[General] Gravity

Thu Aug 25 14:41:22 PDT 2016

Hi Vladimir

Here is one reference for the speed of gravity and pulsars.

The speed of gravity – What the experiments say – attached.

Chip

From: Chip Akins [mailto:chipakins at gmail.com] 
Sent: Thursday, August 25, 2016 4:15 PM
To: 'Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion' <general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org>
Subject: RE: [General] Gravity

Hi John D and Vladimir

As it turns out gravity needs to be 10000 to 20000 times as fast as light in order for the orbits of the pulsars to be as we observe.

If most of the mass of a black hole is inside the “event horizon” then how does the huge gravity field escape?  It seem that all of the black holes gravity escapes the event horizon with no problem.

For a black hole to have gravity which is related to its mass then gravity HAS to travel faster than light.

Charge (the Coulomb field) also travels “almost instantaneously” (10000 to 20000 times the speed of light).

Yes John D.  Transverse (S) waves travel at the velocity:

Where v is velocity of propagation, 𝜇 is the transverse modulus of the medium, and 𝜌 is the “density” of the medium.

And longitudinal (P) waves travel at the velocity:

Where K is the bulk or longitudinal modulus.

We have never found a medium which supports transverse waves and does not support longitudinal waves. Longitudinal waves are always faster, and can be orders of magnitude faster.

Chip

From: General [mailto:general-bounces+chipakins=gmail.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org] On Behalf Of John Duffield
Sent: Thursday, August 25, 2016 1:26 PM
To: 'Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion' <general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org <mailto:general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org> >
Subject: Re: [General] Gravity

Chip:

I don’t think it’s heresy. See hyperphysics <http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/waves/seismic.html> : “S waves travel typically 60% of the speed of P waves”. 

I wouldn’t bat an eyelid if different types of waves in space travelled at different speeds too. 

But I have to say I’m not totally convinced by the recent LIGO news. 

Regards

John

From: General [mailto:general-bounces+johnduffield=btconnect.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org] On Behalf Of Vladimir Tamari
Sent: 25 August 2016 16:14
To: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion <general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org <mailto:general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org> >
Subject: Re: [General] Gravity

Chip

The pulsars analysis  sounds interesting - a reference would be appreciated. Would it change calculation if one considers that just as light slows down in a gravitational field (as John D pointed out) gravity itself would slow down in its own field. A gravitational wave starts out sluggish just after starting out at the edge of the black holes and reach c in empty space?

Here is a thought: Following my own arguments would measuring light velocity as c in the Earth's gravitational field mean it is larger in space?!

Cheers

Vladimir
_____________________

vladimirtamari.com <http://vladimirtamari.com> 

On Aug 25, 2016, at 7:55 PM, Chip Akins <chipakins at gmail.com <mailto:chipakins at gmail.com> > wrote:

Hi All

The issue of gravity is a bit more involved than the density of electromagnetic fields.

When we study binary pulsars, we see orbits which are much more stable than they would be if gravity traveled at the speed of electromagnetic fields. Studying pulsars is important because if the speed of gravity is the same as the speed of light these pulsars would change their orbits at a specific rate, but they do not. The “static field” argument does not apply to pulsars which are moving massive bodies with their gravitational centers constantly changing. Studying pulsars clearly indicates that gravity is much faster than light (electromagnetic fields).

It seems that gravity may be the result of the Coulomb field (electric charge) density instead of electromagnetic field density. (There is a significant difference between the Coulomb field and electromagnetic fields). 

I have quoted two experiments on this forum before, conducted in Italy, which indicate that the Coulomb field (charge) is much faster than the speed of light, just a Feynman found in one of his papers.

While moving charge creates electromagnetic fields, charge is not the same as an electromagnetic field. It is not even the same as the E portion of the EM field. Charge is a quantized quantity, EM radiation may be any magnitude.

There are things in this universe which travel much faster than light.

I know some will consider these statements to be “heresy”, but take a good look at the experimental evidence and the issue of binary pulsars.

Happy to provide references for those interested.

Chip

From: General [mailto:general-bounces+chipakins=gmail.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org] On Behalf Of John Duffield
Sent: Thursday, August 25, 2016 2:08 AM
To: 'Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion' <general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org <mailto:general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org> >
Subject: Re: [General] Gravity

Vlad:

It’s the Einstein digital papers. See this <http://einsteinpapers.press.princeton.edu/vol7-trans/156?highlightText=%22spatially%20variable%22> . The first page is here <http://einsteinpapers.press.princeton.edu/vol7-trans/129?ajax> . Einstein was talking about the “Fundamental Ideas and Methods of the Theory of Relativity, Presented in Their Development”.

Note though that Einstein wasn’t talking in terms of  “a car decelerating because it takes a curve”. He was talking about a car’s path curving to the left because the speed of its wheels on the left is less than the speed of its wheels on the right. Imagine you’re driving down a country road. The road is muddy on the left, so the car pulls left. We steer tanks in this fashion. 

Your paper reminds me of Inhomogeneous Vaccuum, an Alternative Interpretation of Curved Spacetime. See attached.   

<image002.jpg>

Regards

John 

From: General [mailto:general-bounces+johnduffield=btconnect.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org] On Behalf Of Vladimir Tamari
Sent: 25 August 2016 03:04
To: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion <general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org <mailto:general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org> >
Subject: Re: [General] Gravity

Very good Grahame

John D. What is the book you quoted about light speed varying? 

Yes Einstein admitted that the speed of light had to vary, as in mechanics the speed slows down with curvature - that is the link between gravity and acceleration - actually deceleration when a car takes a curve. Unfortunately the whole unnecessarily complex structure of General Relativity equations remained expressed in the language of variable spacetime!

In my 1993 paper United Dipole Field I show how curvature of light rays ie gravity occured in the variable refractive index of a dipole. http://vladimirtamari.com/United-Dipole-Field-Tamari.pdf

Here is a figure from the Dipole paper. I generalized this idea in my Beautiful Universe model for an entire Universe made up of such dipoles.

Cheers

Vladimir

<image003.jpg>

Cheers

Vladimir

_____________________

vladimirtamari.com <http://vladimirtamari.com> 

On Aug 25, 2016, at 2:47 AM, John Duffield <johnduffield at btconnect.com <mailto:johnduffield at btconnect.com> > wrote:

Grahame:

Sorry I haven’t got back to you on your paper yet, I’ve been busy. But note that Einstein never said light curves because spacetime was curved. He said light curves because the speed of light varies with position. 

<image001.jpg>

Light curves for the same reason sonar waves curve.

<image002.gif>

Regards

JohnD

From: General [mailto:general-bounces+johnduffield=btconnect.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org] On Behalf Of Dr Grahame Blackwell
Sent: 23 August 2016 14:38
To: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion <general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org <mailto:general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org> >
Subject: Re: [General] Gravity

Dear Chandra, John D, John H, Wolf and others,

Thanks, Chandra, for your response.  I totally agree that the answer to the gravitation issue (as to so many others) involves reverse engineering the system we refer to as reality.  More on that below.  (I also find myself in strong agreement with your views on 'the spacetime continuum'.)

John D, I agree also the the 'curvature' of spacetime is in fact inhomogeneity of the electromagnetic field density - which also appears to concur with Hammond's view.  More on this also below.

Wolf, I understand your preference for considering the interplay of electricity and gravity/inertia; however, given that gravitation is an effect wholly engendered by particles of matter, it seems most unlikely that we're going to understand gravity without getting a clear grip on those particles.

The SR 'explanation' of gravitation as 'curvature of spacetime' is in fact no explanation at all - it says nothing about WHAT is being curved, HOW it's being curved, WHAT it is about matter that causes that curvature or WHY light and material objects move in accordance with that 'curvature'.  It's a useful picture, certainly, but in terms of explanation it appears to add little to Newton's action-at-a-distance (other than relativistic effects).

So let's try a bit of that reverse systems engineering:

Fact (1): It's known (and has been since at least 1934) that particles of matter are (time-varying) electromagnetic constructs.

Fact (2): Given fact (1), and given that electromagnetic field effects drop off inverse-quadratically in relation to the distance from their source, it follows that material particles will have a presence that likewise drops off as the inverse square of distance; that presence is detectable - we refer to it by two names: gravitation and electrical charge.

Fact (3): In this very real sense every particle of matter is in fact unlimited spatially in its extent; the limitations that we attribute to such particles are in fact limitations of our own perception, which is only capable of detecting them through 'virtual photon' interactions, which are interactions between the central 'cores' (loops) of particles being sensed and particles doing the sensing.

Fact (4):  Given facts (1) - (3), it follows that the whole of space will be permeated by the totality of (time-varying) electromagnetic field effects from all the particles in the universe, each contributing in accordance with the inverse square law; given also the evening out of 'positive' and 'negative' charge effects on a macroscopic scale, these field effects constitute what we refer to as 'the universal gravitational field'.

Fact (5):  That field will vary in intensity in accordance with distance from the various massive bodies that form it; this varying intensity of electromagnetic field effects will influence the behaviour of other electromagnetic constructs passing through that field, i.e. ensembles of particles that form massive bodies; (it is implicit in this, of course, that the principle of coherent superposition of linear photons won't apply to these non-linear time-varying electromagnetic field effects - i.e.they will influence each other through a complex process of mutual interference).

Fact (6):  This varying density of field effects will give this continuum a 'shape' defined by the surfaces of equal intensity of those effects; these 3-D contours will effectively determine the motion of electromagnetic constructs - light, particles - through that medium; (any scuba diver who has seen or felt a thermocline in water will have a good analogy to work from here).

Fact (7): It's implicit, and would necessarily be the case, that, although electrostatic charge 'cancel out' if they are equal and opposite, the electromagnetic field effects giving rise to those charges will in fact be additive across the cosmos; likewise, though gravitational 'pull' from opposing directions may appear to cancel out, there may still be a strong gravitational field in that location - think of a plateau high on a great mountain, with a small hillock on that platea.

Fact (8):  Substantial supporting detail for this perspective on gravitation can be found in my paper 'Cosmic System Dynamics', posted with my email of 20th August.

A couple of points as a postscript:

(a)  This means that we ourselves, being ensembles of material particles, actually extend across the whole cosmos; this may prove relevant;

(b)  The entire cosmos is in fact one electromagnetic entity; from the QM point of view there is just ONE wavefunction, spanning the whole universe: wavefunctions for single particles or ensembles of particles are in fact local approximations to this universal wavefunction, in which terms for more distant influences have been ignored as being insignificant; this could well have something to say about 'quantum randomness', which may in fact be those other influences tipping the balance (this is also expanded upon in my book).

Best regards to all,

Grahame

----- Original Message ----- 

From: Roychoudhuri, Chandra <mailto:chandra.roychoudhuri at uconn.edu>  

To: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion <mailto:general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org>  ; Roychoudhuri, Chandra <mailto:chandra.roychoudhuri at uconn.edu>  ; Chandra UConn <mailto:chandra at phys.uconn.edu>  

Sent: Sunday, August 21, 2016 3:54 PM

Subject: Re: [General] Gravity and ultraweak-photonemission

Grahame: I like your spirit, the mode of thinking. I call it ergently needed "Evolution Process Congruent Thinking", which I sometimes express as, "Reverse System Engineering Thinking".

My papers can be downloaded from the web: phy.ucon.edu <http://phy.ucon.edu>  -- faculty -- research; the link is below my image.

Keep up the good spirit.

Chandra. 

Sent via the Samsung Galaxy S® 5 ACTIVE™, an AT&T 4G LTE smartphone

-------- Original message --------
From: Dr Grahame Blackwell <grahame at starweave.com <mailto:grahame at starweave.com> > 
Date: 8/21/2016 8:04 AM (GMT-05:00) 
To: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion <general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org <mailto:general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org> > 
Subject: Re: [General] Gravity and ultraweak-photonemission 

Thanks John,

I'm more than ever convinced that unless we can get a better grasp of what 'space-time' actually IS - which fundamentally means a proper understanding of gravitation - then our species is at very serious risk of imploding and taking much (most?) of life on this planet with us.  For the past century or more we've been looking inward rather than outward; humankind is essentally an outward-looking race (the very word 'race' implies that!), and without somewhere to look outward TO we tend to flounder and bicker - just look around the planet today!  The world is so vastly overcrowded now, and set to be increasingly more so, with numerous environmental issues to compound the problem.  We need new horizons, new frontiers, more than we ever did in the time of Vasco de Gama and Columbus!

[As an aside, I hope we'd also be rather more considerate of any indigenous lifeforms that those who followed Columbus!]

That's a major reason why I've offered my proposal on gravitation for consideration.  If we don't crack this one, VERY soon, we may run out of time, lebensraum AND the ability to deal with the pressure-cooker environment we've created for ourselves.  David Attenborough is proposing that we seriously limit population growth; the Chinese have tried that and it didn't work - and it never will; the 'prime directive' built into our makeup by evolution is procreation.  Our planet is like a dandelion head full of seeds ready to fly - we've even been exploring the heavens around us for places to fly TO!  What we need now is the way to do it; I earnestly believe that the way to do it is there in a greater understanding of matter, space-time and gravitation - but not as long as the established scientific community insists on hanging on to outdated paradigms and doggedly refuses to even look at things from a new perspective.

Ok, off my soap-box now.  But I do really hope that a few of you out there will take a look at my paper posted with my last email; if there's something clearly wrong with it, please tell me - if not, please tell others! Thanks.

Grahame

----- Original Message ----- 

From: John Duffield <mailto:johnduffield at btconnect.com>  

To: 'Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion' <mailto:general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org>  

Sent: Saturday, August 20, 2016 6:04 PM

Subject: Re: [General] Gravity and ultraweak-photonemission

Grahame:

I share your general sentiment. I’ll read through your paper and get back to you. Meanwhile I rather think the “shake the rug” waves are light waves. A gravitational field is a place where space is inhomogeneous, not curved. See what Percy Hammond says here <http://www.compumag.org/jsite/images/stories/newsletter/ICS-99-06-2-Hammond.pdf> : "We conclude that the field describes the curvature that characterizes the electromagnetic interaction". 

Regards

John D

From: General [mailto:general-bounces+johnduffield=btconnect.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org] On Behalf Of Dr Grahame Blackwell
Sent: 20 August 2016 16:37
To: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion <general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org <mailto:general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org> >
Subject: Re: [General] Gravity and ultraweak-photonemission

Hi Wolfgang, John M, John D, Hubert, Vladimir, Beverly et al.,

There appear to be very strong reasons to believe that gravitation is in fact an EM effect.  If one starts from the premise that elementary particles are themselves electromagnetic constructs then it's almost a foregone conclusion.  That premise was strongly evidenced by Landau & Lifshits in Sov. Phys., 1934, reinforced by Breit & Wheeler later that same year and proved beyond all reasonable doubt at SLAC in 1997 by Burke et al. (Phys Rev Lett 79, pp1626-9).

It's at times somewhat paradoxical to me that physicists (present company excepted!) all too often go looking for complicated explanations when there's a simple one staring them in the face.  If one simply sees the force of attraction between unlike unit charges as being minutely greater than the force of repulsion between like charges - and there's no known reason why they should be identical (in fact it's likely that they won't) - then gravitation drops out totally naturally as the difference between those two effects.  This would seem to sit well with Occam's razor since it eliminates the need for one otherwise totally unexplained cosmic force at a stroke.  We know that every nucleon is made up of a mix of particles of opposing charge (quarks) to give an overall charge; it seems eminently likely that even those quarks are formed from energies that, taken separately, would give rise to either positive or negative charge elements to give the overall charge for a quark - this links the gravitational effect of a particle directly to its total energy content and so to its total mass.

I've attached a copy of my paper, published in 'Kybernetes' five years ago, that details this proposal for gravitation.  You'll see that it posits the notion that space(-time) has a 'texture' (also explaining its 'stiffness' and the 'curvature of spacetime') given by the summation of all time-varying EM field effects emanating from all of the material particles in the universe - this of course draws on the fact that electromagnetic fields are unlimited in their reach (and electromagnetic potential is unblockable - Aharonov-Bohm Effect), i.e. that what we experience as a localised particle is just the 'core', so to speak, of an electromagnetic field effect unlimited in its extent.  The (-time) in brackets above reflects the fact that this 'texture' of this 'neo-aether' is continually varying as celestial bodies (and groups of celestial bodies) are themselves in continuous motion, so also is their contribution to this 'textured' continuum.

I'd be most interested in any feedback on this proposal, including of course any clear reasons (if any such exist) why it may not be a feasible proposition.  You'll note that this concept includes a pretty thorough explanation for every aspect of the Equivalence Principle as included in GR.  There's also the strong implication that the gravity waves recently detected are themselves electromagnetic constructs (since the fabric of spacetime is itself EM in nature, and so susceptible to being 'shaken like a rug' by such waves); this may have something to say to Beverly's field of interest, since tidal forces are themselves in a sense a pale shadow of gravity waves.

Thanks all,

Grahame

  _____  

_______________________________________________
If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at grahame at starweave.com <mailto:grahame at starweave.com> 
<a href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/grahame%40starweave.com?unsub=1 <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/grahame%40starweave.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1> &unsubconfirm=1">
Click here to unsubscribe
</a>

_______________________________________________
If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at vladimirtamari at hotmail.com <mailto:vladimirtamari at hotmail.com> 
<a href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/vladimirtamari%40hotmail.com?unsub=1 <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/vladimirtamari%40hotmail.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1> &unsubconfirm=1">
Click here to unsubscribe
</a>

_______________________________________________
If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at vladimirtamari at hotmail.com <mailto:vladimirtamari at hotmail.com> 
<a href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/vladimirtamari%40hotmail.com?unsub=1 <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/vladimirtamari%40hotmail.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1> &unsubconfirm=1">
Click here to unsubscribe
</a>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/pipermail/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/attachments/20160825/8e44d7a4/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: image/png
Size: 615 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/pipermail/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/attachments/20160825/8e44d7a4/attachment.png>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: image/png
Size: 1023 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/pipermail/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/attachments/20160825/8e44d7a4/attachment-0001.png>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: The Speed of Gravity - What the Experiments Say.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 712704 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/pipermail/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/attachments/20160825/8e44d7a4/attachment.pdf>