zbigniew.modrzejewski

According to whom ? Why ? Can you prove it ?! According to Prof. Frank Wilczek, a Nobel Prize-winning physicist at MIT, it is THE most disturbing question in physics!

" Why doesn’t empty space weigh anything? " — Frank Wilczek, a Nobel Prize-winning physicist at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology

" When the magnetic field carried by the solar wind encounters Venus, it drapes around the planet's ionosphere http://sci.esa.int/venus-express/57967-electric-field-at-venus/ " the only magnetic field Venus may have comes from the interaction between Venus's upper atmosphere and the solar wind. The interaction causes electric currents to flow in the upper atmosphere which then create a weak magnetic field that streams behind the planet like a comet's tail. http://image.gsfc.nasa.gov/poetry/venus/V3.html According to my hypothesis, Venus' strong gravity is due to unusually strong electrostatic component : " ESA's Venus Express has detected a surprisingly strong electric field at Venus – the first time this has been measured at any planet. With a potential of around 10 V, this is up to five times larger than scientists expected http://sci.esa.int/venus-express/57967-electric-field-at-venus/ " Gravitomagnetism is produced by stars and planets when they spin. "It's similar in form to the magnetic field produced by a spinning ball of charge," explains physicist Clifford Will of Washington University (St. Louis). Replace charge with mass, and magnetism becomes gravitomagnetism. Maybe it was not clear, but according to my hypothesis, repulsive (and attractive) gravity may be generated by a spinning mass with only electrostatic field: https://arxiv.org/ftp/physics/papers/0211/0211001.pdf and also by a spinning mass with only magnetic field: http://www.hpcc-space.de/publications/documents/AIAA2005-4321-a4.pdf Ideally, repulsive (and attractive) gravity may be generated by a spinning mass with magnetic and electrostatic field. Earth and some other planets are electric capacitors: http://i177.photobucket.com/albums/w239/climatedata/cap.gif According to gravitomagnetism (see above) gravity may be generated just by a spinning mass, and when we have two spinning bodies, there can be attractive as well as repulsive gravitational interactions between them : So, the last issue to be clarified is what happens with a mass that do not spin, and have no magnetic and no electrostatic field. A helpful analogy would be a ferro-magnetic substance. By itself, it does not generate a magnetic field, but such field may be induced in it by another body that has a magnetic field. A mass that do not spin, and have no magnetic and no electrostatic field may still have some gravitational field, and my hypothesis does not exclude such possibility, especially that all material bodies are essentially electrical structures fundamentally composed of positive and negative electric charges that spin.

Frank Wilczek, a Nobel Prize-winning physicist at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology : " Richard Feynman looked tired when he wandered into my office. It was the end of a long, exhausting day in Santa Barbara, sometime around 1982. I described to Feynman what I thought were exciting if speculative new ideas such as fractional spin and anyons. Feynman was unimpressed, saying: “Wilczek, you should work on something real.” Looking to break the awkward silence that followed, I asked Feynman the most disturbing question in physics, then as now: “Why doesn’t empty space weigh anything?” " https://www.quantamagazine.org/20160705-feynman-diagrams-nature-of-empty-space/

http://www.slideshare.net/johnkhutchison/gravitomagnetism-successes-3-1 http://www.slideshare.net/johnkhutchison/gravitomagnetism-successes-3-1

So far (see above), what we know about Venus and Mars seems to support my hypothesis: Moontanman, on 08 Nov 2016 - 6:42 PM, said: The Planet Venus has little to no magnetic field and spins very slowly yet it has a gravitational field within a few percentage points of the Earth. How do your ideas explain this? According to my hypothesis, this is due to the electrostatic component : http://sci.esa.int/v...field-at-venus/ Sam Batchelar, on 11 Nov 2016 - 2:01 PM, said: Interesting idea, and the correlation between spinning masses and gravity is seemingly obvious. However Earth and Mars have a almost identical RPM while their gravitational force is significantly different According to my hypothesis, this can be explained by the fact that Mars' magnetic field is weaker than Earth's. Unfortunately, I do NOT have the means to perform this relatively simple and inexpensive experiment, and I need to find an engineer who would be interested in experimenting with such device, and the financing. http://www.slideshare.net/johnkhutchison/gravitomagnetism-successes-3-1 Antigravity and classical solutions of five-dimensional Kaluza-Klein theory https://www.researchgate.net/publication/241520428_Antigravity_and_classical_solutions_of_five-dimensional_Kaluza-Klein_theory

Not yet. But it seems you both are.

My approach to solving the mystery of attractive and repulsive gravity is a "macro-empirical" approach, like Faraday's, because Faraday was no quantum physicist, to be sure. After Faraday had laid his "macro-empirical" groundwork, it was only Maxwell, who finally was able to produce the full (non-quantum) mathematical description. Then again, finally, there was a quantum level mathematical description produced. So, with my hypothesis, I am at the "Faraday" stage. Both, gravitomagnetism and electrogravity, happen to have some empirical evidence in their favor. My conjecture, in general, combines gravitomagnetism with electrogravity from the perspective of the Kaluza-Klein unification. IF, in fact, there were also to be a repulsive gravity, FIRST, I am deeply convinced, we need to be able to demonstrate this fact empirically, like Faraday, instead of mathematically "fish" for it, like Einstein did with GTR, and Superstring theorists do. All we need to empirically verify my hypothesis is a simple and inexpensive experiment that requires constructing a device that combines a gyroscope, a magnet, and electric capacitors : appropriately oriented and tuned — which is essentially how planets, their moons, and entire Solar system seems to work, in general.

And, what do you mean by: "What do you mean by" ...... ???

Well, do you expect me to clarify this for you? If yes, why?

BULL SHIT . As all university educated and intelligent persons know, first were Faraday's experimental data, and then there were Maxwell's mathematical equations. My approach to solving the mystery of attractive and repulsive gravity is a "macro-empirical" approach, like Faraday's, because Faraday was no quantum physicist, to be sure. After Faraday had laid his "macro-empirical" groundwork, it was only Maxwell, who finally was able to produce the full (non-quantum) mathematical description. Then again, finally, there was a quantum level mathematical description produced. So, with my hypothesis, I am at the "Faraday" stage. Both, gravitomagnetism and electrogravity, happen to have some empirical evidence in their favor. My conjecture, in general, combines gravitomagnetism with electrogravity from the perspective of the Kaluza-Klein unification. IF, in fact, there were also to be a repulsive gravity, FIRST, I am deeply convinced, we need to be able to demonstrate this fact empirically, like Faraday, instead of mathematically "fish" for it, like Einstein did with GTR, and Superstring theorists do. All we need to empirically verify my hypothesis is a simple and inexpensive experiment that requires constructing a device that combines a gyroscope, a magnet, and electric capacitors : appropriately oriented and tuned — which is essentially how planets, their moons, and entire Solar system seems to work, in general.

I have not realized that this is a MATH forum .... ?? How about empirical physical experiments? You see, all we need to empirically verify my hypothesis is a simple and inexpensive experiment that requires constructing a device that combines a gyroscope (rotor), a magnet, and an electric capacitor : appropriately oriented and tuned — which is essentially how planets, their moons, and entire Solar system seems to work, in general. YES, math is the language of physics. And yes, this is a physics forum, so physics is about physical empirical experimental testing, is it not? All we need to empirically verify my hypothesis is a simple and inexpensive experiment that requires constructing a device that combines a gyroscope (rotor), a magnet, and an electric capacitor : appropriately oriented and tuned — which is essentially how planets, their moons, and entire Solar system seems to work, in general.

Well, then what is your point ? What do you think ? OK. So, is there a field, or a wave, of space, or of time?

" mathematical rigor in the speculations forum" .... ??? WOW !!!! I would never suspect that speculation would require any mathematical rigor

All we need to empirically verify my hypothesis is a simple and inexpensive experiment that requires constructing a device that combines a gyroscope (rotor), a magnet, and an electric capacitor : appropriately oriented and tuned — which is essentially how planets, their moons, and entire Solar system seems to work, in general. In order to fully generate gravity, we need a spinning mass with its magnetic, and electric field. In this case we have three parameters with two values each : direction of spin (left or right); orientation of magnetic poles; orientation of lines of electric field. Now, we could consider two spinning massive bodies, in a cosmic space, with variety mutual configurations of the above three parameters. Some of these configurations may yield gravitational attraction between these two bodies, some may yield gravitational repulsion, and some may, perhaps, even yield a gravitational stability, like in our solar system, see the image below: toroidal vortex (due to both spins), because "gravity" is even a more complex phenomenon than magnetism, and therefore I do not consider it to be an elementary, fundamental, or exclusively attractive and repulsive, force : http://www.washingto...y-vortex-rings/

And how about something that does not change predictably ?? And how about clocks that do not change predictably ?? And you assume that (the Sun??) the Earth changes predictably ?? So, is there an elementary particle of time, or of space? Or, perhaps, time and space are waves? Does time, or space, have energy, like photon or a wave?

" As you have yet to show any math that supports your theory. " My approach to solving the mystery of attractive and repulsive gravity is a "macro-empirical" approach, like Faraday's, because Faraday was no quantum physicist, to be sure. After Faraday had laid his "macro-empirical" groundwork, it was only Maxwell, who finally was able to produce the full (non-quantum) mathematical description. Then again, finally, there was a quantum level mathematical description produced. So, with my hypothesis, I am at the "Faraday" stage. Both, gravitomagnetism and electrogravity, happen to have some empirical evidence in their favor. My conjecture, in general, combines gravitomagnetism with electrogravity from the perspective of the Kaluza-Klein unification. IF, in fact, there were also to be a repulsive gravity, FIRST, I am deeply convinced, we need to be able to demonstrate this fact empirically , like Faraday, instead of mathematically "fish" for it, like Einstein did with GTR, and Superstring theorists do. All we need to empirically verify my hypothesis is a simple and inexpensive experiment that requires constructing a device that combines a gyroscope, a magnet, and electric capacitors : appropriately oriented and tuned — which is essentially how planets, their moons, and entire Solar system seems to work, in general. WOW !!!! Spinning charged objects ?? My hypothesis is NOT about spinning charged objects. My hypothesis is about a spinning massive object that is also an electric capacitor, and has a magnetic field. All we need to empirically verify my hypothesis is a simple and inexpensive experiment that requires constructing a device that combines a gyroscope (rotor), a magnet, and an electric capacitor : appropriately oriented and tuned — which is essentially how planets, their moons, and entire Solar system seems to work, in general.

Do objects get heavier near an electric field? So, what experiment do you propose to test it ?? I know that. Can you quote me where I stated that electromagnetism and gravity are the same, please? http://anna-modrzejewska.webs.com/Podkletnov/Gravitomagnetism-successes.pdf http://anna-modrzejewska.webs.com/Podkletnov/Gravitomagnetism-successes.pdf Neither did I state that GRAVITY IS DUE TO ELECTROMAGNETISM. In my view, it is not so much an issue of unification of "gravity" and electromagnetism, but gravity (attractive or repulsive) being a result of a spinning mass with its magnetic and electric fields. All we need to empirically verify my hypothesis is a simple and inexpensive experiment that requires constructing a device that combines a gyroscope (rotor), a magnet, and electric capacitor : appropriately oriented and tuned — which is essentially how planets, their moons, and entire Solar system seems to work, in general.

So, is there an elementary particle of time, or of space? Or, perhaps, time and space are waves? Does time, or space, have energy, like photon or a wave? Does a merry-go-around measure time also, like a clock?

Agreed. But maybe he is not a crackpot and you are? So far (see above), what we know about Venus and Mars seems to support my hypothesis: Moontanman, on 08 Nov 2016 - 6:42 PM, said: The Planet Venus has little to no magnetic field and spins very slowly yet it has a gravitational field within a few percentage points of the Earth. How do your ideas explain this? According to my hypothesis, this is due to the electrostatic component : http://sci.esa.int/venus-express/57967-electric-field-at-venus/ Sam Batchelar, on 11 Nov 2016 - 2:01 PM, said: Interesting idea, and the correlation between spinning masses and gravity is seemingly obvious. However Earth and Mars have a almost identical RPM while their gravitational force is significantly different According to my hypothesis, this can be explained by the fact that Mars' magnetic field is weaker than Earth's. From a private correspondence with a member of ScienceForums.net : " If you desire to create gravity to a satisfactory strength you must attain a sufficient potential difference, (a high positive charge and a high negative charge) on two metal plates with as smaller distance between them as possible without sparks occurring between them. Although this is quite tricky to attain in a efficient way. I recommend using two separate circuits connected to each plate, this will give you the flexibility to deliver positive charge to one plate while negative charge to the other plate, the currents of each circuit should be direct current. The means to deliver different charge to the plates its to change the rotors direction of rotation while also experimenting with the orientation of the magnet (which is most likely on the rotor for a generator of direct current. The method itself may be flawed although it is the best I can come up with to create the potential difference on the two plates at this time. To emphasize any means to create a strong positive charge on one plate and a strong negative charge on the other will create a gravitational field between the two plates. The field will pull object from the positive charge to the negative while the entire mechanism will want to move from the negative plate to the positive plate. " Dear Friend, I know that you are reading it. What you described above is essentially the Biefeld-Brown effect : https://arxiv.org/ftp/physics/papers/0211/0211001.pdf This is the electrostatic component of my hypothesis, and it is achived by an asymmetric electric filed with a gradient :

My hypothesis is based on the assumption that the unification of gravity and electromagnetism is physically possible. That such unification is mathematically possible, it was demonstrated by Kaluza and Klein; approved and endorsed by Albert Einstein himself.

From a private correspondence with a member of ScienceForums.net : " If you desire to create gravity to a satisfactory strength you must attain a sufficient potential difference, (a high positive charge and a high negative charge) on two metal plates with as smaller distance between them as possible without sparks occurring between them. Although this is quite tricky to attain in a efficient way. I recommend using two separate circuits connected to each plate, this will give you the flexibility to deliver positive charge to one plate while negative charge to the other plate, the currents of each circuit should be direct current. The means to deliver different charge to the plates its to change the rotors direction of rotation while also experimenting with the orientation of the magnet (which is most likely on the rotor for a generator of direct current. The method itself may be flawed although it is the best I can come up with to create the potential difference on the two plates at this time. To emphasize any means to create a strong positive charge on one plate and a strong negative charge on the other will create a gravitational field between the two plates. The field will pull object from the positive charge to the negative while the entire mechanism will want to move from the negative plate to the positive plate. "

Very good question. Thank you! " Venus and Earth are often called twins because they are similar in size, mass, density, composition and gravity. Venus is the hottest world in the solar system. Although Venus is not the planet closest to the sun, its dense atmosphere traps heat in a runaway version of the greenhouse effect that warms Earth. Venus has a hellish atmosphere as well, consisting mainly of carbon dioxide with clouds of sulfuric acid, and scientists have only detected trace amounts of water in the atmosphere. The atmosphere is heavier than that of any other planet, leading to a surface pressure 90 times that of Earth. " According to my hypothesis, this is due to the electrostatic component. The Earth is an electric capacitor : " ESA's Venus Express has detected a surprisingly strong electric field at Venus – the first time this has been measured at any planet. With a potential of around 10 V, this is up to five times larger than scientists expected and it is sufficient to deplete Venus' upper atmosphere of oxygen, one of the components of water. Unlike Earth, Venus has no significant magnetic field of its own to protect the planet from the solar wind, a powerful stream of charged particles blowing from the Sun. When the magnetic field carried by the solar wind encounters Venus, it drapes around the planet's ionosphere (shown here in orange), drawing its particles away. As the negative electrons drift upwards in the atmosphere and away into space, they are nevertheless still connected to the positive protons and ions via the electromagnetic force, and this results in an overall vertical electric field being created above the planet's atmosphere. " http://sci.esa.int/venus-express/57967-electric-field-at-venus/

Well, I have not been aware that clocks actually empirically detect physical existence and the velocity of the flow of time, which is one second per second.

Yes, photons are called elementary particles in quantum physics. Photon is made of a photon. Well, who could disagree with that? Time is made of time, and space is made of space .... " Photons are not made of energy any more than they are made of momentum, or angular momentum, which are two additional properties they possess " Are photons particles of matter? Do they have energy, and/or mass?