Re: empirical evidence for gravitational field of EM radiation
Sue...
> Hello,
>
> Is there any empirical evidence that electromagnetic radiation
> produces gravitational fields?
There sure is. Just boil a pot of water and you will
see water molecules move away from the earth's
surface as the London couplings become
less coherent.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Optical_tweezers
Emergent gravity
http://relativity.livingreviews.org/Articles/lrr-2005-12/articlesu25.html#x34-720006.3
Sakharov's induced gravity: a modern perspective
http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0204062
The Origin of Gravity
Authors: C. P. Kouropoulos
http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0107015
http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0107015v1
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fritz_London
> I understand that as a form of energy
> it is expected to induce a spacetime curvature, but has this
> prediction of GR actually been tested? Is it at all subject to any
> controversy?
<< Sakharov observed that many condensed matter
systems give rise to emergent phenomena which are
identical to general relativity quantitatively. >>
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Induced_gravity
Sue...
> Thanks,
>
> Armin
Ian Parker
> On Aug 7, 3:41 pm, ANS <ar...@umich.edu> wrote:
>
> > Hello,
>
> > Is there any empirical evidence that electromagnetic radiation
> > produces gravitational fields?
>
> There sure is. Just boil a pot of water and you will
> see water molecules move away from the earth's
> surface as the London couplings become
> less coherent.
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Optical_tweezers
>
>
> Sakharov's induced gravity: a modern perspectivehttp://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0204062
>
> The Origin of Gravity
> Authors: C. P. Kouropouloshttp://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0107015http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0107015v1
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fritz_London
>
> > I understand that as a form of energy
> > it is expected to induce a spacetime curvature, but has this
> > prediction of GR actually been tested? Is it at all subject to any
> > controversy?
>
> << Sakharov observed that many condensed matter
> systems give rise to emergent phenomena which are
> identical to general relativity quantitatively. >>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Induced_gravity
>
> Sue...
>
GTR, but there the similarity ends. There is absolutely no evidence
that elecromagnetism and gravity are linked except in the very general
way that Gravity is produced by total energy mass which might include
photons.
There has been speclation that the GTR metric is bent round in a fifth
dimension through branes and that branes have helped to produce the
Big Bang, although what the connection to electromagnetism is I really
don't know.
The operation of light tweezers can be explained quite easily by
classical electromagnetic rheory without the need to involve gravity.
- Ian Parker
Sue...
[...]
>
> The operation of light tweezers can be explained quite easily by
> classical electromagnetic rheory without the need to involve gravity.
You miss the point.
Gravity/Inertia can be explained by electrodynamics.
http://relativity.livingreviews.org/Articles/lrr-2005-12/articlesu25.html#x34-720006.3
Sue...
>
> - Ian Parker
zzbu...@netscape.net
>
>
>
> > On Aug 7, 3:41 pm, ANS <ar...@umich.edu> wrote:
>
> > > Hello,
>
> > > Is there any empirical evidence that electromagnetic radiation
> > > produces gravitational fields?
>
> > There sure is. Just boil a pot of water and you will
> > see water molecules move away from the earth's
> > surface as the London couplings become
> > less coherent.
>
> >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Optical_tweezers
>
> > Emergent gravityhttp://relativity.livingreviews.org/Articles/lrr-2005-12/articlesu25....
>
> > Sakharov's induced gravity: a modern perspectivehttp://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0204062
>
> > The Origin of Gravity
>
> >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fritz_London
>
> > > I understand that as a form of energy
> > > it is expected to induce a spacetime curvature, but has this
> > > prediction of GR actually been tested? Is it at all subject to any
> > > controversy?
>
> > << Sakharov observed that many condensed matter
> > systems give rise to emergent phenomena which are
> > identical to general relativity quantitatively. >>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Induced_gravity
>
> > Sue...
>
> There is a mathematical similarity between mechanical phenomena and
> GTR, but there the similarity ends. There is absolutely no evidence
> that elecromagnetism and gravity are linked except in the very general
> way that Gravity is produced by total energy mass which might include
> photons.
There is no evidence that GTR is linked to any other forces.
Which is mostly why it's GTR, rather than science or computers or
robots or thinking,
lasers, DVD, GPS, or evolution.
>
> There has been speclation that the GTR metric is bent round in a fifth
> dimension through branes and that branes have helped to produce the
> Big Bang, although what the connection to electromagnetism is I really
> don't know.
>
> The operation of light tweezers can be explained quite easily by
> classical electromagnetic rheory without the need to involve gravity.
>
> - Ian Parker- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Mike Jr.
> On Aug 27, 6:05 am, Ian Parker <ianpark...@gmail.com> wrote:
> [...]
>
>
>
> > The operation of light tweezers can be explained quite easily by
> > classical electromagnetic rheory without the need to involve gravity.
>
> You miss the point.
> Gravity/Inertia can be explained by electrodynamics.
>
No it can't; not yet at any rate. Ian is right.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unified_field_theories#The_current_state_of_unified_field_theories
"Gravity has yet to be successfully included in a theory of
everything."
--Mike Jr
>
> Sue...
>
>
>
> > - Ian Parker
Ian Parker
> On Aug 27, 6:28 am, "Sue..." <suzysewns...@yahoo.com.au> wrote:
>
> > On Aug 27, 6:05 am, Ian Parker <ianpark...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > [...]
>
> > > The operation of light tweezers can be explained quite easily by
> > > classical electromagnetic rheory without the need to involve gravity.
>
> > You miss the point.
> > Gravity/Inertia can be explained by electrodynamics.
>
> >http://relativity.livingreviews.org/Articles/lrr-2005-12/articlesu25....
>
> No it can't; not yet at any rate. Ian is right.
>
> "Gravity has yet to be successfully included in a theory of
> everything."
>
other force was its coupling to the weak force.
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/forces/unify.html#c1
http://arxiv.org/abs/0808.2595
This is interesting. If there is mirror matter it will add
significantly to our understanding of the weak force which would
acquire a symmetry. However to be frank all that he has proved is that
dark matter is cool - he hasn't really identified a particle.
- Ian Parker
Sue...
> On Aug 27, 6:28 am, "Sue..." <suzysewns...@yahoo.com.au> wrote:
>
> > On Aug 27, 6:05 am, Ian Parker <ianpark...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > [...]
>
> > > The operation of light tweezers can be explained quite easily by
> > > classical electromagnetic rheory without the need to involve gravity.
>
> > You miss the point.
> > Gravity/Inertia can be explained by electrodynamics.
>
> >http://relativity.livingreviews.org/Articles/lrr-2005-12/articlesu25....
>
> No it can't; not yet at any rate. Ian is right.
>
> "Gravity has yet to be successfully included in a theory of
> everything."
Whether you use Einstein's field equations based on
the electromagnetic energy density of a volume of
space-time or an induction mechanism, the
gravito-inertial field is being explained in terms of
electrodynamics. The difference is one of heirearchy
or "which force is more fundamental".
The electromagnetic energy tensor
http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teaching/em/lectures/node128.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stress-energy_tensor
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_density#Energy_density_of_electric_and_magnetic_fields
Electrons, positrons and the associated Coulomb
forces have a fairly solid claim of being "fundamental"
so their derivatives can't be dismissed without experiments
with resolution around 1 part in 10^40.
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/forces/funfor.html
Sue...
carlip...@physics.ucdavis.edu
[...]
> You miss the point.
> Gravity/Inertia can be explained by electrodynamics.
> http://relativity.livingreviews.org/Articles/lrr-2005-12/articlesu25.html#x34-720006.3
The authors of that article are colleagues of mine, and I was surprised
to hear that they made such a claim. So I checked.
There is *nothing* in the paper you cite that claims "Gravity/Inertia
can be explained by electrodynamics." As far as I can tell, there is
nothing that even be misinterpreted to imply such a thing. You are
just making this up.
The paper is about "analog gravity," the use of nongravitational
models to describe aspects of gravity. The paper makes it very,
very clear that at this point, the idea that such models can provide
anything close to a complete description of "emergent gravity" is
speculation. Furthermore, none of the analog models discussed
is "electrodynamics" -- nothing whatsoever in the paper supports
your claim.
The conclusion of the paper you cite is the following, in full:
In this review article we have seen the interplay between standard
general relativity and various analogies that can be used to
capture aspects of its behaviour. These analogies have ranged
from rather general but very physical analogue models based on
fluid-acoustics, geometrical optics, and wave optics, to highly
specific models based on BECs, liquid helium, slow light, etc.
Additionally, we have seen several rather abstract mathematical
toy models that bring us to such exotic structures and ideas as
birefringence, bimetricity, Finsler spaces, and Sakharov???s induced
gravity.
The primary reason that these analogies were developed within
the general relativity community was to help in the understanding
of general relativity by providing very down-to-earth models of
otherwise subtle behaviour in general relativity. Secondary reasons
include the rather speculative suggestion that there may be more
going on than just analogy - it is conceivable (though perhaps
unlikely) that one or more of these analogue models could suggest
a relatively simple and useful way of quantizing gravity that
side-steps much of the technical machinery currently employed
in such efforts. A tertiary concern (at least as far as the general
relativity community is concerned) is the use of relativity and
differential geometric techniques to improve understanding of
various aspects of condensed matter physics.
The authors expect interest in analogue models to continue unabated,
and suspect that there are several key but unexpected issues whose
resolution would be greatly aided by the analysis of appropriate
analogue models.
Please try to be a bit more honest when you cite papers.
Steve Carlip
Sue...
> Sue... <suzysewns...@yahoo.com.au> wrote:
>
> [...]
>
> > You miss the point.
> > Gravity/Inertia can be explained by electrodynamics.
>
> The authors of that article are colleagues of mine, and I was surprised
> to hear that they made such a claim. So I checked.
>
===
> There is *nothing* in the paper you cite that claims "Gravity/Inertia
> can be explained by electrodynamics." As far as I can tell, there is
> nothing that even be misinterpreted to imply such a thing. You are
> just making this up.
<< One of the more fascinating approaches to “quantum gravity”
is the suggestion, typically attributed to Sakharov
that gravity itself may not be “fundamental physics”. Indeed
it is now a relatively common opinion, maybe not mainstream
but definitely a strong minority opinion, that gravity (and in
particular the whole notion of spacetime and spacetime geometry)
might be no more “fundamental” than is fluid dynamics.
The word “fundamental” is here used in a rather technical sense
- fluid mechanics is not fundamental because there is a known
underlying microphysics, that of
--> molecular dynamics, <--
of which
fluid mechanics is only the low-energy low-momentum limit.
Indeed the very concepts of density and velocity field, which
are so central to the Euler and continuity equations, make no
sense at the microphysical level and emerge only as one
averages over timescales and distance-scales larger than the
mean free time and mean free path. >>
http://relativity.livingreviews.org/Articles/lrr-2005-12/articlesu25.html#x34-720006.3
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GRAvity_PipE
http://researchweb.watson.ibm.com/grape/grape_ewald.htm
Sakharov's induced gravity: a modern perspective
http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0204062
Sue...
carlip...@physics.ucdavis.edu
> On Aug 27, 12:21 pm, carlip-nos...@physics.ucdavis.edu wrote:
> > Sue... <suzysewns...@yahoo.com.au> wrote:
> >
> > [...]
> >
> > > You miss the point.
> > > Gravity/Inertia can be explained by electrodynamics.
> > >http://relativity.livingreviews.org/Articles/lrr-2005-12/articlesu25....
> >
> > The authors of that article are colleagues of mine, and I was surprised
> > to hear that they made such a claim. So I checked.
> > There is *nothing* in the paper you cite that claims "Gravity/Inertia
> > can be explained by electrodynamics." As far as I can tell, there is
> > nothing that even be misinterpreted to imply such a thing. You are
> > just making this up.
> << One of the more fascinating approaches to ???quantum gravity???
> is the suggestion, typically attributed to Sakharov
> that gravity itself may not be ???fundamental physics???. Indeed
> it is now a relatively common opinion, maybe not mainstream
> but definitely a strong minority opinion, that gravity (and in
> particular the whole notion of spacetime and spacetime geometry)
> might be no more ???fundamental??? than is fluid dynamics.
> The word ???fundamental??? is here used in a rather technical sense
> - fluid mechanics is not fundamental because there is a known
> underlying microphysics, that of
> --> molecular dynamics, <--
> of which
> fluid mechanics is only the low-energy low-momentum limit.
> Indeed the very concepts of density and velocity field, which
> are so central to the Euler and continuity equations, make no
> sense at the microphysical level and emerge only as one
> averages over timescales and distance-scales larger than the
> mean free time and mean free path. >>
Analogy: 1a. Similarity in some respects between things that are otherwise
dissimilar. b. A comparison based on such similarity.
What this says is that there is a "strong minority opinion" among
physicists that gravity might emerge from some more fundamental
underlying theory, in analogy to the way that fluid mechanics
emerges from molecular dynamics.
To claim that this means that "Gravity/Inertia can be explained by
electrodynamics" is to be deliberately obtuse.
Steve Carlip
Ken S. Tucker
We're happy with an electrodynamic solution to
gravity, see Eq.(4) in this brief,
http://physics.trak4.com/GR_Charge_Couple.pdf
Steve, all you need to do is solve Guv=Tuv for a
simple "charge couple", have you tried it?
Regards
Ken S. Tucker
hanson
"charge" and "action at a distance" is, all we do is
whistle Dixie, which of course is easier & more fun.
---------- AHAHAHAHAHAHAHA ---------
>
"Ken S. Tucker" <dyna...@vianet.on.ca> wrote in message
news:f7fbbfee-0d26-4894...@a18g2000pra.googlegroups.com...
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/msg/3e3cd95e4a6a838a?hl=en
>>
Dennis aka Sue... <suzysewns...@yahoo.com.au> wrote:
Gravity/Inertia can be explained by electrodynamics.
http://relativity.livingreviews.org/Articles/lrr-2005-12/articlesu25....
>>
There is *nothing* in the paper you cite that claims "Gravity/Inertia
can be explained by electrodynamics."
>> >
Dennis aka Sue... <suzysewns...@yahoo.com.au> wrote:
One of the more fascinating approaches to ???quantum gravity???
is the suggestion, typically attributed to Sakharov
that gravity itself may not be ???fundamental physics???. Indeed
???fundamental??? than is fluid dynamics.... because there
is an underlying microphysics, ---> molecular dynamics, <--
Indeed the very concepts of density and velocity field make no
sense at the microphysical level and emerge only as one
averages over timescales and distance-scales larger than the
mean free time and mean free path.
>>
there is a "strong minority opinion" among physicists that
gravity might emerge from some more fundamental
underlying theory, in analogy to the way that fluid mechanics
means that "Gravity/Inertia can be explained by
electrodynamics" is to be deliberately obtuse.
>
We're happy with an electrodynamic solution to
gravity, see Eq.(4) in this brief,
http://physics.trak4.com/GR_Charge_Couple.pdf
Steve, all you need to do is solve Guv=Tuv for a
simple "charge couple", have you tried it?
>
You can begin with an even simpler set of premises and
propositions and see numerically sufficiently accurate
results that gravity and EM are intertwined,(but which
comes first is another question, altogether) You can
make the following speculations and start with
>
::1:: d^2(1/rho)/dt^2 = G (peak, const. Newton, and
>
::2:: dE/dt = rho*G*hbar (max energy flux or power)
>
wherein rho is the ordinary mass-energy content in ordinary
3 D real world space, cosmic or molecular, homogenous
or dispersed. With normal calculus machinations of that
you can turn out the following masses:
For the proton, 1.67E-24 gr:
>
::3:: m_p = [c^2/2G]*[sqrt(hG/(2pi*c^3)]*[I_H/(f_L*F)]*(3*pi^2)*sqrt(2a)
>
IOW, m_p = Schw.radius * Plank length * Ionisation parameters.
>
In other words still, it says:
The Hydrogen nucleus (m_p) is a black hole with [***]
--- the classical Schwartzschild limit or event horizon of (c^2/2G) at
--- a radius of 1 Planck length sqrt(hG/2pi*c^3) and is shrouded in
--- a substance-characteristic Coulomb mantle, being the product of,
--- the H-Ionisation potential multiplier of 13.5
.... [I_H=4pi^4*sqrt(a)/sqrt(6)],
--- the Lyman series frequency limit (f_L), and
--- the Faraday Constant (F, the charge transfer handler),
.... and is further governed by
--- toroidal geometry demands of (3*pi^2) and
--- EM/QM fine structure conditions set by [sqrt(2*a)].
>
[***] Consider the distance between this event horizon and the larger,
classically measured H-radius as the "nuclear accretion zone" analog.
>
In case of leptons, here the electron, m_e, the e-shell Ionization-potential
considerations do fall away and the situation changes to:
For the electron, m_e = 9.09E-28 gr:
>
::4:: m_e = [c^2/G] * [sqrt(hG/(2pi*c^3)] * [1/(f_L*F)] * a*pi*sqrt(3)/3
>
IOW, m_e = Kerr.radius * Plank length * Coulomb/charge shroud.
>
There are no ionization considerations and the electron's geometry
is spherical instead of toroidal (pi vs pi^2) & the electron may
be a rotating Kerr black hole type character with the Kerr- [c^2/G]
(instead of the Schwartzschild [c^2/2G]) event horizon.
>
More pontificatoons about ::3:: and ::4::
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/msg/b3d9acda1d607584?hl=en
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/msg/53371ffd43fe32b9
>
Naturally, these equations can be explained in very
many different ways, in as many ways as you can
skin a cat, but as long as we do not know what and
why there is "Action at a Distance" we will go no further
than Newton went, no matter how badly the Einstein
Dingleberries try to wrap space & time together into
matter warped space-time, and similarly we will not
understand anything deeper no matter how badly we
curl up with Maxwell if we do not understand what and
why there is "charge".
>
All these mental masturbations are of course great
fun and entertianment, but let us not forget that these
stories/tales/theories will not buy you as single cup of
coffee, unless you are a fortunate teacher, like Carlip,
whose job it is to convey heuristic / current knowledge
to the next generation... ahaha...
Thanks for the laughs, guys.... ahahaha... ahahanson
Ian Parker
>
> Steve, all you need to do is solve Guv=Tuv for a
> simple "charge couple", have you tried it?
> Regards
>
Are we in the Sun? Gravity is QUADRUPOLAR (Spin 2 in Elementary
Particle terms) wheras electromagnetism is DIPOLAR. A dipolar field
would have the Earth in the Sun in 100 million years.
- Ian Parker
Ian Parker
> All these mental masturbations are of course great
> fun and entertianment, but let us not forget that these
> stories/tales/theories will not buy you as single cup of
> coffee, unless you are a fortunate teacher, like Carlip,
> whose job it is to convey heuristic / current knowledge
> to the next generation... ahaha...
> Thanks for the laughs, guys.... ahahaha... ahahanson
Hanson. As I have said only Jesse Owens can provide luminous sources
of VUV/soft X rays through synchrotron radiation. There is the free
electron laser that works by quantum inversions produced inside a
synchrotron.
As has been said many times you need GTR for GPS. Also GTR is needed
to determine any orbit with high prescision. This is of great
importance in terms of Earth crossers. Blowing them up with nuclear
bombs is NOT a good idea. Far better to determine orbits accurately
and give them a "nudge" of mm/s
- Ian Parker
Y.Porat
-------------------
orbits are not done by curvature of space
it is done as all the attrarction forces
by
FORCE MESSENGERS !!
or else there was no need for all those 'Graviton' theories
it is not accidental the Einstein and even his followers
never succeeded by their great efforts
to unify all forces **including the curvature of space *
because that is not what it is in nature
it was only a wrong (though ingenious ) guess of Einstein
unlike SR that is right !!
space i s nothing
and that nothing cannot have any properties except
hosting matter
the fact that 'curvature of mass occurs only by
THE PRESENCE OF MASS
is a clear indication that the main hero of gravitation is
MASS and not empty space !!
ATB
Y.Porat
-----------------------------
Ken S. Tucker
http://physics.trak4.com/GR_Charge_Couple.pdf
>
> > Steve, all you need to do is solve Guv=Tuv for a
> > simple "charge couple", have you tried it?
> > Regards
> > Ken S. Tucker- Hide quoted text -
>
> Are we in the Sun? Gravity is QUADRUPOLAR (Spin 2 in Elementary
> Particle terms) wheras electromagnetism is DIPOLAR. A dipolar field
> would have the Earth in the Sun in 100 million years.
> - Ian Parker
The EFE solution in the quoted paper leads to the
prediction that g-waves do not exist, and it was expected
LIGO to have thumped a clear signal by now, but it has
NOT. Based on that empirical evidence, the paper is
(so far) physically superior to classical GR.
Regards
Ken S. Tucker
hanson
<ianpa...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:641b94a0-3f4a-430c...@a70g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
> On 1 Sep, 05:58, "hanson" <han...@quick.net> wrote:
>> All these mental masturbations are of course great
>> fun and entertianment, but let us not forget that these
>> stories/tales/theories will not buy you as single cup of
>> coffee, unless you are a fortunate teacher, like Carlip,
>> whose job it is to convey heuristic / current knowledge
>> to the next generation... ahaha...
>> Thanks for the laughs, guys.... ahahaha... ahahanson
>
> Hanson. As I have said only Jesse Owens can provide luminous
> sources of VUV/soft X rays through synchrotron radiation.
> There is the free electron laser that works by quantum inversions
> produced inside a synchrotron.
> As has been said many times you need GTR for GPS. Also GTR is
> needed to determine any orbit with high prescision. This is of great
> importance in terms of Earth crossers. Blowing them up with nuclear
> bombs is NOT a good idea. Far better to determine orbits accurately
> and give them a "nudge" of mm/s
> - Ian Parker
>
Ian Parkers long and sordid wrapsheet:
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.skeptic/msg/8f9e58768eb77fad?hl=en
>
ahahaha...So, Ian listen, apparently wichsen is extremely
important to you, from the fact that all what interested you
was the paragraph that contained the word masturbation.
... ahahaha...
Ian, listen, what substances are you constantly abusing
that you are so loaded, that the answers do come to you
even before the questions arise?
Ian, listen, what are you always so drugged up on so badly
that your mentation is so demented that you race chaotically
from Buzzword to Buzzword like a dog that barks in the night
at a distant noise that he knows nothing about... ahahahaha....
Thanks for the laughs though but, should you ever experience
the wonder of being sober and rational, Ian, here is what is
germane to the issue:
--------------------------------
Ian Parker
you get from time is a equation of the form
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_waves
where Quad = - d^2/dt + Del represents the flat-space d'Alembertian
operator, and τ(αβ) represents the stress-energy tensor plus quadratic
terms involving h(αβ) . This is just a wave equation for the field
with a source, despite the fact that the source involves terms
quadratic in the field itself. That is, it can be shown that solutions
to this equation are waves traveling with velocity 1 in these
coordinates. (We have put c = 1).
To get gravitational waves we need to throw masses around at an
apreciable fraction of c. It is, as I said quadrupolar.
- Ian Parker
We have a stress tensor not an electric or magnetic field
Sue...
> Sue... <suzysewns...@yahoo.com.au> wrote:
> > On Aug 27, 12:21 pm, carlip-nos...@physics.ucdavis.edu wrote:
> > > Sue... <suzysewns...@yahoo.com.au> wrote:
>
> > > [...]
>
> > > > You miss the point.
> > > > Gravity/Inertia can be explained by electrodynamics.
http://relativity.livingreviews.org/open?pubNo=lrr-2005-12&page=articlesu25.html
I gave the authors credit for the same observation
made by Einstein:
<<A mathematically unified field theory is sought in which
the gravitational field and the electromagnetic field are
interpreted only as different components or manifestations
of the same uniform field, the field equations where possible
no longer consisting of logically mutually independent summands. >>
http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/physics/laureates/1921/einstein-lecture.html
If some lack of intellect is shown in their similar statement
you might offer your fellow workers some assistance in
putting their thoughts to text.
Sue...
>
> Steve Carlip
Y.Porat
> terms involving h(áâ) . This is just a wave equation for the field
> with a source, despite the fact that the source involves terms
> quadratic in the field itself. That is, it can be shown that solutions
> to this equation are waves traveling with velocity 1 in these
> coordinates. (We have put c = 1).
>
> To get gravitational waves we need to throw masses around at an
> apreciable fraction of c. It is, as I said quadrupolar.
>
> - Ian Parker
>
> We have a stress tensor not an electric or magnetic field
-----------------------
i said FORCE MESSENGERS
i ddint say electric or magnetic field
now that is that fucken tensor stress
do you think that the physical reality
can be smeared on your mathematics paper and thats all ??
what is your fucken tensor stands for PHYSICALLY ??
does it include mass or not ??
how does it creates gravity ??
is it force messengers ??
and if messengers - do they move in straight lines or not ??
or is it curved space ??
reality is much more specific than abstract formulas
keep well
Y.Porat
--------------------------
Ian Parker
gravity GRADIENTS rather than gravity that is being operated on. This
is what makes the waves quadrupolar (or spin 2 as EP physicists would
say).
- Ian Parker
Y.y.Porat
but what is the **physical entity** that makes that field
physics is not just mathematics
to say a 'field' is too abstarct for real physical understanding
and even worse
for physics advance !!
Y.Porat
-------------------
> say).
>
> - Ian Parker
Ian Parker
that if we have mirrors suspended on glass fibers in a long evacuted
tube (LIGO) or mirrors in space (LISA) the two mirrors will experience
different gravitational pulls. Very small difference if we are
thousands of light years away from the original event but detectable
(hopefully) differences. The fact that the Tensor is differential in
itself means QUADRUPOLAR. It means that GEs obey a fourth power law.
This is why LIGO can never detect orbiting pulsars but LISA might. The
Tensor is a rate of change of gravitational pull. Rate of change of
rate of change gives us a quadrupole. That is the physical reality.
- Ian Parker
hanson
Lodo-"Ian Parker" <ianpa...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:9dcd512a-6a10-47d6...@p25g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
No, its not too abstract for physical understanding. Let us understand
that if we have mirrors suspended on glass fibers in a long evacuted
tube (LIGO) or mirrors in space (LISA) the two mirrors will experience
different gravitational pulls. Very small difference if we are
thousands of light years away from the original event but detectable
(hopefully) differences. The fact that the Tensor is differential in
itself means QUADRUPOLAR. It means that GEs obey a fourth power law.
This is why LIGO can never detect orbiting pulsars but LISA might. The
Tensor is a rate of change of gravitational pull. Rate of change of
rate of change gives us a quadrupole. That is the physical reality.
>
---------------------------------------------------------
Yehiel Porat 4 : Lodo Parker 0
---------------------------------------------------------
ahahahhaha... Lodo, the only Tensor you know is the
feeling that you get when a "rate of change of
gravitational pull" tenses your sphincter that evacuates
a quadruple of your turds... It's your memes, Lodo
It's your memes.... "Trust me!? ... "Go figure" and
Thanks for the laughs... ahahaha... ahahanson
Androcles
"hanson" <han...@quick.net> wrote in message
news:81gvk.369$393.189@trnddc05...
This is fuckin' funny. This wonderful Yankee gadget out in space
is supposed to detect "orbiting pulsars" light years away and it can't
even detect the Moon orbiting the Earth, something the river estuary
just down the road can do.
http://easytide.ukho.gov.uk/EASYTIDE/EasyTide/ShowPrediction.aspx?PortID=0111&PredictionLength=7
Ian Parker
> "hanson" <han...@quick.net> wrote in message
>
> news:81gvk.369$393.189@trnddc05...
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> - Show quoted text -
The Moon is only travelling at 1km/s it gives off very little in the
way of gravitational radiation. Pulsars are being hurled around at
round about 5%c. Tides are NOT radiation.
BTW - LISA is NASA but a considerable input is coming from ESA. I hope
there will be collaboration on ultra stability in general.
- Ian Parker
hanson
>
Lodo-"Ian Parker" <ianpark...@gmail.com> wrote
> >> > gravity GRADIENTS rather than gravity that is being operated on. This
> >> > is what makes the waves quadrupolar (or spin 2 as EP physicists would
>
> This is fuckin' funny. This wonderful Yankee gadget out in space
> is supposed to detect "orbiting pulsars" light years away and it can't
> even detect the Moon orbiting the Earth, something the river estuary
> just down the road can do.
> http://easytide.ukho.gov.uk/EASYTIDE/EasyTide/ShowPrediction.aspx?Por
>
The Moon is only travelling at 1km/s it gives off very little in the
way of gravitational radiation. Pulsars are being hurled around at
round about 5%c. Tides are NOT radiation.
BTW - LISA is NASA but a considerable input is coming from
ESA. I hope there will be collaboration on ultra stability in general.
>
Andro, see!.. Lodo landed on your flypaper.
and he is buzzing... buzzwords... ahaha...Enjoy!
... ahahahaha... ahahahahanson
Androcles
radiates. A whacking great heave of water 20 foot tall twice a day pulled
by the Sun and Moon, going antiphase to the East coast of the USA
water (with NASA and ESA mirrors floating on it) and the dozy bastard
can't detect it because his head is right where sunshine Al points it out to
be, to wit:
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/sunshine.jpg
carlip...@physics.ucdavis.edu
[...]
> I gave the authors credit for the same observation
> made by Einstein:
> <<A mathematically unified field theory is sought in which
> the gravitational field and the electromagnetic field are
> interpreted only as different components or manifestations
> of the same uniform field, the field equations where possible
> no longer consisting of logically mutually independent summands. >>
Sought: past and past participle of seek
Seek: 1. To try to locate or discover; search for. 2. To endeavor to
obtain or reach: seek a college education. 3. To go to or toward:
Water seeks its own level. 4. To inquire for; request: seek directions
from a police officer. 5. To try; endeavor: seek to do good.
Steve Carlip
Ken S. Tucker
Sounds like our friend Steve pleasured himself over
the Labor Day Weekend...good stuff, (I've gotta get
out more).
Regards
Ken S. Tucker
Sue...
It is the mark of a true physicist. Mathematicians
can always resolve an absurdity. A physicist will
frequently resort to drowning it. :o)
BTW your "Charge couple" paper still
has the beginning at the end and it still
requires electrons and positrons that are
about 10^40 times larger than those we
can get at the garden supply and use
in this toy model.
--C. P. Kouropoulos
http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0107015 222KB
http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0107015v1 222KB
Sue...