)
Steve Carlip
carlip...@physics.ucdavis.edu
> > Has the hidden gravitational wave been EM waves all along?
> Probably...
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Induced_gravity
> http://relativity.livingreviews.org/Articles/lrr-2005-12/articlesu25.html#x34-720006.3
These are nice articles (especially the LIving Reviews article) about
induced gravity. Neither of them even hints that "gravitational
waves [have been] EM waves all along."
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Van_der_Waals_force
And this is a nice article about why the simplistic formulation of
gravity as a residual electromagnetic interaction *doesn't* work.
Hint: look up the dependence of the van der Waals force on
distance.
Steve Carlip
Sue...
> Sue... <suzysewns...@yahoo.com.au> wrote:
> > On Nov 1, 7:02 am, rim317-...@yahoo.co.uk wrote:
>
> [...]
>
> > > Has the hidden gravitational wave been EM waves all along?
> > Probably...
> >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Induced_gravity
>
> These are nice articles (especially the LIving Reviews article) about
> induced gravity. Neither of them even hints that "gravitational
> waves [have been] EM waves all along."
>
> >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Van_der_Waals_force
>
> And this is a nice article about why the simplistic formulation of
> gravity as a residual electromagnetic interaction *doesn't* work.
> Hint: look up the dependence of the van der Waals force on
> distance.
That is the false argument that Igor never
offers support for.
Induction forces diminish by the square of the distance, in the far
field, just as gravity does. That is the
signature of a long range force.
Truncated potential
<<The exponent 12 was chosen exclusively
because of ease of computation.
The attractive long-range potential, however,
is derived from dispersion interactions. >>
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lennard-Jones_potential
Sue...
>
> Steve Carlip
BURT
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Light can be absorbed but a geometry wave cannot. That wave would flow
around forever in the universe.
Mitch Raemsch
Juan R.
The reference *defines* unambiguously the theory of gravity. Author,
referees, and editor did not considered that the author would do the
homework for you, neither I do.
>> There is not mistery about this and, of course, the result for light
>> bending is the same (up to the limits of current measurements) than in
>> GR.
>
>> But, of course, I will not waste time explaining this research stuff to
>> you.
>
> OK, so you don't know. (Or you know the answer to this question, one
> that's puzzled people working on induced gravity for years, but it's a
> secret...)
Unability to read, conspiracy theories, secretism, and ignorance of
well-known results are rather typical of crackpots.
> Steve Carlip
Ken S. Tucker
> Sue... <suzysewns...@yahoo.com.au> wrote:
> > On Nov 1, 7:02 am, rim317-...@yahoo.co.uk wrote:
>
> [...]
>
> > > Has the hidden gravitational wave been EM waves all along?
> > Probably...
> >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Induced_gravity
>
> These are nice articles (especially the LIving Reviews article) about
> induced gravity. Neither of them even hints that "gravitational
> waves [have been] EM waves all along."
>
> >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Van_der_Waals_force
>
> And this is a nice article about why the simplistic formulation of
> gravity as a residual electromagnetic interaction *doesn't* work.
> Hint: look up the dependence of the van der Waals force on
> distance.
>
> Steve Carlip
Steven
I agree the Van der Waals is an upper level effect
with nil association with gravitation, however
I do find gravitation is a residual effect in GR
as magnetism is in SR as per this brief,
http://physics.trak4.com/GR_Charge_Couple.pdf
I believe it is the responsibility for a skilled
GR theoretician to have sufficient curiosity to
opine the application of the EFE's to the energy
stored in a Charge Couple, and publish the findings,
especially as it relates to gravity.
Should you (Steven) ever perform such an analysis,
please inform me via email,
**** dynamics (at) uniserve.com ****
Regards
Ken S. Tucker