Jump to content
zbigniew.modrzejewski

Antigravity (split)

Recommended Posts

 

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 :

 

" The obtained empirical data contradict the equivalence
principle of inertial and gravitational mass :
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 :

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
:


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 :
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 :


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

Edited by zbigniew.modrzejewski

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well this definetely grasping at straws on developing connections without understanding the material.

 

Perhaps instead of posting numerous links on gyroscopes etc. You will show the actual math. Rather than expect us to connect your imaginary dots.

 

I would recommend you start with the stress tensor for both electromagnetic and EFE. Then study the different spin statistics. Followed by showing 3+1 spacetime with 1 dimension for electromagnetism in the Kalazu Klien.

Are you even familiar with the math I suggested ?

 

If not Rindlers "General Relativity" has some excellent coverage.

 

Granted it is an old thread, but its still considered thread hijacking when you present a personal speculation as an answer to someone else's thread. I recommend starting a new one under Speculations.

Perhaps you might consider the detail that not all gravitational bodies have a electromagnetic field.

 

Then again if you understood GR we already consider spinning bodies lol

Edited by Mordred

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

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 :

 

" The obtained empirical data contradict the equivalence

principle of inertial and gravitational mass :

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 :

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

:

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 :
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 :

 

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

 

 

 

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?

I just wondered about antigravity. What are the possible mechanisms? Are there functional small craft, for example, UAV's, that use these mechanisms to get off the ground at high speeds and are we confusing UAV's with UFO's?

 

 

 

 

I know this is an old thread... but it should be said that UFOs predate UAVs by at least a century...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I believe I understand how attractive, as well

as repulsive gravity is generated.

 

As there is no evidence for repulsive gravity, this seems a bit moot.

 

You shouldn't really hijack someone else's thread with your own wacky ideas.

 

In my view, in order to fully generate gravity, we need
a spinning mass with its magnetic, and electric field.

There is no evidence that gravitational force depends on anything other than mass.

 

You mentioned the solar system; well, there we have many bodies spinning at different rates and yet their gravity is determined only by their mass.

 

Well, OK. If the object is spinning then it has more energy and therefore more gravity. But we know that already.

 

In general, they also have zero or near zero electric charge so there appears to be no evidence that is required to create gravity either.

 

I have good reasons to think that the phenomenon of gravity

is a so-called "emergent phenomenon".

What are these reasons?

 

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

You seem to be ignoring the fact that Faraday was an excellent experimentalist. His collection of empirical data is what enabled Maxwell to mathematise his results.

 

So where is your experimental data? Or are you not at the "Faraday stage", but rather at the Wild-Ass Guess stage?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Perhaps instead of posting numerous links on gyroscopes etc. You will show the actual math.

 

 

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

All we need to empirically verify my hypothesis

is a simple and inexpensive experiment

 

 

As you keep comparing yourself to Faraday, please feel free to come back when you have the results of your experiments.

 

 

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.

 

Stars, planets, moons, comets and asteroids have no (or negligible charge). Many have no magnetic field. They spin at a wide range of speeds (including near zero). And yet our current theories of gravitation work very well. This appears to falsify your idea.

Edited by Strange

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You shouldn't really hijack someone else's thread with your own wacky ideas.

 

 

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 :

" 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

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Simply repeating the same thing doesn't answer any questions.

 

Where is your evidence that spin speed and/or charge are relevant?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

repeating these assertions isn't addressing our questions. x posted with Strange lol

Edited by Mordred

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

repeating these assertions isn't addressing our questions. x posted with Strange lol

 

 

 

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/

Edited by zbigniew.modrzejewski

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Stars, planets, moons, comets and asteroids have no (or negligible charge). Many have no magnetic field. They spin at a wide range of speeds (including near zero). And yet our current theories of gravitation work very well.

 

Please explain why this does not falsify your idea.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think your understanding what we are looking for here. You keep repeating yourself. Your not answering any questions being asked

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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/

!

Moderator Note

These have been split. please don't hijack threads, especially when it resurrects an old thread.

 

Also, advertising other speculative threads is another rules violation.

 

You would do well to respond to critiques rather than repeat yourself (another rule involved here - you should really read up on them)

 

Please don't respond to this modnote here in this thread

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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, although this is not entirely convincing because of the variations in the diameter of the planets. Although to find correlations between RPM and gravitational field strength is a seemingly good course of action to either add credit or remove validity to the theory of a correlation between RPM and field strength.

 

Furthermore I would like to congratulate you simply on your appreciation for the importance of new ideas in order for scientific progression.

 

 

Another area for study when trying to provide a adequate explanation for the occurrence of gravity to varying strengths would be a correlation between a potential difference of electro-static charge and gravity, if such a correlation exists the gravitational field direction would be easy to associate with the positioning of the two charges involved in the potential difference (of electro-static charge) while the potential difference (the difference in electro-static charge) also would be easy to associate with field strength.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

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?

 

 

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 :

 

cap.gif

" 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/

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.

 

 

 

Furthermore I would like to congratulate you simply on your appreciation for the importance of new ideas in order for scientific progression.

 

Thank you. Much appreciated! :)

 

 

 

Another area for study when trying to provide a adequate explanation for the occurrence of gravity to varying strengths would be a correlation between a potential difference of electro-static charge and gravity, if such a correlation exists the gravitational field direction would be easy to associate with the positioning of the two charges involved in the potential difference (of electro-static charge) while the potential difference (the difference in electro-static charge) also would be easy to associate with field strength.

 

This correlation is suggested in the so-called Electro-Gravity hypothesis exemplified by the Biefeld-Brown effect :

http://arxiv.org/ftp/physics/papers/0211/0211001.pdf

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I do agree with that.

 

 

Conciser how gravity is proposed to originate from bodies with greater mass for they curve space to a greater extent. Now acknowledge that gravity is relatively constant throughout the atmosphere of the planet (as stated by Elon Musk) only to decay with the inverse square law relationship (between distance and field strength) from the very top of the atmosphere. Adding credit to the idea that gravity on this planet originates from the atmosphere more likely or possibly a interaction between the ground and atmosphere.

 

Do you experience any noticeable change in gravity when in a plane at high altitude?

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TTynupCm0sU

 

At 05:49

 

 

He says the force of gravity at the boundary of space is almost exactly the same as the force of gravity on the surface of the earth.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Conciser how gravity is proposed to originate from bodies with greater mass for they curve space to a greater extent. Now acknowledge that gravity is relatively constant throughout the atmosphere of the planet (as stated by Elon Musk) only to decay with the inverse square law relationship (between distance and field strength) from the very top of the atmosphere.

 

 

Please stop posting nonsense. The inverse square relationship does not start at the top of the atmosphere.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A flawed understanding of the point of which that relationship does start would result in catastrophic failure in attempting to reach space. Are you suggesting Elon has such a understanding despite his success in the very en-devour of reaching space?

 

Again, Do you feel a deterioration of the gravitational force at high altitudes within a plane? Of course the answer is no and obviously Elon is right, this cannot be explained in the example of the planet because of atmospheric displacement because the plane maintains the same atmospheric pressure as at the surface of the earth.

 

 

It seems to me that you are a prime example of someone who is completely unwilling to accept anything which is contradictory to the theory you currently believe so as to avoid putting any effort into re visitation of that theory or devising a new theory, it seems implied by the evidence that discovery is not what you are after but rather a strange and rather increasingly common pressing desire for a certain aristocratic scientific self glorification.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A flawed understanding of the point of which that relationship does start would result in catastrophic failure in attempting to reach space.

 

 

And therefore, the current theory would appear to be correct.

 

 

 

Do you feel a deterioration of the gravitational force at high altitudes within a plane? Of course the answer is no

 

The answer is, of course, no. But perhaps not for the reason you think. Work out the difference in gravity between the surface of the Earth and a plane at 10,000m. See if you think it will be detectable.

 

OK, as I assume you are not capable of doing that, the answer is that gravity is about 0.3% less at that altitude. You would not feel that. However it can be easily detected by accelerometers, atomic clocks and other suitable instruments.

 

 

It seems to me that you are a prime example of someone who is completely unwilling to accept anything which is contradictory to the theory you currently believe so as to avoid putting any effort into re visitation of that theory or devising a new theory, it seems implied by the evidence that discovery is not what you are after but rather a strange and rather increasingly common pressing desire for a certain aristocratic scientific self glorification.

 

You, on the other hand, seem to be one of those who think that just making up any old rubbish is better than actually learning (which is hard work, I know).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok lets get this thread onto proper track. First off a lot of assumptions are being incorrectly made. Based on lack of actual physics.

 

Lets start with some key differences between gravity and electromagnetism. This will take me a bit so Don't be surprised on edits.

 

alright lets detail some differences between transverse dipole (electromagnetic wave spin 1), vs quadrupole wave. (gravity spin 2)

lets look at the behavior or [latex]h^{GW}_{jk}[/latex] under boosts in the z direction. Then compare to EM waves in transverse Lorentz quage...

GW [latex]h^{GW}_{jk},h_+,h_x[/latex] EM wave [latex]A^T_j[/latex] notice we don't have the k subscript in the EM guage??

The same applies when you transform as scalar fields.

 

GW

 

[latex]h^{GW}_{jk},h_+,h_x[/latex]

[latex]\acute{h}_{jk}(\acute{t}-\acute{z})=h_{jk}(t-z)=h_{jk}(D(\acute{t}-\acute{z})[/latex]

 

EM

 

[latex]A_x(t-z),A_y(t-z)[/latex] transforms to scalar field [latex]\acute{A}_j(\acute{t}-\acute{z})=A_j(D\acute{t}-\acute{z})[/latex]

 

now in the electromagnetic case each rotation is 90 degrees.. In the GW spin 2 each rotation is 45 degrees.

the GW wave attenuation through matter is

[latex]h_{jk}\sim exp(-z/\ell_{att})[/latex]

the ratio of GW energy to EM wave energy [latex]\frac{T_{GW}}{T_{EM}}=\frac{\dot{h}_+/16\pi}{B_0^2/8\pi}[/latex]

 

If you study the formulas you can draw several conclusions.. which I won't post all the math for...

gravity waves travel without significant attenuation, scattering,dispersion or conversion into EM waves.

If you want further detail on the EM GW interaction I would recommend googling Gertsenshtein effect.

 

I just detailed key differences between GW and EM...

 

A key note is a spin 2 quadrupole wave has no dipole moment.

 

 

 

Edited by Mordred

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

at 9Ft the field strength is 9.8N/kg

at 30,000Ft the field strength is unknown.

 

 

30,000Ft divided by 9Ft = 0.0003

 

9.8 multiplied by 0.0003 = 0.00294N/kg which is the answer without the square aspect

 

0.00147N/kg being the approximate answer.

 

 

If a circle has a radius of 6 cm therefor it has a diameter of 12 cm.

 

if the radius is increased to 3000 cm given that the radius is directly proportional to the diameter using my calculation method I can predict the length of the diameter which obviously would be 6000 cm although the point is to prove its accuracy before transferring it to quantities which exist in different measurement systems where the answer is less obvious.

 

 

Radius ----- 6 cm divided by 3000 cm = 0.002

Diameter ----- 12 cm divided by 0.002 = [ 6000 cm ]

 

 

However through experience I have learned that calculating square laws provides a very large margin of inaccuracy, this is the reason for the answer being a approximation.

 

 

In answer to your point learning is hard work, this is what memorizing previously written equations is like, he who actually understands the equations can simply develop them on the spot and hence he has nothing to remember.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In answer to your point learning is hard work, this is what memorizing previously written equations is like, he who actually understands the equations can simply develop them on the spot and hence he has nothing to remember.

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

Edited by Mordred

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And the comparative difference between the answers, try with you method to predict the length of the diameter when the radius is at 3,000cm.

And I show your calculations

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Alright then show how you can increase the weight of an object that has no electromagnetic interaction by increasing the electric field strength.

 

Do objects get heavier near an electric field?

 

Very basic physics question.

 

This is what the OP is suggesting. I use use gyroscopes all the time. Nearby objects DO NOT INCREASE in weight due to those gyroscopes being used...

Edited by Mordred

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.