[General] Gravity
Albrecht Giese
genmail at a-giese.de
Fri Aug 26 06:57:49 PDT 2016
Hi John D:
it is only a little thing but I think it is anyway important, so here again:
The equation c=1/√(ε₀μ₀) is mathematically correct but physically a bit
confusing. One should better say: √μ₀=1/c√(ε₀). Reason is that the speed
of light c is not defined by ε₀μ₀, but μ₀ (i.e. magnetism) is caused and
so defined by the limitation of the speed of light. It is known since
long time that magnetism is a seeming side effect of the electric field
in the way that temporal offsets at a moving electric field with their
relativistic effects cause the impression that there is something
different than the electric field, i.e. magnetism.
For those not familiar with this fact I refer to the well known book
"Special Relativity" of P. French, and for more details to the book:
"Classical Electromagnetism via Relativity" by W. G. Rosser.
It is true that the speed of light varies e.g. in a gravitational field.
And so the permeability has to change in a gravitational field.
I fully agree to your statement that the variation of c in a
gravitational field causes the gravitational attraction. That is (also)
my model of gravity, but I did not notice before that someone else has
the same understanding.
Regards
Albrecht Giese
Am 26.08.2016 um 09:01 schrieb John Duffield:
>
> Chip:
>
> Good stuff. The speed of light in space is given as c = 1/√(ε₀μ₀).
> There’s a reciprocal because permittivity is a how-easy measure rather
> than a how-difficult measure, but apart from that IMHO it’s no
> different to v = √(μ/ρ). Vacuum permittivity and permeability are said
> to be constant, but they aren’t. The speed of light is spatially
> variable in the room you’re in. If it wasn’t, light wouldn’t curve and
> your pencil wouldn’t fall down. As for the speed of gravity, I don’t
> have a strong view on that. But I do have a strong view on this: /at
> the event horizon, the speed of light is zero/. That’s why the
> vertical light beam can’t get out. That’s why the black hole is black.
>
> Regards
>
> John D
>
> *From:*General
> [mailto:general-bounces+johnduffield=btconnect.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org]
> *On Behalf Of *Chip Akins
> *Sent:* 25 August 2016 22:15
> *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, 𝜇is the transverse modulus of the
> medium, and 𝜌is 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
> sayshere
> <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&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&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&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 phys at a-giese.de
> <a href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/phys%40a-giese.de?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1">
> Click here to unsubscribe
> </a>
---
Diese E-Mail wurde von Avast Antivirus-Software auf Viren geprüft.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/pipermail/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/attachments/20160826/d59adc4a/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/20160826/d59adc4a/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/20160826/d59adc4a/attachment-0001.png>
More information about the General
mailing list