 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Natural Science Forum / Physics / Relativity / March 2006So, the Euro Space Agency proves Podkletnov's effect is real?
http://www.esa.int/esaCP/SEM0L6OVGJE_index_0.html Yes? Dear nope: > http://www.esa.int/esaCP/SEM0L6OVGJE_index_0.html > > Yes? http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/gr-qc?papernum=0603032 http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/gr-qc?papernum=0603033 ... just so they don't have to sort through the fluff. David A. Smith If it is true we have Maxwell - Equations like gravity theory i would suggest. > http://www.esa.int/esaCP/SEM0L6OVGJE_index_0.html > > Yes? > If it is true we have Maxwell - Equations like gravity theory i would > suggest. And a diect disprove of GR. Josef > > http://www.esa.int/esaCP/SEM0L6OVGJE_index_0.html > > > > Yes? I am prognosting End of GR before the year 2006 is over. Josef Matz > http://www.esa.int/esaCP/SEM0L6OVGJE_index_0.html > > Yes? Dear Josef Matz: >I am prognosting End of GR before the year 2006 is over. Good for you. It won't be based on anything posted here so far. David A. Smith > I am prognosting End of GR before the year 2006 is over. > > Josef Matz But will that be before or after you figure out how to not top post? {snip} > > I am prognosting End of GR before the year 2006 is over. > > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > {snip} Think logic. If this effect takes place as described, then you can advance the old static potential theory for gravity to a sort of gravity maxwell equations.where the charge density is replaced by the mass density. The major perspectives of this in difference to electrodynamics are: 1. There is no gravity index, there are no gravitons, which in the case of an gravity index would have spin1 and would be photon like. So gravity Maxwell theory has no dispersion in opposite to electrodynamics. 2. Because the mass density or simple just density is velocity dependent, the resulting static newton gravity force containd velocity dependent masses. I already figured out here in this group that this is sufficient to obtain the mercury perihelion with the same accuracy as in GR 3. Rooms are not curved. Photons have a dynamic mass which explains the bending of light effect with the same accuracy as GR does. I also posted this here in this newsgroups. 4. Because GR provides also for cosmology: The universe is a special relativic one. There is only one universe type remaining: The universe is flat and infinite (unbound Universe). Because it had an origin in time, the radius of the visible part of the universe increases with time. I also posted on this figure. 5. The Gravitomagnetic field is able to explain for the rings of saturn !!!! Similar effect as movement of electrons in a magnetic field. So the macroscopic application of the effect is this unexplained mystery of physics. 6. There are no Black holes at all, but in this theory very heavy masses are also black because the light bending effect or light attraction due to the photons dynamic mass leads to the effect that most photons cant leave a very heavy body. Only very high energy photons can. Therefore heavy masses are nearly black but there is a rest which can leave them. 7. This theory is fully compatible with quantum mechanics while GR is not. These are the main perspectives of the new world that awaits us. Einsteins fears that GR could be wrong were right. Josef Matz > > > I am prognosting End of GR before the year 2006 is over. > > > [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > to a sort of gravity maxwell equations.where the charge density is replaced > by the mass density. Do you think you are the first in nearly a century to say "Hey! I got an idea! Why don't we formulate gravitation the same way Maxwell formulated electrodynamics" ? It has been tried many times, and has failed just as many. > The major perspectives of this in difference to electrodynamics are: > 1. There is no gravity index, there are no gravitons, which in the case of > an gravity index would have spin1 and > would be photon like. So gravity Maxwell theory has no dispersion in > opposite to electrodynamics. Gravitational radiation has been indirectly observed through orbital decay of a binary pulsar system. Oops. > 2. Because the mass density or simple just density is velocity dependent, > the resulting static newton gravity > force containd velocity dependent masses. I already figured out here in > this group that this is sufficient to obtain > the mercury perihelion with the same accuracy as in GR Good for you. Post the derivation, and compare. Then do it again with the asteroid Icarus. I bet the derivation will be different - new answer, an entirely new process to get the desired result. > 3. Rooms are not curved. Photons have a dynamic mass which explains the > bending of light effect with the same > accuracy as GR does. I also posted this here in this newsgroups. Good for you. Mosey on over to pdg.lbl.gov and make sure your "dynamic photon mass" isn't an order of magnitude or three larger than the lowest bound on photon mass. Or, just for sh.ts and giggles, why don't you tell us what you think the mass of the photon is? > 4. Because GR provides also for cosmology: The universe is a special > relativic one. There is only one universe type > remaining: The universe is flat and infinite (unbound Universe). Because > it had an origin in time, the radius > of the visible part of the universe increases with time. I also posted > on this figure. At least you have been paying attention to WMAP. > 5. The Gravitomagnetic field is able to explain for the rings of saturn !!!! Congratulations, you have rediscovered orbital resonance. > Similar effect as movement of electrons in a > magnetic field. Congratulations, you have rediscovered the Zeeman effect. > So the macroscopic application of the effect is this unexplained > mystery of physics. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > masses are nearly black but there > is a rest which can leave them. If you say so. > 7. This theory is fully compatible with quantum mechanics while GR is not. > > These are the main perspectives of the new world that awaits us. Einsteins > fears that GR could be wrong were > right. I doubt you even have a theory that is capable of predicting something without intense massaging. Let me guess, you manipulate h, c, and G, plus a brand new constant in order to get the observed effects you wish to obtain? > Josef Matz > > > > I am prognosting End of GR before the year 2006 is over. > > > > [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > Gravitational radiation has been indirectly observed through orbital > decay of a binary pulsar system. Oops. I do not say that i can explain everything > > 2. Because the mass density or simple just density is velocity dependent, > > the resulting static newton gravity [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > the asteroid Icarus. I bet the derivation will be different - new > answer, an entirely new process to get the desired result. i already did that but was only fightet. Good some guys statet that this could be so. I do not need Androcles who wanted me to measure it. Its just the same result than in GR. > > 3. Rooms are not curved. Photons have a dynamic mass which explains the > > bending of light effect with the same [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > Or, just for sh.ts and giggles, why don't you tell us what you think > the mass of the photon is? m c c = hbar w or m = hbar w / ( c c) > > 4. Because GR provides also for cosmology: The universe is a special > > relativic one. There is only one universe type [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > At least you have been paying attention to WMAP. ok i think thats compatible with present observations > > 5. The Gravitomagnetic field is able to explain for the rings of saturn !!!! > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Congratulations, you have rediscovered the Zeeman effect. No i just think about charged particles going on a cycle in homogene magnetic fields. > > So the macroscopic application of the effect is this unexplained > > mystery of physics. [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > plus a brand new constant in order to get the observed effects you wish > to obtain? No the constants are the same. I just say saturn has a gravitomagnetic field. > > Josef Matz On the other hand, how i think this could work together with nuclei theories: If there would be no dispersion at all (what i think is the case in the macroscopic world and at least on atomic level) then we would have a virtual particle with spin 1 which could be the higgs. I suggest that at least once higgs particle has been explicitly measured. I do not know whats the present state. But a free higgs field would be possible if one would allow for some sort of dispersion. I know that this is vague, and i do not say it must be right. But this would fit in my model how it could be. Without dispersion no free highs field an no measurement of higgs possible. josefmatz@arcor.de germany Maybe this it at least a nice contribution to the discussions upon relativity. And it at least is a modified special relativistic theory and maybe - because it is so elegant - one which would be worth to follow up. This i mean because no other theory here in this newsgroups can exlain so much. I would please you to forgive me my english mistakes. Josef > > > I am prognosting End of GR before the year 2006 is over. > > > [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > to a sort of gravity maxwell equations.where the charge density is replaced > by the mass density. No... Maxwell's equations don't describe an isotropic field. Compare: http://www.research.ibm.com/grape/grape_ewald.htm with: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiple_integral > The major perspectives of this in difference to electrodynamics are: > 1. There is no gravity index, there are no gravitons, which in the case of > an gravity index would have spin1 and > would be photon like. So gravity Maxwell theory has no dispersion in > opposite to electrodynamics. Sometimes... the term *graviphoton* is quite approprite when you remember the photon is describing a macroscopic particle. It is inapproprate when you try to count it as a chunk of energy. There is no mechanism in induction effects which are dependent on atomic emission or absorbtion. which is what QM exploits to apply statistics. > 2. Because the mass density or simple just density is velocity dependent, > the resulting static newton gravity Nothing is really static. The magnets on you refrigerator door depend on the motion of charges. > force containd velocity dependent masses. I already figured out here in > this group that this is sufficient to obtain [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > 4. Because GR provides also for cosmology: The universe is a special > relativic one. There is only one universe type No... the case for a space-time continuum is logically absurd. An incorrect resolution of Maxwell/Galilean fields doesn't imply anything about the cosmos. http://www.iisc.ernet.in/currsci/dec252005/2009.pdf > remaining: The universe is flat and infinite (unbound Universe). Because > it had an origin in time, the radius [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > So the macroscopic application of the effect is this unexplained > mystery of physics. Probably not: http://www.chem.purdue.edu/gchelp/liquids/inddip.html > 6. There are no Black holes at all, but in this theory very heavy masses are > also black because the light bending Light doesn't bend. It refracts: http://www.physics.yorku.ca/undergrad_programme/highsch/Feynm4.html > effect or light attraction due to the photons dynamic mass leads to the > effect that most photons cant leave > a very heavy body. Only very high energy photons can. Therefore heavy > masses are nearly black but there > is a rest which can leave them. > 7. This theory is fully compatible with quantum mechanics while GR is not. No. Neither is very compatable with QM. The reason for quantising field effects is so we can apply statistics where atomic oscillators accurately measure our quanta (usually the visible band). As QED produces quite a and unacceptable paradigm for the description of magnetic effects (photons with wrist watches and monopoles) there is no reason to belive a more complex mode of induction will be any more managable. > These are the main perspectives of the new world that awaits us. Einsteins > fears that GR could be wrong were > right. A continuum mechanical model seems a fair representation of matter/energy equivalence and gravity/inertial equivalence. Correct GPS launch presets draw on the efficacy of the of the model so you can't say it is "wrong". Sue... > Josef Matz > > > > I am prognosting End of GR before the year 2006 is over. > > > > [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > Compare: > http://www.research.ibm.com/grape/grape_ewald.htm my theory looks a little otherwise > with: > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiple_integral what has this to do with ? > > The major perspectives of this in difference to electrodynamics are: > > 1. There is no gravity index, there are no gravitons, which in the case of [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > induction effects which are dependent on atomic emission > or absorbtion. which is what QM exploits to apply statistics. That is right. Therefore i think that there is macroskopic gravity dispersion. Thats what i think and therefore no spin1 - graviton at all. At least not on macroskopic and on atomic level. > > 2. Because the mass density or simple just density is velocity dependent, > > the resulting static newton gravity > > Nothing is really static. The magnets on you refrigerator > door depend on the motion of charges. Whats with the 1/r**2 potential in QM - not static ? > > force containd velocity dependent masses. I already figured out here in > > this group that this is sufficient to obtain [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > No... the case for a space-time continuum is logically > absurd. An incorrect resolution of Maxwell/Galilean fields My theory is a modified special relativistic one. So the for the gravito Maxwell type still has to be addjusted to SRT needs. That is not done yet. The main difference to the special relativistic treatment of electrodynamics is that the mass density ( in opposite to the charge density ) is dependent on velocity. So you have other field transforms of the gravitomagnetic field than in the analogon of SRT electrodynamics. > doesn't imply anything about the cosmos. > http://www.iisc.ernet.in/currsci/dec252005/2009.pdf Yes it does. That is the only logically compatible with special relativity and assuming GR is wrong. > > remaining: The universe is flat and infinite (unbound Universe). Because > > it had an origin in time, the radius [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > Probably not: > http://www.chem.purdue.edu/gchelp/liquids/inddip.html That is a good question. My theory does not have dipoles because mass is always positive. Thank you for that question. But this is not only electrodynamics !!!!!! There are big differences. > > 6. There are no Black holes at all, but in this theory very heavy masses are > > also black because the light bending > Light doesn't bend. It refracts: > http://www.physics.yorku.ca/undergrad_programme/highsch/Feynm4.html not if you have everywhere gravity - vacuum. I said No dispersion ! > > effect or light attraction due to the photons dynamic mass leads to the > > effect that most photons cant leave [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > is no reason to belive a more complex mode of induction > will be any more managable. Wrong. There are no dipoles ! Your argue would be right if there would be negative masses. > > These are the main perspectives of the new world that awaits us. Einsteins > > fears that GR could be wrong were [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > Correct GPS launch presets draw on the efficacy of the > of the model so you can't say it is "wrong". now my theory differs from GR. Shall i say GR is right ? josefmatz@arcor.de > Sue... > > > > Josef Matz > > > > > I am prognosting End of GR before the year 2006 is over. > > > > > [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > > what has this to do with ? That is the basis for the Biot-Savart law in Maxwell's equations. http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teaching/em/lectures/node50.html > > > The major perspectives of this in difference to electrodynamics are: > > > 1. There is no gravity index, there are no gravitons, which in the case [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > and therefore no spin1 - graviton at all. At least not on macroskopic and on > atomic level. I think you will find the word Mesosccopic in one of Tajmar's papers. That is not to different than our notions of light. The terms big and little are relative to the size of the interacting entities or domains. > > > 2. Because the mass density or simple just density is velocity > dependent, [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Whats with the 1/r**2 potential in QM - not static ? Ahhh! Coulomb force. I tho't of that just as I hit the send button. Yes we can't really identify any moving part of what fundament particles electrons and positrons. Yet we do *seem* to have to give them a spin idenety. I suppose if that could be completly divorced of all spin-orbit couplings that would truly be static. OTOH there is always the possiblity that we'll discover a galley full of gossamer winged fairies toiling at the oars of electrons and positrons so have to keep an open mind when we use the term static. :o) > > > force containd velocity dependent masses. I already figured out here > in [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > transforms of the gravitomagnetic field than in the analogon of SRT > electrodynamics. A study comparing magnetism and London forces might convince you to abandon expressing energy as electromagnetism.... ...Ah! you used the word electrodynamics not electromagnetism so perhaps you've already taken that tack. > > doesn't imply anything about the cosmos. > > http://www.iisc.ernet.in/currsci/dec252005/2009.pdf > > Yes it does. That is the only logically compatible with special relativity > and assuming GR is wrong. If someone formulates Ohm's law incorrectly would you be claiming the error gives vast cosmological insight? > > > remaining: The universe is flat and infinite (unbound Universe). > Because [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > Thank you for that question. But this is not only electrodynamics !!!!!! > There are big differences. Just take all the magnets and falling things and light out of your therory and it should be fine. ;-) > > > 6. There are no Black holes at all, but in this theory very heavy masses > are [quoted text clipped - 37 lines] > > now my theory differs from GR. Shall i say GR is right ? I think you need some dipoles in your theory before you say anything about GR ;-) http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teaching/em/lectures/lectures.html http://web.mit.edu/8.02t/www/802TEAL3D/teal_tour.htm http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiple_integral Sue... > josefmatz@arcor.de > > > Sue... > > > > > > Josef Matz > > My theory is a modified special relativistic one. So the for the gravito > > Maxwell type still has to be addjusted [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > ...Ah! you used the word electrodynamics not electromagnetism > so perhaps you've already taken that tack. right. You have now understood that i just want to calculate the forces in point masses and point photons. That is all and it has not to do so much with electromagnetism. That is right. > > > doesn't imply anything about the cosmos. > > > http://www.iisc.ernet.in/currsci/dec252005/2009.pdf [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > If someone formulates Ohm's law incorrectly would you be > claiming the error gives vast cosmological insight? Good question: Without dispersion no Ohms law. Simple answer. > > > > remaining: The universe is flat and infinite (unbound Universe). > > Because [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > Just take all the magnets and falling things and light out of > your therory and it should be fine. ;-) That is my theory on the gravity forces yes. Thanks. Just one further comment:Another big difference to electrodynamics is, that the "dielectricity constant" of gravito Maxwell is essentially proportional to - 1/G G is the gravitation constant. Important is the sign. The sign is opposed to electrodynamics ! You are a good discussion partner Thanks Josef Another big difference to electrodynamics is, that the "dielectricity constant" of gravito Maxwell is essentially proportional to - 1/G G is the gravitation constant. Important is the sign. The sign is opposed to electrodynamics ! > > > > > I am prognosting End of GR before the year 2006 is over. > > > > > [quoted text clipped - 37 lines] > > That is right. Therefore i think that there is macroskopic gravity it should be : there is no gravity disperion > dispersion. Thats what i think > and therefore no spin1 - graviton at all. At least not on macroskopic and on [quoted text clipped - 104 lines] > > > > > > Josef Matz > Think logic. If this effect takes place as described, then you can advance > the old static potential theory for gravity > to a sort of gravity maxwell equations.where the charge density is replaced > by the mass density. How do you propose to account for frame draging (an observed effect) with a potential model of gravity? > > Think logic. If this effect takes place as described, then you can advance > > the old static potential theory for gravity [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > How do you propose to account for frame draging (an observed effect) > with a potential model of gravity? Do you mean light bending effect ? or lenght contraction ? > http://www.esa.int/esaCP/SEM0L6OVGJE_index_0.html > > Yes? I have not studied Podkletnov's experiment: http://www.americanantigravity.com/podkletnov.html ...very thorughly but it *appears* to be about the same as a quantum tweezer effect whereby domains in the material at both ends of the path are aligned to a common laser or EM source. To explain naturally occuring gravity with an induction principle, it must be shown that the materials can align each other's domains as in London or Van der Waal forces over a long-range path. IOW without the axis of symetery that accompanies magnetic or electromagnetic effects. You might take a close look at Podkletnov's pages looking specifically for terms like London coupling or coherrent matter. Strictly speaking the wound rotor and wound stator of a motor are are coherrent matter... but they are aligned by the current in the windings and in only 2 dimensions. In a London type attraction the materials align each other in all three dimensions for an isotropic effect. http://www.chem.purdue.edu/gchelp/liquids/inddip.html I think you'll find that distingushes the Tajmar related experiment. Sue... |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2009 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.