Mordred

You can treat spacetime as a field but more accurately it is the sum of all fields. (electromagnetic, strong, weak). These all influence mass. A better treatment however is the Einstein field equations which includes all possible contributors mentioned above. So yes according to the EFE spacetime is a classical field theory. All forms of energy/mass contribute to the stress energy tensors. It is the stress energy tensor that tells spacetime how to curve. The curvature tells matter how to move. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Einstein_field_equations Just to be clear under GR space and time is not separable. It is part of the same coin. Just as mass and energy is flip sides of the same coin.

Its a viable possibility that may explain the cosmological constant that requires further evidence. So your questions concerning the Higg's field is relevant. For making that connection +1

Whatever you wish to believe. I have a Master degree in Cosmology. Which requires physics. You will require the math to be considered a model I have no problem helping people develop new models. However I will only provide proper direction. I will not build their models. Without math your model will go nowhere. As it will not meet the model requirements. PS the math of gravitomagnetism is included in the last link I posted. https://arxiv.org/pdf/1503.02172.pdf It is a well researched topic.

In order to validate an experiment the math makes the predictions of what the results should be. The experiment confirms or disproves the mathematical model

This is a physics forum. Math is the lanquage of physics. A little hint I provided every formula you will need in the material I provided.

math buddy nothing else. Only math start by using the equations I posted. Only math I repeat only math. Is that clear enough?

Do you understand English I also provided the math to spinning massive objects WITHOUT CHARGE. See the Kerr metric doh that's up to you to prove. That your responsibility as you are the one that is suggesting anti-gravity exists. ! Moderator Note I highly suggest you read the requirements of mathematical rigor in the speculations forum. See the following section "Once you insist your idea is right (or some other idea is wrong) the burden of proof is on you, so expect to be challenged and to defend your idea. Some kind of scientific model, comparison with evidence, specific predictions or other ways of falsifying your idea are a MUST. Consider the first question you must address as "How could this be tested to ensure that it's true?" That's what a model does it allows one to predict outcomes under specific conditions so that they can be compared with experiment." http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/86720-guidelines-for-participating-in-speculations-discussions/

No there is no particle of time or space.

you cannot show gravity as repulsive. GO ahead show the actual math for repulsive gravity. IT DOES NOT EXIST. gravity is attractive only by the geodesic equations of motion. In the presence of matter or when matter is not too distant physical distances between two points change. For example an approximately static distribution of matter in region D. Can be replaced by tve equivalent mass [latex]M=\int_Dd^3x\rho(\overrightarrow{x})[/latex] concentrated at a point [latex]\overrightarrow{x}_0=M^{-1}\int_Dd^3x\overrightarrow{x}\rho(\overrightarrow{x})[/latex] Which we can choose to be at the origin [latex]\overrightarrow{x}=\overrightarrow{0}[/latex] Sources outside region D the following Newton potential at [latex]\overrightarrow{x}[/latex] [latex]\phi_N(\overrightarrow{x})=-G_N\frac{M}{r}[/latex] Where [latex] G_n=6.673*10^{-11}m^3/KG s^2[/latex] and [latex]r\equiv||\overrightarrow{x}||[/latex] According to Einsteins theory the physical distance of objects in the gravitational field of this mass distribution is described by the line element. [latex]ds^2=c^2(1+\frac{2\phi_N}{c^2})-\frac{dr^2}{1+2\phi_N/c^2}-r^2d\Omega^2[/latex] Where [latex]d\Omega^2=d\theta^2+sin^2(\theta)d\varphi^2[/latex] denotes the volume element of a 2d sphere [latex]\theta\in(0,\pi)[/latex] and [latex]\varphi\in(0,\pi)[/latex] are the two angles fully covering the sphere. The general relativistic form is. [latex]ds^2=g_{\mu\nu}(x)dx^\mu x^\nu[/latex] By comparing the last two equations we can find the static mass distribution in spherical coordinates. [latex](r,\theta\varphi)[/latex] [latex]G_{\mu\nu}=\begin{pmatrix}1+2\phi_N/c^2&0&0&0\\0&-(1+2\phi_N/c^2)^{-1}&0&0\\0&0&-r^2&0\\0&0&0&-r^2sin^2(\theta)\end{pmatrix}[/latex] Now that we have defined our static multi particle field. Our next step is to define the geodesic to include the principle of equivalence. Followed by General Covariance. Ok so now the Principle of Equivalence. You can google that term for more detail but in the same format as above [latex]m_i=m_g...m_i\frac{d^2\overrightarrow{x}}{dt^2}=m_g\overrightarrow{g}[/latex] [latex]\overrightarrow{g}-\bigtriangledown\phi_N[/latex] Denotes the gravitational field above. Now General Covariance. Which use the ds^2 line elements above and the Einstein tensor it follows that the line element above is invariant under general coordinate transformation(diffeomorphism) [latex]x\mu\rightarrow\tilde{x}^\mu(x)[/latex] Provided ds^2 is invariant [latex]ds^2=d\tilde{s}^2[/latex] an infinitesimal coordinate transformation [latex]d\tilde{x}^\mu=\frac{\partial\tilde{x}^\mu}{\partial x^\alpha}dx^\alpha[/latex] With the line element invariance [latex]\tilde{g}_{\mu\nu}(\tilde{x})=\frac{\partial\tilde{x}^\mu \partial\tilde{x}^\nu}{\partial x^\alpha\partial x^\beta} g_{\alpha\beta}x[/latex] The inverse of the metric tensor transforms as [latex]\tilde{g}^{\mu\nu}(\tilde{x})=\frac{\partial\tilde{x}^\mu \partial\tilde{x}^\nu}{\partial x^\alpha\partial x^\beta} g^{\alpha\beta}x[/latex] In GR one introduces the notion of covariant vectors [latex]A_\mu[/latex] and contravariant [latex]A^\mu[/latex] which is related as [latex]A_\mu=G_{\mu\nu} A^\nu[/latex] conversely the inverse is [latex]A^\mu=G^{\mu\nu} A_\nu[/latex] the metric tensor can be defined as [latex]g^{\mu\rho}g_{\rho\nu}=\delta^\mu_\mu[/latex] where [latex]\delta^\mu_nu[/latex]=diag(1,1,1,1) which denotes the Kronecker delta. Finally we can start to look at geodesics. Let us consider a free falling observer. O who erects a special coordinate system such that particles move along trajectories [latex]\xi^\mu=\xi^\mu (t)=(\xi^0,x^i)[/latex] Specified by a non accelerated motion. Described as [latex]\frac{d^2\xi^\mu}{ds^2}[/latex] Where the line element ds=cdt such that [latex]ds^2=c^2dt^2=\eta_{\mu\nu}d\xi^\mu d\xi^\nu[/latex] Now assunme that the motion of O changes in such a way that it can be described by a coordinate transformation. [latex]d\xi^\mu=\frac{\partial\xi^\mu}{\partial x^\alpha}dx^\alpha, x^\mu=(ct,x^0)[/latex] This and the previous non accelerated equation imply that the observer O, will percieve an accelerated motion of particles governed by the Geodesic equation. [latex]\frac{d^2x^\mu}{ds^2}+\Gamma^\mu_{\alpha\beta}(x)\frac{dx^\alpha}{ds}\frac{dx^\beta}{ds}=0[/latex] Where the new line element is given by [latex]ds^2=g_{\mu\nu}(x)dx^\mu dx^\nu[/latex] and [latex] g_{\mu\nu}=\frac{\partial\xi^\alpha}{\partial\xi x^\mu}\frac{\partial\xi^\beta}{\partial x^\nu}\eta_{\alpha\beta}[/latex] and [latex]\Gamma^\mu_{\alpha\beta}=\frac{\partial x^\mu}{\partial\eta^\nu}\frac{\partial^2\xi^\nu}{\partial x^\alpha\partial x^\beta}[/latex] Denote the metric tensor and the affine Levi-Civita connection respectively. then you had better start showing how to derive the freefall of the space-time geodesic equation. As you have yet to show any math that supports your theory. Here is the geodesic equation get cracking [latex]\frac{d^2x^\mu}{ds^2}+\Gamma^\mu_{\alpha\beta}(x)\frac{dx^\alpha}{ds}\frac{dx^\beta}{ds}=0[/latex] If you cannot derive that equation using your theory it is garbage. I can 100% quarantee without any shadow of a doubt that you will not suceed even if you understood the math. That formula does not include frame dragging. Which you can find an example of under the Kerr metric for a rotating black hole. That's where you can see gyroscopic action under GR. By the way that qoute included your references to the electromagnetic field. I can read english. If you want a truly magnetic rotating object. Look under magnetars. You will find their is a set of solutions under the charged Kerr metric. There I've just blown your theory out of the water as we already have tested models of spinning charged objects in space. Schwarzschild and Kerr Solutions of Einstein's Field Equation | an introduction | https://arxiv.org/pdf/1503.02172.pdf Start with the static Schwartzchild, then goto the rotating Kerr metric. Follow that to Reissner Nordstroom charged black hole https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charged_black_hole Point being BOTH rotation( spinning) and electric charge are both well understood under GR. It already includes spinning objects and electric charge dynamics. If you had any understanding of GR you would have known this fact. Those are details that are covered in numerous though not all GR textbooks. I just provided you the math for electric charged massive objects in space. Something you could not do. If you wish to prove me wrong your going to need the level of math in this post. NOT pictures

You have zero knowledge of how Kalazu_Klein works its just meaningless garbage with your definition of it. Kalazu Klein never stated electromagnetism and gravity is the same.. That is 100% false AND BASED ON YOUR LACK OF KNOWLEDGE. Kaluzu-Klein is 3+1(GR)+electromagnetism Not Gravity=electromagnetism. if your going to refer to a theory make sure you actually understand it properly [latex]ds^2=g_{ij}dx^i dx^j[/latex] Kaluzu-Klien GR+electromagnetic NOT EQUAL [latex]ds^2=g_{\alpha\beta}dx^\alpha dx^\beta[/latex]=[latex]g_{\mu\nu}dx^\mu dx^v+\Phi^2(a_v dx^v+dx^5)^2[/latex] the portion to the left hand of the + sign is GR the RHS of the + sign is electromagnetism. THIS EQUATION DOES NOT STATE GRAVITY IS DUE TO ELECTROMAGNETISM. learn the actual math, before trying to reinvent physics, by the way Kaluzu-Klien is inadequate for a GUT theory. There is no strong force nor weak force a full unification has all 4 . electromagnetism+gravity+weak+strong force. [latex]SO(10)\otimes SO(5)\otimes SO(3)\otimes SO(2)\otimes (U(1)[/latex] is the closest we have to a GUT not Kaluzu-Klien electromagnetism is under the U(1) group the Lorentz GR group is under SO(3.1) all the standard model of particles is under SO(3)*SO(2)*U(1) including GR electromagnetism, weak force and strong force. SO(5) includes yours supersymmetric particles. SO(10) allows for left/right hand chiralty with the Higg's field. THAT'S a GUT , the only difficulty is quantizing gravity, otherwise we have already successfully included electromagnetism, weak and strong force. We just cannot measure gravity at the single particle scale. Once we successfully do that we will have a full theory of everything TOE Don't worry about the SU subgroups they fit under the SO orthogonal groups, in the following paper (though that is an oversimplification on my part) https://arxiv.org/pdf/hep-ph/0605004.pdf?origin=publication_detail here this will get you started the second link covers GR under particle physics Particle Physics http://arxiv.org/abs/0810.3328 A Simple Introduction to Particle Physics http://arxiv.org/abs/0908.1395 part 2 http://arxiv.org/pdf/hep-th/0503203.pdf "Particle Physics and Inflationary Cosmology" by Andrei Linde http://www.wiese.itp.unibe.ch/lectures/universe.pdf:"Particle Physics of the Early universe" by Uwe-Jens Wiese Thermodynamics, Big bang Nucleosynthesis http://www.gutenberg.org/files/30155/30155-pdf.pdf:"Relativity: The Special and General Theory" by Albert Einstein http://www.blau.itp.unibe.ch/newlecturesGR.pdf "Lecture Notes on General Relativity" Matthias Blau http://arxiv.org/pdf/0904.1556.pdf The Algebra of Grand Unified Theories John Baez and John Huerta http://pdg.lbl.gov/2011/reviews/rpp2011-rev-guts.pdf GRAND UNIFIED THEORIES

You need to perform some actual math. Enough garbage. there is three equations of motion in a vacuum. Newton: [latex]g^{ij}\Phi_{,ij}=0[/latex] Maxwell Electromagnetism [latex]g^{\mu v}\Phi_{\rho,\mu v}[/latex] Einstein [latex]g^{\mu v}g_{\rho\sigma,\mu v}+....=0[/latex] these lead to three equations of motion Newton [latex]\frac{d^2x^h}{dt^2}=-g^{hi}\phi_i[/latex] Maxwell [latex]\frac{d^2x^\mu}{dt^2}=-\frac{q}{cmo}(g^{\mu\alpha}(\phi_{\alpha\beta}-\alpha_{\beta\alpha})\frac{dx^\beta}{d\tau}[/latex] Einstein [latex]\frac{d^2x^\mu}{dt^2}=-1/2g^{\mu\nu}(g_{\alpha\beta,\gamma}=g_{\alpha\gamma,\beta}-g_{\gamma\alpha})\frac{dx^\beta}{d\tau}\frac{dx^\gamma}{d\tau}[/latex] So start here prove BY MATH NOT WORDS that the above equations of motion are identical bud you can see that electromagnetic motion in a vacuum is completely different from the equations of motion in GR. the right hand side of each equation is significantly different in each case. You can find these formulas from Rindlers General relativity textbook page 240

[latex]\frac{T_{GW}}{T_{EM}}=\frac{\dot{h}_+/16\pi}{B_0^2/8\pi}[/latex] This equation alone should tell you that Gravity differs from electromagnetism. Which is the ratio of GW energy compared to electromagnetic.

Alright then show how you can increase the weight of an object that has no electromagnetic interaction by increasing the electric field strength. Do objects get heavier near an electric field? Very basic physics question. This is what the OP is suggesting. I use use gyroscopes all the time. Nearby objects DO NOT INCREASE in weight due to those gyroscopes being used...

You only do that when you correctly understand the basic physics behind those equations. This includes the proper physics definitions. Which your other responses have shown a lack of.

Ok lets get this thread onto proper track. First off a lot of assumptions are being incorrectly made. Based on lack of actual physics. Lets start with some key differences between gravity and electromagnetism. This will take me a bit so Don't be surprised on edits. alright lets detail some differences between transverse dipole (electromagnetic wave spin 1), vs quadrupole wave. (gravity spin 2) lets look at the behavior or [latex]h^{GW}_{jk}[/latex] under boosts in the z direction. Then compare to EM waves in transverse Lorentz quage... GW [latex]h^{GW}_{jk},h_+,h_x[/latex] EM wave [latex]A^T_j[/latex] notice we don't have the k subscript in the EM guage?? The same applies when you transform as scalar fields. GW [latex]h^{GW}_{jk},h_+,h_x[/latex] [latex]\acute{h}_{jk}(\acute{t}-\acute{z})=h_{jk}(t-z)=h_{jk}(D(\acute{t}-\acute{z})[/latex] EM [latex]A_x(t-z),A_y(t-z)[/latex] transforms to scalar field [latex]\acute{A}_j(\acute{t}-\acute{z})=A_j(D\acute{t}-\acute{z})[/latex] now in the electromagnetic case each rotation is 90 degrees.. In the GW spin 2 each rotation is 45 degrees. the GW wave attenuation through matter is [latex]h_{jk}\sim exp(-z/\ell_{att})[/latex] the ratio of GW energy to EM wave energy [latex]\frac{T_{GW}}{T_{EM}}=\frac{\dot{h}_+/16\pi}{B_0^2/8\pi}[/latex] If you study the formulas you can draw several conclusions.. which I won't post all the math for... gravity waves travel without significant attenuation, scattering,dispersion or conversion into EM waves. If you want further detail on the EM GW interaction I would recommend googling Gertsenshtein effect. I just detailed key differences between GW and EM... A key note is a spin 2 quadrupole wave has no dipole moment.

This is incorrect to the principle of least action. Which correlates your potential vs kinetic energy. Here is the classical Feyman lecture on the subject. http://www.feynmanlectures.caltech.edu/II_19.html I highly recommend you study the Feyman website. The first volume will teach you the proper physics.

here is your equations of gravity under GR. The speculations forum is specifically where you want to approach personal modelling or explore other possibilities under the rules in Speculations. Not the mainstream sections. Any physics forum will either lock a thread or take moderator action for posting outside the mainstream answers under mainstream physics sections.

Over to you but not in mainstream physics. Thats why have a Speculations forum. Do not EVER post answers in mainstream physics based upon your personal models/misconceptions. If the answer is not found in a standard textbook DO NOT REPLY. The purpose of mainstream sections is to assist Students pass their physics tests. Not to push incorrect answers. Under GR gravity is not a force, it is the result of spacetime curvature. There is no force involved on freefall under GR. As such there is no antigravity as this is counter to geodesic motion.

incorrect again. Inertia is the tendency for a body to stay at rest or at a constant velocity. Learn your basic physics definitions. Quit posting garbage in mainstream physics. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inertia

Try GR lol part of the lessons is how electromagnetic mass works and spin both of spinning bodies and particle spin statistics which is not identical to the spin of a planet.

mass is nothing more than resistance to inertia change. NOTHING MORE. Particles that are confined via their field interactions gain mass depending on how much confinement energy is involved. Please stop answering questions incorrectly.

There is some modelling showing a viable connection of the cosmological constant to both inflation and the cosmological constant. More research is needed to confirm. Here is the paper on it. https://arxiv.org/abs/1402.3738 It goes part and partial to electroweak symmetry breaking for the inflation portion with the bare renormalized cosmological constant remaining. " Miraculously, the huge difference between bare and renormalized cosmological constant is nullified either by the running of the SM couplings or by vacuum rearrangement somewhat before the Higgs phase transition takes place. This solves the notorious cosmological constant problem". This is actually something I've been personally researching as the Higgs field is fairly recent. I was curious on its influence on the FLRW metric. Specifically in terms of its thermodynamics, it does contribute to the blackbody temperature under the Bose-Einstein statistics, but some of the properties I need to properly run that formula I've been having trouble finding. In this particular case Mikes question is a good one. There may be a connection, but this statement is still accurate. Dark energy is a possible contributor to the cosmological constant. However its based more on quantum fluctuations. (at least on its original inception.) Its gets rather grey seperating the two terms. Here is some additional papers. https://arxiv.org/abs/1404.3817 this last paper shows that some fine tuning via DE may still be needed. Here is probably one of the better papers on DE. http://www.google.ca/url?sa=t&source=web&cd=5&ved=0ahUKEwiIsbW1kqHQAhVK8WMKHZdSCfIQFggtMAQ&url=https%3A%2F%2Farxiv.org%2Fpdf%2Fhep-th%2F0603057&usg=AFQjCNE9xRUaTR2w3pnP5xp2NdsGEfs8Zw Which if you look under the table of contents possible scalar fields is. In essence DE is a class of possible models that may or may not contribute to the cosmological term. a) Quintessence b)k-essence c)Tachyon field d)Phantom (ghost field) e) Dilatonic field f) Chaplygen field Some of above in particular a) has been disproven. Each and other coupled fields are detailed in the last paper which is lengthy but a good reference to keep handy.

nice post Studiot +1

Yeah I saw that one as well

can you show a paper that actually describes "relativistic presentism" ? As far as I know there is no such model. Here is one paper that specifically describes the conflict in terms. http://www.google.ca/url?sa=t&source=web&cd=3&ved=0ahUKEwjcgrL3r5_QAhVJ0mMKHex1DIIQFggjMAI&url=http%3A%2F%2Fciteseerx.ist.psu.edu%2Fviewdoc%2Fdownload%3Fdoi%3D10.1.1.114.5886%26rep%3Drep1%26type%3Dpdf&usg=AFQjCNGRa3J73lXMH_5_3w-ye5LNpQdrGg Go ahead try and google the term "relativistic presentism pdf" You will find dozens of papers that state presentism conflicts with SR. I certainly haven't found any papers that uses the term " relativistic presentism". So you can take my answer as yes. lol