zbigniew.modrzejewski

So, what photons are made of, then .... ?? Well, my definition of "physical" is all that is empirically detectable and is the subject matter of experimental Physics.

Are millimetres and milliseconds made of matter ?? There is an equivalence of energy and matter. Energy is physical. There are subatomic "objects" made of a quanta of energy, like photon. What is your dimention made of ? Is your dimention physical or meta-physical?

It is a good question. Thank you, Dr. Strange. I appreciate it. I will answer it tomorrow. Ziggy In the meantime, please take a look at this : http://anna-modrzejewska.webs.com/Podkletnov/Gravitomagnetism-successes.pdf

Are those millimetres and milliseconds physical, or meta-physical ? If physical, what are those millimetres and milliseconds made of ? Are millimetres and milliseconds made of matter, of energy, of both, or maybe of something else ?

A device that combines a gyroscope, a magnet, and an electric capacitor : http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/100577-a-device-that-combines-a-gyroscope-a-magnet-and-an-electric-capacitor/

Is this 4D space-time physical, or meta-physical ? If physical, what is this 4D spacetime made of ? Is the spacetime made of matter, of energy, of both, or maybe of something else ? Do you know the answers, Dr. Strange? Professor George F. R. Ellis, Mathematics Department, University of Cape Town, "Physics in the Real Universe: Time and Spacetime": 5.4 Issues of Ontology: The hidden issue underlying all this discussion is the question of the ontological nature of spacetime: does spacetime indeed exist as a real physical entity, or is it just a convenient way of describing relationships between physical objects, which in the end are all that really exist at a fundamental level? Is it absolute or relational? Could it after all be an emergent property of interacting fields and forces (Laughlin 2005), or from deeper quantum or pre-quantum structure (Ashtekar 2005: Chapters 11-17)? I will not pursue this contentious point here (for discussions, see e.g. Earman 1992, Hoeffer 1998, Huggett 2006). Rather I emphasize here that the discussion in this paper is about models or representations of spacetime, rather than making any ontological claims about the nature of spacetime itself. However, I do believe that the kind of proposal made here could provide a useful starting point for a fresh look at the ontological issue, and from there a renewed discussion of the degree to which our representations of the nature of spacetime are an adequate representation of its true existential nature."

Is time a real thing or just a meter? Strangely, you did not answer his question, Dr. Strange! ) Is this 4D space-time physical, or meta-physical ? If physical, what is this 4D space-time made of ? Is it made of matter, of energy, of both, or maybe of something else ? Professor George F. R. Ellis, Mathematics Department, University of Cape Town, "Physics in the Real Universe: Time and Spacetime": 5.4 Issues of Ontology: The hidden issue underlying all this discussion is the question of the ontological nature of spacetime: does spacetime indeed exist as a real physical entity, or is it just a convenient way of describing relationships between physical objects, which in the end are all that really exist at a fundamental level? Is it absolute or relational? Could it after all be an emergent property of interacting fields and forces (Laughlin 2005), or from deeper quantum or pre-quantum structure (Ashtekar 2005: Chapters 11-17)? I will not pursue this contentious point here (for discussions, see e.g. Earman 1992, Hoeffer 1998, Huggett 2006). Rather I emphasize here that the discussion in this paper is about models or representations of spacetime, rather than making any ontological claims about the nature of spacetime itself. However, I do believe that the kind of proposal made here could provide a useful starting point for a fresh look at the ontological issue, and from there a renewed discussion of the degree to which our representations of the nature of spacetime are an adequate representation of its true existential nature." Dr. Peter Marquardt, "In science, it is all too easy to jump to conclusions. As the development during the past century has shown, this seems particularly true of physics. Scientific modeling should and must be consistent and free of internal contradictions. This begins with the very first step: Analyze the vocabulary used in order to define the problem in question. Many a discussion is bound to remain fruitless if there is no consensus even about the basic terminology. For instance, ’relative velocity’ may have different meanings, depending on the view of velocity. The interpretation “two bodies are in relative motion if their mutual distance changes with time” does not respect the vector property of velocities. It is often easily overlooked ‘trifles’ like this that make consensus impossible. Likewise, ‘time’ and ‘space’ provide unexpected pitfalls if unspecified. ‘Time’ is not identical with ‘duration’ and ‘space’ is not ‘volume’. Time and space in their abstract general physical meaning provide the stage on which events happen. Hence they are not subject to the events themselves. Scientific language must be unique. A major difference between physics and math is that pure numbers don’t give us physics. The dimensions of physical quantities must be respected, independent of the system of units chosen. This is a necessary, not sufficient, condition to formulate physical ideas correctly. We should have consensus about the use of mathematics in physics as an assistant science. Math is a wonderful and most valuable help in physics - if used properly; it is a catastrophe if allowed to enslave physical ideas as is the case in certain (you-know-which) 20th century cult theories. These cult theories blocked the progress of physics more than anything else and we should consider it our task to tell the public why they should be abandoned in spite of their pseudo-successes (with math, it is possible to make a physically untenable theory yield numerically correct results, just think of cosmology before Kepler). [...] Twentieth century physics is burdened by unnecessary pitfalls, and owes many of its troubles to unclear or false definitions, inconsistent modeling, untenable assumptions, neglected conditions, carelessly applied mathematics, careless simplifications (gedanken experiments), misunderstood experimental results, improper philosophical implications, etc. These artificial gordian knots must be cut before we may get back to the tremendous task of finding out a bit more about Nature. If analyzed correctly, famous experimental results do not support untenable theories that claim their fame from them. Physics blossoms when provided with a solid basis that does not have to be sacrificed if a defective theory gets into difficulties."

Hello, and warm greetings from Waterloo, Ontario, Canada. I believe I understand how attractive, as well as repulsive gravity is generated. My understanding comes from contemplating how our solar system (a complete, natural gravitational system) works. It is worth noting that Newton's apple did not fall just under a tree. It fell under a tree, but in our solar system, where the Sun, and (almost) all planets and their moons, spin and rotate : http://www.naturalphilosophy.org/pdf/abstracts/abstracts_6324.pdf " The obtained empirical data contradict the equivalence principle of inertial and gravitational mass : http://phys.org/news/2011-07-gyroscope-unexplained-due-inertia.html http://arxiv.org/abs/1302.2775 https://arxiv.org/abs/1101.4678 In my opinion, one of the principal elements that compose the complex phenomenon of gravity is a spinning mass, or a mass composed of spinning elementary particles, or both. I consider matter to be essentially an electric structure, and that could be the basis of connection between gravity and electromagnetism, as postulated in Kaluza-Klein unification — " Kaluza and Klein showed, using general relativity, that this extra dimension would still have an effect on the space around us. In particular they showed that the effect of gravity in that very small fifth dimension would actually appear to us, from our larger-scale perspective, as electromagnetism : https://plus.maths.org/content/kaluza-klein-and-their-story-fifth-dimension https://www.researchgate.net/publication/241520428_Antigravity_and_classical_solutions_of_five-dimensional_Kaluza-Klein_theory and, also in another scientific mainstream theory — " Gravitomagnetism is produced by stars and planets when they spin. "It's similar in form to the magnetic field being produced by a spinning ball of charge," explains physicist Clifford Will of Washington University. Replace charge with mass, and magnetism becomes gravitomagnetism : http://www.nasa.gov/vision/universe/solarsystem/19apr_gravitomagnetism.html If magnetic field is being produced by a spinning ball of charge, gravity, according to my conjecture, is produced by a spinning mass which, similar to the Earth, possesses its magnetic field, as well as an electric field ( " the 'electric terms' correspond simply to the gravity that keeps our feet on the ground " ), because the Earth is considered to be also an electric capacitor : 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 spinning mass with its magnetic and electric fields. The theory of gravitomagnetism indicates that gravity could also be, to some extent, produced even by a spinning mass with its magnetic filed : " Written out in full glory, the equations of General Relativity are intensely complicated. Indeed, they have been solved in only a few special cases. One of them is the case of weak gravity, like we experience here on Earth. In the 'weak field limit', Einstein's equations reduce to a form remarkably like Maxwell's equations of electromagnetism. Terms appear that are analogous to the electric field caused by charges and the magnetic field produced by the flow of charge. The 'electric terms' correspond simply to the gravity that keeps our feet on the ground. The 'magnetic terms' are wholly unfamiliar; we don't sense them in everyday life. " A similar theory, called electrogravity, (see the attached) postulates possibility of generating gravity, to some extent, by a spinning mass with its "asymmetric" electric filed, with a gradient : https://arxiv.org/ftp/physics/papers/0211/0211001.pdf In my view, 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 : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=72LWr7BU8Ao https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pnbJEg9r1o8 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=al799tMnAk8 http://www.washington.edu/news/2014/02/03/solving-a-physics-mystery-those-solitons-are-really-vortex-rings/ I have good reasons to think that the phenomenon of gravity is a so-called "emergent phenomenon". 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 welcome your questions, and at the same time I am looking forward to our discussion, and especially I welcome your criticism. Thank you. With respect and much gratitude, I am Sincerely yours, Zbigniew Modrzejewski http://db.naturalphilosophy.org/member/?memberid=2608&subpage=contact P. s. „Dear Dr. Zbigniew Modrzejewski, thank you for your interest in my experimental gravity research. You will find all relevant research papers attached. They concern, among other issues, the speed of gravity. We have experimentally determined the propagation speed of the gravity impulse to be 64 times faster than the speed of light (see: book). In my opinion there is no need to replicate the results that I achieved over 20 years ago, as these antigravity experiments had been successfully replicated by Dr. Martin Tajmar, who was working for the European Space Agency (ESA), and is now a professor of physics at the University of Dresden, Germany. Prof. Tajmar performed over 250 experiments during 3 years and had accumulated several groundbreaking results, which are completely new in modern physics. I have also performed experiments with rotating disks using German military engineers' classified research papers from the second World War, and these results are outstanding. This attached data has not been published yet, but allows for the immediate practical application. One of the most effective methods of creating an artificial gravity field are rotating magnetic fields. At present, we have the technology that allows us to build an antigravity spacecraft able to fly in Earth's atmosphere, as well as in the cosmic space. Best wishes, Prof. Evgeny Podkletnov, Ph.D. ” Dr. Ning Li: „I have all measurement data of the rotating magnetic Earth calculated in my formula. If we take a mass and rotate it very rapidly, we can generate gravity. We can increase gravity, we can weaken it, we can steer it in any direction. I have the theory. I will publish it. I have all the mathematical equations. I will explain it. I think my theory is mature. I will tell the whole scientific world: antigravity is nothing to laugh about. I think the experiments of Dr. Podkletnov have shown the antigravity effect crystal clear.” http://userpage.fu-berlin.de/~gerbrehm/nw/Podletkov_Antigravitation.htm Gravitomagnetism-successes.pdf ANTI-GRAVITY_BOOK.pdf

Antigravity - Is it Possible? " Gravitomagnetism is produced by stars and planets when they spin. "It's similar in form to the magnetic field being produced by a spinning ball of charge," explains physicist Clifford Will of Washington University. Replace charge with mass, and magnetism becomes gravitomagnetism : http://www.nasa.gov/...omagnetism.html " Written out in full glory, the equations of General Relativity are intensely complicated. Indeed, they have been solved in only a few special cases. One of them is the case of weak gravity, like we experience here on Earth. In the 'weak field limit', Einstein's equations reduce to a form remarkably like Maxwell's equations of electromagnetism. Terms appear that are analogous to the electric field caused by charges and the magnetic field produced by the flow of charge. The 'electric terms' correspond simply to the gravity that keeps our feet on the ground. The 'magnetic terms' are wholly unfamiliar; we don't sense them in everyday life. " 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 — http://zbigniew-modrzejewski.webs.com/antygrawitacja.htm

My approach to solving the mystery of attractive and repulsive gravity is a "macro-empirical" approach, like Faraday's. 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. 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. 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.

Hello, and warm greetings from Waterloo, Ontario, Canada. I believe I understand how attractive, as well as repulsive gravity is generated. All we need is someone competent, who could help performing few relatively simple and inexpensive experiments. My understanding comes from contemplating how our solar system (a complete, natural gravitational system) works. It is worth noting that Newton's apple did not fall just under a tree. It fell under a tree, but in our solar system, where the Sun, and (almost) all planets and their moons, spin and rotate : http://www.naturalphilosophy.org/pdf/abstracts/abstracts_6324.pdf " The obtained empirical data contradict the equivalence principle of inertial and gravitational mass : http://phys.org/news/2011-07-gyroscope-unexplained-due-inertia.html http://arxiv.org/abs/1302.2775 https://arxiv.org/abs/1101.4678 In my opinion, one of the principal elements that compose the complex phenomenon of gravity is a spinning mass, or a mass composed of spinning elementary particles, or both. I consider matter to be essentially an electric structure, and that could be the basis of connection between gravity and electromagnetism, as postulated in Kaluza-Klein unification — " Kaluza and Klein showed, using general relativity, that this extra dimension would still have an effect on the space around us. In particular they showed that the effect of gravity in that very small fifth dimension would actually appear to us, from our larger-scale perspective, as electromagnetism : https://plus.maths.org/content/kaluza-klein-and-their-story-fifth-dimension https://www.researchgate.net/publication/241520428_Antigravity_and_classical_solutions_of_five-dimensional_Kaluza-Klein_theory and, also in another scientific mainstream theory — " Gravitomagnetism is produced by stars and planets when they spin. "It's similar in form to the magnetic field being produced by a spinning ball of charge," explains physicist Clifford Will of Washington University. Replace charge with mass, and magnetism becomes gravitomagnetism : http://www.nasa.gov/vision/universe/solarsystem/19apr_gravitomagnetism.html If magnetic field is being produced by a spinning ball of charge, gravity, according to my conjecture, is produced by a spinning mass which, similar to the Earth, possesses its magnetic field, as well as an electric field ( " the 'electric terms' correspond simply to the gravity that keeps our feet on the ground " ), because the Earth is considered to be also an electric capacitor : 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 spinning mass with its magnetic and electric fields. The theory of gravitomagnetism indicates that gravity could also be, to some extent, produced even by a spinning mass with its magnetic filed : " Written out in full glory, the equations of General Relativity are intensely complicated. Indeed, they have been solved in only a few special cases. One of them is the case of weak gravity, like we experience here on Earth. In the 'weak field limit', Einstein's equations reduce to a form remarkably like Maxwell's equations of electromagnetism. Terms appear that are analogous to the electric field caused by charges and the magnetic field produced by the flow of charge. The 'electric terms' correspond simply to the gravity that keeps our feet on the ground. The 'magnetic terms' are wholly unfamiliar; we don't sense them in everyday life. " A similar theory, called electrogravity, (see the attached) postulates possibility of generating gravity, to some extent, by a spinning mass with its "asymmetric" electric filed, with a gradient : https://arxiv.org/ftp/physics/papers/0211/0211001.pdf In my view, 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 : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=72LWr7BU8Ao https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pnbJEg9r1o8 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=al799tMnAk8 http://www.washington.edu/news/2014/02/03/solving-a-physics-mystery-those-solitons-are-really-vortex-rings/ I have good reasons to think that the phenomenon of gravity is a so-called "emergent phenomenon". 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 welcome your questions, and at the same time I am looking forward to our discussion, and especially I welcome your criticism. Thank you. With respect and much gratitude, I am Sincerely yours, Zbigniew Modrzejewski http://db.naturalphilosophy.org/member/?memberid=2608&subpage=contact