Antigravity (split)

[Moontanman]

 

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/

 

 

No, your speculation needs rotation, Venus has no magnetic field of it's own and rotates very slowly, a little over 116 Earth days. Please explain how your speculations support this... Venus has nearly the same mass as the Earth, if your story was true Venus should not have much of a gravity field. Mars is in a similar situation since it has only very weak localized magnetic fields yet it's gravity corresponds to it's mass as does Venus...

Edited November 12, 2016 by Moontanman

[zbigniew.modrzejewski]

 

 

No, your speculation needs rotation, Venus has no magnetic field of it's own and rotates very slowly,

 

 

" 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

 

 

if your story was true Venus should not have much of a gravity field.

 

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.

Edited November 12, 2016 by zbigniew.modrzejewski

[John Cuthber]

 

 

How about empirical physical experiments?

Have you done any?

Did they generate results that don't tally with the current model?

If not you have nothing to shout about.

[Moontanman]

 

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.

 

 

Ok, why do masses exert a gravitational field proportional to their mass even when they lack a magnetic field? Mercury and the Moon come to mind

[Strange]

 

 

 

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/

 

 

1. That is a very weak electric field. Much larger fields are created every day with no apparent unexpected gravitational force.

 

Unless you have some experimental results of your own to report, as you are the New Faraday? No? Oh well.

 

2. That electric field is outside the atmosphere (from the same source) and therefore could not contribute to the surface gravity of Venus.

 

3. Current theory (e.g. Newton's law of gravity) works on the basis that only mass contributes to gravitation. If mass were not the only factor, then the theory would not work as well as it does.

 

So it sounds like your hypothesis is not just baseless but is falsified by the evidence.

[Mordred]

Of course with absolutely no math presenting your idea....

How can we move forward in the discussion without continuosly repeating over and over again the same statements.

No math and no experiments lol.

Not a productive approach. Why not start with at least the escape velocity formula?

Or even Newtons formulas? Anything is better than nothing.

Edited November 13, 2016 by Mordred

[Strange]

 

How about empirical physical experiments?

 

 

Indeed. You claim to be the equivalent of Faraday, so where are the large volumes of data from your experiments?

[Mordred]

Here is the thing. We know all about gyromagnetism. There is 1000's of professional papers on the subject.

 

How does your idea differ from this research? Gyromagnetism does not apply to every object in space.

 

Comets, asteroids being a mere two examples.

 

Have you read any of the links I provided.?

[Raider5678]

At the risk of people thinking I'm supporting this guy, I shall support his argument. With sarcasm science.

He said there is a correlation between the spinning of a planet and its gravity. E = MC², which can be translated to mean the energy is equal to mass. A spinning planet has more energy then a non spinning planet, hence meaning it has more mass. This means since there is more mass there is a stronger gravitational pull. Hence, his claim that spinning of a gravitational object is related to its gravity, is true. Somewhat. If you understand what I mean here, you understand that this is complete, as he would call it, "bullshit".

 

Also, white holes anyone??? Anti gravity??? Please tell me I'm not the only one to have heard of these completely theoretical things. They're like wormholes, only cooler.

[Mordred]

I already presented papers showing the math behind planetary spin both with electromagnetism and without. All the he needs is contained within those links.

He has yet to even present math of his own. That is the issue.

White holes has nothing to do with anti gravity. Anti gravity requires anti-mass Do you know any source of anti-mass?

Antimatter doesn't produce anti-mass.

 

Think about how an electromagnetic field regardless of vector direction regardless of charge field flow always adds to the total energy. In other words it adds to the mass budget. This is true regardless of the vector direction.

Changing the vector directions doesn't produce antigravity that is a false claim.

 

This wiki quote is actually appropriate.

 

"Anti-gravity is an idea of creating a place or object that is free from the force of gravity. It does not refer to the lack of weight under gravity experienced in free fall or orbit, or to balancing the force of gravity with some other force, such as electromagnetism or aerodynamic lift"

 

In other words one can create situations using electromagnetic energy to lift objects. That is not the same thing as antigravity. claiming otherwise is wrong. That is simply using a different force to counter gravity. NOT anti-gravity.

 

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-gravity

Edited November 13, 2016 by Mordred

[Moontanman]

Face it guys, all we are going to get is more song and dance...

[Mordred]

I'm afraid unless some actual math is forthcoming from the OP. This thread will simply get locked. I'm surprised it's lasted this long.

 

To be honest I have seen zero effort to understand basic physics from the OP. Just claims. Which is rather annoying as every formula needed was handed to him.

 

it is up to the OP to prove this statement wrong. " Under general relativity, anti-gravity is impossible" I have yet to see his proof that quote is false.

 

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-gravity

 

the truly stupid part is the formulas he needs are contained on this one paper.

 

Schwarzschild and Kerr Solutions of Einstein's Field Equation

| an introduction |

https://arxiv.org/pdf/1503.02172.pdf.

 

You have the formulas for Lens-Thirring, gravitomagnetism etc all contained in this one little article. They certainly don't produce antigravity LMAO.

 

Bugger me blind just look at a fast spinning Magnetar. We have recorded them spinning as high as 43,000 times per second with an electromagnetic field trillions of times higher than on Earth. .... yet they still attract matter, just like any other massive body.

 

 

 

http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/swift/bursts/new-phenom.html

 

You can even see extremely fast spinning magnetic fields in accretion disks surrounding a Black hole. Gravity still works the same way

 

http://arxiv.org/abs/1104.5499 :''Black hole Accretion Disk'' -Handy article on accretion disk measurements provides a technical compilation of measurements involving the disk itself.

 

Bugger me the energy involved in this last case is sufficient to convert matter to energy in far greater excess than any manmade particle accelerator.

 

Yet no Anti-gravity. We have plenty of evidence that the OP's theory is false without any additional experimentation. All at the Low low cost of free datasets, time and energy into understanding the equations involved.

 

What can be better than free? The universe is your Lab experiment

Edited November 13, 2016 by Mordred

[Mordred]

There are times I truly wish I could post a textbook or better yet posters that post these wild speculations ACTUALLY UNDERSTOOD MATH. There is a particular lesson that can be learned from this equation. Kalazu-Klein 4d space-time+electromagnetic 1d

 

[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]

 

which leads to [latex]g_{\mu\nu}=h_\mu^ah_v^b\eta_{ab}[/latex]

 

without going through the lengthy procedures of which no one but myself is likely to understand (unfortunately) roughly 14 pages of equations we can derive the 5D Langrangian

 

[latex]R=R^{ab}_{ab}=RR^{ab}_{ab}+2R^{a5}_{a5}[/latex]

 

using the overdot to separate the 5th dimension involving electromagnetism.

 

[latex]R=\dot{R}-1/4F^{ab}F_{ab}+F_{ab}=\dot{R}=1/4F^{ab}F_{ab}[/latex]

 

the full solution can be found in Lewis Ryder. I'll give the full reference at the end. However there is a key passage in this book.

 

"This then is the result of this theory: The action of the 5th dimensional theory is simply the SUM of the actions for General relativity and Maxwell's equations. This is of course a disappointment in that it does not amount to a unified theory. Gravity and electromagnetism separate out like oil and water. There is no coupling between them. If there were cosmic switches allowing the different actions to be switched off and on at will, gravity could be switched off without affecting electromagnetism and vice versa"

 

page 423 Lewis Ryder "Introduction to General Relativity" the solutions is pages 419 chapter 11.5 equations 11.140 to page 423 equation 11.168

 

this is the last lesson in this particular textbook. Essentially what the above means is that you can have electromagnetic interactions seem to counter gravity. However this does not mean it is anti-gravity. It is simply a result of the sum of two separate forces.

 

gravity and electromagnetism. NOT ANTI-GRAVITY. It is the SUM of GR and Maxwell equations.

 

You can google Lens-Thirring but you will find rotation also does not produce anti-gravity. Even if you combine the two you will not produce anti-gravity sorry no way no how..

 

One of the Key differences between charge potential between electromagnetism is that in the electromagnetic case, you have two polarities + and - charge.

 

In gravity if you treat mass as a charge you only have a positive charge. There is no negative mass charge. Not even anti-matter as once believed but proven wrong when we produced anti-matter at the LHC. Though if you dig deep enough you can still find those articles on the web lol.

 

 

NOW I Ofiicially CHALLENGE the OP to show the math proving the above math incorrect. No pictures no links just math. Math is the language of physics not pictures and bad fonts

Edited November 13, 2016 by Mordred

[John Cuthber]

 

 

 

NOW I Ofiicially CHALLENGE the OP to show the math proving the above math incorrect. No pictures no links just math. Math is the language of physics not pictures and bad fonts

To be fair, he doesn't need to use maths.

Experimental evidence to show that the current theory is wrong would be just as valid.

 

I'm not holding my breath.

[zbigniew.modrzejewski]

To be fair, he doesn't need to use maths.

Experimental evidence to show that the current theory is wrong would be just as valid.

 

I'm not holding my breath.

 

 

Theoretical Analysis of a Reported Weak Gravitational Shielding Effect:

http://arxiv.org/pdf/hep-th/9505094.pdf

 

 

In 1992, E. Podkletnov and R. Nieminen found that, under certain conditions, ceramic superconductor with composite structure has revealed weak shielding properties against gravitational force. In classical Newton's theory of gravity and even in Einstein's general theory of gravity, there are no grounds of gravitational shielding effects. But in quantum gauge theory of gravity, the gravitational shielding effects can be explained in a simple and natural way. In quantum gauge theory of gravity, gravitational gauge interactions of complex scalar field can be formulated based on gauge principle. After spontaneous symmetry breaking, if the vacuum of the complex scalar field is not stable and uniform, there will be a mass term of gravitational gauge field. When gravitational gauge field propagates in this unstable vacuum of the complex scalar field, it will decay exponentially, which is the nature of gravitational shielding effects. The mechanism of gravitational shielding effects is studied in this paper, and some main properties of gravitational shielding effects are discussed:

arxiv.org/pdf/hep-th/0307225v1.pdf

E. Podkletnov, R. Nieminen

Physica C, Volume 203, Issues 3–4, 10

December 1992, Pages 441-444

Shielding properties of single-phase dense bulk superconducting ceramics of YBa2Cu3O7−x against the gravitational force were studied at temperatures below 77 K. A small non-conducting and non-magnetic sample weighing 5.48 g was placed over a levitating superconducting disk and the loss of weight was measured with high precision using an electro-optical balance system. The sample was found to lose from 0.05 to 0.3% of its weight, depending on the rotation speed of the superconducting disk. Partial loss of weight might be the result of a certain state of energy which exists inside the crystal structure of the superconductor at low temperatures. The unusual state of energy might have changed a regular interaction between electromagnetic, nuclear and gravitational forces inside a solid body and is responsible for the gravity shielding effect:

www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/092145349290055H

 

 

 

 

Gravitational Field Generation:

http://www.e-catworld.com/2015/12/16/gravitational-field-generation-a-third-possible-contender-in-new-physics-for-energy-generation-gregory-daigle/comment-page-1/

 

Artificial Gravitational Field Generated in the Laboratory:

http://www.hpcc-space.com/publications/documents/ArtificialGravity.pdf

 

Based on theoretical ideas under development since 2002, termed the (8-dimensional) Extended (Burkhard) Heim Theory (EHT), as well as experiments performed at AIT Seibersdorf, Austria since 2006, it is argued that there is evidence for the existence of novel gravity-like fields and thus also different types of matter. These gravity-like fields are not described by conventional Newtonian (Einsteinian) gravitation, i.e., by the accumulation of mass. Instead, under certain conditions, they should be producible in the laboratory by small ring or disk shaped masses rotating at cryogenic temperatures. EHT, in describing these novel fields, postulates six fundamental physical interactions, three of them of gravitational nature. The two additional gravity-like fields may be both attractive and repulsive. It is further argued, based on both EHT and experiments, that these gravity-like fields are outside the known four physical fundamental forces, and may result from the conversion of electromagnetic into gravitational fields. The gravitomagnetic effect of these fields is found to be some 18 orders of magnitude larger than classical frame dragging of General Relativity. This fact seems to be in accordance with recent experiments performed at AIT Seibersdorf. A non relativistic semiclassical model will be presented as an attempt to explain the physical nature of the novel gravity-like fields. There seems to be a special phase transition, triggered at cryogenic temperatures, responsible for the conversion of electromagnetic into gravitational fields. The features of the six fundamental physical interactions are utilized to investigate the potential of the novel gravity-like fields for propulsion purposes, as well as energy generation.

http://www.hpcc-space.com/publications/documents/GravitySuperconductorsForewordChap11.pdf

 

 

It is our pleasure to write the Foreword for Gravity-Superconductors Interactions, the first book to further its goal of presenting to the scientific community the state of theoretical and experimental research concerning the latest results in the emerging field of physics for novel gravity-like fields that might represent a new paradigm shift regarding the very nature of gravitation.

New theoretical attempts along with experimental work are presented in this book to continue where Einstein was forced to leave off. The quantization of the gravitational field has been unsuccessful, despite great efforts in this direction. The problem may be that the number of fundamental forces is not known, in other words, there is a belief that only four forces exist (strong, weak, electromagnetic, and gravitational force). Perhaps gravity is of a more subtle nature than Newtonian gravity, and an interaction between gravity and electromagnetism might exist? At least, the Maxwell equations of electrodynamics and the linearized Einstein field equations, termed Einstein-Maxwell equations, show surprising structural similarity.

New gravitational experiments have been published since 2006, and geometrical theories from the 1950s (for instance, by Finzi, Heim, Wheeler) were extended and combined with concepts of modern physics (symmetry, symmetry breaking, London equations, Ginzburg-Landau theory, spacetime as a physical field, etc.) and have gained some prominence, trying to explain novel experimental results for extreme gravitomagnetic and gravity-like fields. In his monograph on Quantum Field Theory, M. Kaku presents a calculation of the Coleman-Weinberg potential that might be employed to calculate the coupling strength for the extreme gravitomagnetic fields. Most recently, as pointed out by A. Zee in Quantum Field Theory in a Nutshell, gravity might be the square of two spin 1 fields (it should be noted that particles of spin 1 can be described by Yang-Mills fields), an idea that also might be applicable in the explanation of the experiments on extreme gravitomagnetic fields that are 18 orders of magnitude larger than those predicted by general relativity, and, if confirmed, are outside general relativity. These and other exciting ideas are presented here to the reader, and might shed new light on the nature of gravity as well as the number and type of fundamental forces that exist in Nature.

Novel theories on the geometrization of physics should provide new statements and propositions that unmistakably should lead to recognizable facts, which should, for instance, occur from the existence of extreme gravitomagnetic and gravity-like fields observed at cryogenic temperatures, rather than by speculation or chance. As Einstein felt, the most important objective of any theory is to comprise as few and basic elements as possible without contradicting physical experience in conjunction with practical applications. For example, as presented in this text, a relationship between the different phenomena of electromagnetism and gravitation might have been discovered. Any novel theory must be verifiable by laboratory experiments or astronomical observations. In order to verify a theory, it must provide a procedure on how the measurable information can be extracted. Since experiments do not produce physical principles, any novel theory must produce meaningful forecasts and also be falsifiable.

According to Dirac's dictum: a special regulator of a theory that reflects quality is its beauty. Einstein's theory of general relativity is an example of such a theory. The successful geometrization of physics combined with proper symmetries (group theory) would fit this picture as would the experimental generation of gravity-like fields at cryogenic temperatures by symmetry breaking.

In this book, these two important topics are addressed and discussed from various points of view. Needless to say, beauty cannot be the sole yardstick for the correctness of a theory or physical phenomenon, and there is always the danger that, for instance, physical models are invented to fit an experimental situation. An example to be remembered are the (non-existing?!) gravitational waves measured by Weber. It is of utmost importance that any discovery is verified by other laboratories before it can be claimed as valid. Verifying gravitational experiments is not an easy endeavour since highly sensitive devices have to be produced and utilized at cryogenic temperatures, often at liquid Helium temperature. Even if experimental findings or theories eventually cannot be verified, one should not denounce the serious experimenter or theorist for failure, since the history of science has shown that every step forward is a complicated venture, needless to say that all programs for novel theoretical models initially contain many unclear points. But this is true even for established theories. The theory of general relativity has unified gravity with inertia. The equation of motion is for material points moving along geodesics. General relativity interprets gravitation in terms of curvature of spacetime that is, the homogeneity and isotropy of spacetime are violated. Energy and momentum conservation are valid only in flat spacetime, Since gravitational waves require the full nonlinear Einstein field equations, the superposition principle does not seem to hold, in contrast to electromagnetic waves. This would be true only in the weak field limit.

Recently, a number of important and interesting experimental results on gravitomagnetic and gravity-like fields, generated in the laboratory, have been obtained. Gravitational experiments are notoriously difficult as can be seen from the fact that the physics of gravitational wave astronomy, despite the early efforts of J. Weber starting out in 1969, is still not an established fact.

As was pointed out by the well known theoretical physicist Richard P. Feynman in his now famous lecture, There's Plenty of Room at the Bottom, given already in 1960, and published in the journal Engineering and Science (February 1960), there occur numerous strange phenomena in the complex situations of solid state physics. He prophetically foresaw an enormous number of technical applications that could arise from such physics. He also mentioned Kammerling Onnes, the pioneer of low temperature physics and superconductivity. Why should it not be possible that a combination of low temperature and solid state physics could lead to strange phenomena and, this is the most important point, to a large number of technical applications, but this time in the field of gravitational engineering? This is what this book is all about.

Finally, in order for science to progress, both theorists and experimenters have to be willing to take a certain scientific risk that is, getting off the trodden path. If a blind alley is met, the courage to reverse one's direction of research is required. If, however, ideas of novel gravitational fields at cryogenic temperatures turn out to be true, the new scientific age of gravitational engineering might have begun:

Edited November 13, 2016 by zbigniew.modrzejewski

[Strange]

 

 

 

 

Theoretical Analysis of a Reported Weak Gravitational Shielding Effect:

 

 

 

Is this your experimental results? No.

 

Reported for trolling.

[Mordred]

Well At least your font choice is getting a little easier on the eyes lol. I'm also getting a better handle on the aspects your getting at.

 

The problem it appears your having is not really understanding gravitomagnetism which is a valid field of study. It provides key lessons into understanding GR itself. For example the lesson I posted in my last post itself.

 

Did you understand what I meant by gravity isn't "coupled" to electromagnetism?

 

Please elaberate on what you understand on that statement.

Edited November 13, 2016 by Mordred