Antigravity (split)

[Strange]

at 9Ft the field strength is 9.8N/kg

at 30,000Ft the field strength is unknown.

 

 

It isn't unknown. It is about 9.77 N/kg:

G * mass of Earth / (radius of earth+30000 feet)^2

http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=G+*+mass+of+Earth+%2F+(radius+of+earth%2B30000+feet)%5E2

 

The rest of your post is incoherent nonsense.

[Mordred]

[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.

Edited November 11, 2016 by Mordred

[zbigniew.modrzejewski]

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. "

[Strange]

From a private correspondence with a member of ScienceForums.net :

 

 

Quoting another anonymous crackpot does not really help your case.

[zbigniew.modrzejewski]

Lets start with some key differences between gravity and electromagnetism.

 

 

 

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.

[Mordred]

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

Edited November 11, 2016 by Mordred

[zbigniew.modrzejewski]

 

Quoting another anonymous crackpot does not really help your case.

 

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 :

[Mordred]

 

 

 

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.

 

 

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

Edited November 12, 2016 by Mordred

[zbigniew.modrzejewski]

Do objects get heavier near an electric field?

 

Very basic physics question.

 

 

 

Do objects get heavier near an electric field?

 

So, what experiment do you propose to test it ??

 

 

Kalazu Klein never stated electromagnetism and gravity is the same.

 

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

 

 

THIS EQUATION DOES NOT STATE GRAVITY IS DUE TO ELECTROMAGNETISM.

 

 

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.

Edited November 12, 2016 by zbigniew.modrzejewski

[Mordred]

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.

 

 

 

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.

.

 

 

 

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

Edited November 12, 2016 by Mordred

[zbigniew.modrzejewski]

" you cannot show gravity as repulsive. "

 

All we need to show that repulsive gravity exists

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.

 

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.

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/

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.

 

 

 

— GO ahead show the actual math for repulsive gravity. IT DOES NOT EXIST.

 

— Go ahead and show the actual math that repulsive gravity DOES NOT EXIST.

 

 

 

" 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.

There I've just blown your theory out of the water as we already have tested models of spinning charged objects in space.

 

 

 

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.

Edited November 12, 2016 by zbigniew.modrzejewski

[Mordred]

Do you understand English I also provided the math to spinning massive objects WITHOUT CHARGE. See the Kerr metric doh

 

 

Go ahead and show the actual math that repulsive gravity DOES NOT EXIST.

 

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/

 

 

Edited November 12, 2016 by Mordred

[zbigniew.modrzejewski]

that's up to you to prove. That your responsibility as you are the one that is suggesting anti-gravity exists.

 

 

 

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/

 

[Mordred]

math buddy nothing else. Only math start by using the equations I posted.

 

Only math I repeat only math.

 

Is that clear enough?

Edited November 12, 2016 by Mordred

[zbigniew.modrzejewski]

" mathematical rigor in the speculations forum" .... ???

WOW !!!!

I would never suspect that speculation would require any mathematical rigor

[Mordred]

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.

Edited November 12, 2016 by Mordred

[zbigniew.modrzejewski]

math buddy nothing else. Only math. Start by using the equations I posted.

 

 

 

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.

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.

 

 

 

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.

Edited November 12, 2016 by zbigniew.modrzejewski

[Mordred]

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

[zbigniew.modrzejewski]

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

 

 

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.

Edited November 12, 2016 by zbigniew.modrzejewski

[Mordred]

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.

Edited November 12, 2016 by Mordred

[zbigniew.modrzejewski]

Whatever you wish to believe.

 

 

Without math your model will go nowhere. As it will not meet the model requirements.

 

 

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.

[Mordred]

I understand your trying to avoid the math. However in this particular case gravitomagnetism is such a well researched subject the math is readily available.

There has been well over a century of research on the subject. If you actually study that research every tool is already available. Without additional experimentation.

Your problem will come down to proving the math and experimental evidence wrong. Considering 1000's of previous PH.D physicists has tried this route already

Good luck lol. Here this is one of my favourite articles

 

"Elements of Astrophysics "

 

https://www.ifa.hawaii.edu/~kaiser/lectures/elements.pdf

Its extremely informative on planetary motion, galaxies etc. See chapter 7 on Faradays and the Maxwell equations.

 

The main point is you need to first prove you understand gravitomagnetism, electrogravity, the Klien Gordon equations and GR. Otherwise your just randomly conjecturing with zero actual knowledge of the subject matter except a complete lack of understanding of those models.

 

Which thus far, you have shown zero understanding of any of the physics your quoting. Unfortunately the vast majority of the posters in Speculations actually understands the physics behind the models they are trying to change.

 

Sad truth that. It is incredibly rare to see proper modelling and understanding of the current models posters are contesting against.

 

If you wish to change the rules, you must first understand the rules now you understand why I have that expession in my signature..

 

Now here is the real smacker. Gravitomagnetism does not lead to anti gravity. There is actual studies on gravitomagnetism which you are ignoring.

 

Study Lens-Thirring precession. That material I have also included.

 

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lense%E2%80%93Thirring_precession

Edited November 12, 2016 by Mordred

[Moontanman]

 

 

 

 

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.

 

 

 

It would be nice if you answered my question instead of ignoring it.

 

 

 

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?

[Sensei]

So, with my hypothesis, I am at the "Faraday" stage.

Faraday was performing experiments. And showing them to people. Did you perform any experiment?

 

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.

 

Where is problem?

Then why don't you make such device and perform experiment, and come back with results.. ?

 

 

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?

Maybe Moon example would be better?

Gravitation of the Moon can be observed in tides.

 

 

In my view, in order to fully generate gravity, we need

a spinning mass with its magnetic, and electric field.

Typical matter is neutral charged.

Each proton has corresponding electron,

and they cancel out their electric fields for outside observer.

Typical matter is also magnetic neutral.

Except Iron there is very little elements which have unpaired electrons.

Actually chemical compounds combine in such a way, to have electrons paired each other and full sub-shells.

 

Either electric charged objects, and not paired electrons in objects, are easily visible for outside observer.

Edited November 12, 2016 by Sensei

[zbigniew.modrzejewski]

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?

 

It would be nice if you answered my question instead of ignoring it.

 

 

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.

 

 

Faraday was performing experiments. And showing them to people. Did you perform any experiment?

 

Where is problem?

Then why don't you make such device and perform experiment

 

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.

Now here is the real smacker. Gravitomagnetism does not lead to anti gravity.

 

 

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

Edited November 12, 2016 by zbigniew.modrzejewski