I think it is quite possible to design experiments involving electric and magnetic fields in which the Law of Conservation of Momentum (p) is evidently violated, and others in which the Law of Conservation of Angular Momentum is violated. I'll call these "Momentum (p) Conservation Anomalies". I think these are original experiments -- AFAIK, no one else has discussed such experiments. (If anyone finds a prior source, kindly let me know the source/reference!)
We'll lead up to that.
Let's start with the following - consider the finite time required for light to travel from the sun to the earth, a distance of roughly 150 million kilometers. The speed of light is very close to 300,000 km/second. So if we simply divide the distance by the speed of light, we find that light travels from the sun to the earth in 150 MKm/300 km/sec = 500 seconds = 8 minutes 20 seconds. (This is an approximate number, for further details see: http://phys.org/news/2013-04-sunlight-earth.html )
So when we see the sun, we are looking back in time 8 minutes 20 seconds. If the sun suddenly stopped emitting photons (light), we would not know about it until 8 min 20s later when the sun's last-gasp photons finally reached the earth.
Now the sun is extremely large and massive and its gravity affects the earth, holding it in an elliptical orbit around the sun. The motion of the earth is somewhat like a ball on a string, rotating around a central peg in a circle and held in that circular orbit by the pull of the string. (The earth's orbit is elliptical but nearly circular, and the force keeping it in orbit is gravity.)
Here's a video showing a ball moving in a circle held by a string - and what happens when the string is cut.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xxrM5tv_RNI
So let's apply this to the sun... in a thought experiment.
Let's say the sun simply disappears in this thought experiment - how long would it take for the last-gasp photons to reach the earth, and for the sky to go dark?
Also, how long would it take for the earth to no longer "feel" the gravitational pull of the now-missing sun?
Some might think these changes would be felt instantaneously - but it is not so. There is a finite speed at which signals travel, the maximum being the speed of light. And as we noted earlier, it would take 8m20s for the light to travel to the earth - and so at least that long for the "missing gravitational field" to be experienced by the earth. The prevailing paradigm iirc states that changes in gravitational fields propagate at the speed of light.
Agreed?
If so, we can go on to electric and magnetic fields, and p-conservation anomalies.
Quote from: PhysicsProf on 2016.01.14, 15:03:55
The prevailing paradigm iirc states that changes in gravitational fields propagate at the speed of light.
Agreed?
If so, we can go on to electric and magnetic fields, and p-conservation anomalies.
Not quite ready to move on yet Professor, need to flesh out the definitions and establish some common ground of understanding.
A copy/paste reference to aid study:
Updated 2011 by Steve Carlip, and 1998 by Steve Carlip, Matthew Wiener and Geoffrey Landis.
Original by Steve Carlip.
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/GR/grav_speed.html
Does Gravity Travel at the Speed of Light?To begin with, the speed of gravity has not been measured directly in the laboratory—the gravitational interaction is too weak, and such an experiment is beyond present technological capabilities. The "speed of gravity" must therefore be deduced from astronomical observations, and the answer depends on what model of gravity one uses to describe those observations.
In the simple newtonian model, gravity propagates instantaneously: the force exerted by a massive object points directly toward that object's present position. For example, even though the Sun is 500 light seconds from the Earth, newtonian gravity describes a force on Earth directed towards the Sun's position "now," not its position 500 seconds ago. Putting a "light travel delay" (technically called "retardation") into newtonian gravity would make orbits unstable, leading to predictions that clearly contradict Solar System observations.
In general relativity, on the other hand, gravity propagates at the speed of light; that is, the motion of a massive object creates a distortion in the curvature of spacetime that moves outward at light speed. This might seem to contradict the Solar System observations described above, but remember that general relativity is conceptually very different from newtonian gravity, so a direct comparison is not so simple. Strictly speaking, gravity is not a "force" in general relativity, and a description in terms of speed and direction can be tricky. For weak fields, though, one can describe the theory in a sort of newtonian language. In that case, one finds that the "force" in GR is not quite central—it does not point directly towards the source of the gravitational field—and that it depends on velocity as well as position. The net result is that the effect of propagation delay is almost exactly cancelled, and general relativity very nearly reproduces the newtonian result.
This cancellation may seem less strange if one notes that a similar effect occurs in electromagnetism. If a charged particle is moving at a constant velocity, it exerts a force that points toward its present position, not its retarded position, even though electromagnetic interactions certainly move at the speed of light. Here, as in general relativity, subtleties in the nature of the interaction "conspire" to disguise the effect of propagation delay. It should be emphasized that in both electromagnetism and general relativity, this effect is not put in ad hoc but comes out of the equations. Also, the cancellation is nearly exact only for constant velocities. If a charged particle or a gravitating mass suddenly accelerates, the change in the electric or gravitational field propagates outward at the speed of light.
Since this point can be confusing, it's worth exploring a little further, in a slightly more technical manner. Consider two bodies—call them A and B—held in orbit by either electrical or gravitational attraction. As long as the force on A points directly towards B and vice versa, a stable orbit is possible. If the force on A points instead towards the retarded (propagation-time-delayed) position of B, on the other hand, the effect is to add a new component of force in the direction of A's motion, causing instability of the orbit. This instability, in turn, leads to a change in the mechanical angular momentum of the A-B system. But total angular momentum is conserved, so this change can only occur if some of the angular momentum of the A-B system is carried away by electromagnetic or gravitational radiation.
Now, in electrodynamics, a charge moving at a constant velocity does not radiate. Technically, the lowest-order radiation is dipole radiation, and the radiated power depends on the second time derivative of the electric dipole moment; two time derivatives give acceleration. So, to the extent that A's motion can be approximated as motion at a constant velocity, A cannot lose angular momentum. For the theory to be consistent, there must therefore be compensating terms that partially cancel the instability of the orbit caused by retardation. This is exactly what happens; a calculation shows that the force on A points not towards B's retarded position, but towards B's "linearly extrapolated" retarded position.
In general relativity, roughly speaking, a mass moving at a constant acceleration does not radiate. Here, the lowest order radiation is quadrupole radiation, and the radiated power depends on the third time derivative of the mass quadrupole moment. (The full picture is slightly more complex, since one cannot have a single, isolated accelerating mass; whatever it is that causes the acceleration also has a gravitational field, and its field must be taken into account.) For consistency, just as in the case of electromagnetism, a cancellation of the effect of retardation must occur, but it must now be even more complete—that is, it must hold to a higher power of v/c. This is exactly what one finds when one solves the equations of motion in general relativity.
While current observations do not yet provide a direct model-independent measurement of the speed of gravity, a test within the framework of general relativity can be made by observing the binary pulsar PSR 1913+16. The orbit of this binary system is gradually decaying, and this behavior is attributed to the loss of energy due to escaping gravitational radiation. But in any field theory, radiation is intimately related to the finite velocity of field propagation, and the orbital changes due to gravitational radiation can equivalently be viewed as damping caused by the finite propagation speed. (In the discussion above, this damping represents a failure of the "retardation" and "noncentral, velocity-dependent" effects to completely cancel.)
The rate of this damping can be computed, and one finds that it depends sensitively on the speed of gravity. The fact that gravitational damping is measured at all is a strong indication that the propagation speed of gravity is not infinite. If the calculational framework of general relativity is accepted, the damping can be used to calculate the speed, and the actual measurement confirms that the speed of gravity is equal to the speed of light to within 1%. (Measurements of at least one other binary pulsar system, PSR B1534+12, confirm this result, although so far with less precision.)
Are there future prospects for a direct measurement of the speed of gravity? One possibility would involve detection of gravitational waves from a supernova. The detection of gravitational radiation in the same time frame as a neutrino burst, followed by a later visual identification of a supernova, would be considered strong experimental evidence for the speed of gravity being equal to the speed of light. However, unless a very nearby supernova occurs soon, it will be some time before gravitational wave detectors are expected to be sensitive enough to perform such a test.
See also the section on gravitational radiation.
References
There seems to be no nontechnical reference on this subject. For technical references, see
T. Damour, in Three Hundred Years of Gravitation, S.W. Hawking and W. Israel, editors (Cambridge Univ. Press, 1987).
S. Carlip, "Aberration and the Speed of Gravity," Phys. Lett. A267 (2000) 81–87, http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/9909087.
For a good reference to the electromagnetic case, see
R.P. Feynman, R.B. Leighton, and M. Sands, The Feynman Lectures on Physics, Chapter II-21 (Addison-Wesley, 1989).
Good stuff! I thoroughly enjoyed the article by Steve Carlip. Thanks, EApe!
So we'll take that expt'l evidence that gravity propagates at the speed of light c - and we expect that E and B fields do so also.
Quote from: EMdevices on 2016.01.14, 15:27:02
Hi professor, good topic. I'm no astrophysicist, but I remember reading a paper that was trying to say gravity acts instantly, or else observed binary stars would fly apart, because if there is a delay the gravity pull would have a slight vector component in the direction of motion increasing the velocity.
I also remember reading about experiments that violate conservation of momentum, I'll have to do some research and get back. Some say a preceding gyro violates this law because it does't fall over, but I'm not sure I fully agree.
EApe's paper addresses part 1 above.
This is exciting - "I also remember reading about experiments that violate conservation of momentum, I'll have to do some research and get back."
Please do!!
I'll go ahead and post my thought experiment + some variations. Maybe somebody thought of this before...?
The experiment is planned along the following lines. Instead of the sun, we have sphere A (may later choose another shape) which is charged to +Q, thus have electric field E-A all around it. At a certain time T0, the charge is quickly drained from A.
At that same time T0, a second sphere B 1 foot (1 nanosecond for light) is quickly charged up, to -Q. It feels the field E-A which is still present as it charges up, so it is pulled towards A, being of opposite charge.
However, the field forming from B, namely E-B, reaches sphere A when that sphere has been depleted of its charge (we'll assume sufficient time for charge on A to be zero; but even if just somewhat depleted of charge, the experiment still works). Hence, B is pulled towards A, but A is NOT pulled towards B.
The result is an imbalanced force, in the direction towards A. Now if both A and B are fixed on a boat which is free to move, it will move - picking up a momentum which was zero before. It appears that momentum is not conserved.
Alternatively, A and B could be mounted on the edge of a large wheel which is free to spin - and due to the force on B, the wheel starts spinning. In which case, angular momentum is evidently not conserved. (This is probably the easier experiment to do in a lab setting.)
The key is in the timing and the finite time for electric fields to propagate - just as we saw above with the sun-earth system and finite time for light and gravitational fields to propagate.
Note that distances A-B and charge (+ or -) can be varied. Also, magnetic fields can be used in lieu of electric fields - e.g., using a loop or coil of wire with a current flowing for A, cut off at time T0, and a second loop B with a current starting up at T0. Depending on the directions of the currents, the force on B may be attractive or repulsive.
In more practical terms, B is found in the "full-strength" field from A whereas the decreasing charge on A is "found" by the "emerging" field from B, so there is an imbalanced force even if the charge on A is not zero.
Say there is just a 5% difference in force, but the pulses to A and B are in the megahertz range -- then a small imbalanced force each cycle will add up to a larger (presumably measurable) force over time.
Several variations of the experiment can be imagined and tested, to verify the effect.
Quote from: PhysicsProf on 2016.01.14, 21:23:37
Hence, B is pulled towards A, but A is NOT pulled towards B.
I think the mainstream has invented
Liénard–Wiechert potentials (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Li%C3%A9nard%E2%80%93Wiechert_potential) especially so that does not happen.
I think your thought experiment would violate Newton's third law Professor:
http://www.grc.nasa.gov/WWW/K-12/airplane/newton3.html
Sir Isaac Newton first presented his three laws of motion in the "Principia Mathematica Philosophiae Naturalis" in 1686. His third law states that for every action (force) in nature there is an equal and opposite reaction. In other words, if object A exerts a force on object B, then object B also exerts an equal and opposite force on object A. Notice that the forces are exerted on different objects.
For every action, there is an equal and opposite re-action. If an electromagnetic field coupling between two bodies occurs in a vacuum, and both mass's are equal and free to move, they will accelerate toward each other with equal velocity through space - time, and experience equal forces.
Wave–particle duality
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wave%E2%80%93particle_duality
Wave–particle duality is the fact that every elementary particle or quantic entity exhibits the properties of not only particles, but also waves. It addresses the inability of the classical concepts "particle" or "wave" to fully describe the behavior of quantum-scale objects. As Einstein wrote: "It seems as though we must use sometimes the one theory and sometimes the other, while at times we may use either. We are faced with a new kind of difficulty. We have two contradictory pictures of reality; separately neither of them fully explains the phenomena of light, but together they do".[1]
Maybe both Newtonian mechanics and General Relativity are both true within a sphere with radius c (speed of light)?
The outer boundary of the sphere with radius c would be determined by a particle model, the information state by a wave model.
Quote from: PhysicsProf on 2016.01.14, 15:03:55
The motion of the earth is somewhat like a ball on a string, rotating around a central peg in a circle and held in that circular orbit by the pull of the string. (The earth's orbit is elliptical but nearly circular, and the force keeping it in orbit is gravity.)
Not really, because as an elastic string becomes stretched, the pull of this string
increases with distance, while the force of gravity
decreases with distance.
...in this case: distance - radius of the orbit.
Quote from: verpies on 2016.01.14, 22:33:54
Not really, because as an elastic string becomes stretched, the pull of this string increases with distance, while the force of gravity decreases with distance.
...in this case: distance - radius of the orbit.
I agree, the attractive force may be the same magnitude and vector, but the cause of the force is different in each case.
The elastic string is under tension:
Tension (physics)https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tension_%28physics%29
In physics, tension describes the pulling force exerted by each end of a string, cable, chain, or similar one-dimensional continuous object, or by each end of a rod, truss member, or similar three dimensional object.
At the atomic level, atoms or molecules have electrostatic attraction; when atoms or molecules are pulled apart from each other to gain electromagnetic potential energy, tension is produced. Each end of a string or rod under tension will pull on the object it is attached to, to restore the string/rod to its relaxed length.
Tension is the opposite of compression.
In physics, although tension is not a force, it does have the units of force and can be measured in newtons (or sometimes pounds-force). The ends of a string or other object under tension will exert forces on the objects to which the string or rod is connected, in the direction of the string at the point of attachment. These forces due to tension are often called "tension forces." There are two basic possibilities for systems of objects held by strings:[1] either acceleration is zero and the system is therefore in equilibrium, or there is acceleration and therefore a net force is present in the system.
Quote from: verpies on 2016.01.14, 22:09:42
I think the mainstream has invented Liénard–Wiechert potentials (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Li%C3%A9nard%E2%80%93Wiechert_potential) especially so that does not happen.
I'll look it up -- but pls explain if you would.
Quote from: evolvingape on 2016.01.14, 22:24:35
I think your thought experiment would violate Newton's third law Professor:
...
That is what I'm saying, yes - in this experiment. Conservation of momentum and Newton's third law go hand-in-hand... So if indeed momentum is not conserved, we expect the third law to be violated somewhere...
Some of you may be thinking - hmmmm... if we can violate the third law here, perhaps we can later circumvent Lenz's law?
Any comments on the two-charged-sphere experiment, with time-varying charges and fields?
Note that there is no "orbiting" motion here... just an imbalanced force on the two spheres (I think) which leads to a momentum anomaly.
Also, think about what is pushing on sphere B - it is not "touching" sphere A. Rather, it is the FIELD from A which "touches" B. So the question becomes...
what "carries the field"? We are probing nature at its fundamental level.
Quote from: verpies on 2016.01.14, 22:09:42
I think the mainstream has invented Liénard–Wiechert potentials (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Li%C3%A9nard%E2%80%93Wiechert_potential) especially so that does not happen.
Thanks - I reviewed the L-W potentials - and found:
QuoteLiénard–Wiechert potentials describe the classical electromagnetic effect of a moving electric point charge in terms of a vector potential and a scalar potential in the Lorenz gauge. Built directly from Maxwell's equations, these potentials describe the complete, relativistically correct, time-varying electromagnetic field for a point charge in arbitrary motion, but are not corrected for quantum-mechanical effects. Electromagnetic radiation in the form of waves can be obtained from these potentials. These expressions were developed in part by Alfred-Marie Liénard in 1898 and independently by Emil Wiechert in 1900.[1]
But my experiment does not involve a "moving point charge." The two spheres are not moving (relative to each other).
Quote from: PhysicsProf on 2016.01.14, 23:38:54
I'll look it up -- but pls explain if you would.
I don't want to because I did not invent the idea and find it murky.
Remember that draining your charged sphere requires charges to be moved elsewhere so there is movement of charges.
Quote from: evolvingape on 2016.01.14, 22:41:57
I agree, the attractive force may be the same magnitude and vector, but the cause of the force is different in each case.
Yes, the cause is different but causes do not have to be the same in order to make a good analogy ...and I think Professor was making an analogy - not an equivalence postulate.
However the
sign of the "force vs. distance" function is different between tension and gravity, which implies
different behavior.
Therefore it is this sign, that prevents the string tension from being used in lieu of gravity in this analogy.
Well for a layman reading this subject, is the line of thought that the General Theory of Relativity is correct or not ? Because I'm not buying it. A warping of space time is kind of weird. I'm more of the thinking that all gravity is the result of a mass or more like a Large Mass revolving in space which is permeated by radiation from a Sun or from the next most powerful source of radiation so to speak.
And further to that that if the Sun were to disappear immediately the planets would still try to orbit the Galactic Center even though they would be without a sun, they would become large bits of rock and stuff but still in this Galaxy. Wouldn't they ?
.
Hi,
Just my opinion:
The speed of light is only relative thing. It propagate on different speed depending on the medium. So the propagation under water is different than in plain vacuum.
Same happen with speed of sound waves propagation.
Now if we dig further and see what is speed of magnetic and electric field propagation, that is different matter due no particles/photons involved.
Same as with gravity which is also field and cannot be fit into speed of light.
P.S> There is also direct relation between magnetic field, electric field and gravity. Just still no conventional scientist came how to relate it as Einstein and others was not fully right about this matter. Which is fundamental thing for everyone in conventional science.
Cheers!
Interesting comments. Note that the thrust of this thread is not so much General relativity or gravity, as interesting as these topics are. Rather - my goal is to work out an experimental test using E and/or B fields which change with time as described, to determine whether momentum can be non-conserved as reason suggests.
EMD gets the idea, and I hope he finds something along the lines mentioned:
Quote from: EMdevices on 2016.01.14, 15:27:02
Hi professor, good topic.....
I also remember reading about experiments that violate conservation of momentum, I'll have to do some research and get back. Some say a preceding gyro violates this law because it does't fall over, but I'm not sure I fully agree.
It would be great to find serious articles by others thinking about non-conservation of momentum p...
A lot of us are experimenters - so let me pose a related problem.
Lets start with a parallel-plate capacitor in a vacuum, and we want to charge it up then discharge it in as SHORT a TIME as possible. Perhaps a short pulse to each plate every microsecond - with each pulse as NARROW as possible. HOW would we do this? (Then we'll introduce about a foot of wire in the pulse going to one plate, to delay that pulse, and we approach the experiment I've described above.)
Quote from: PhysicsProf on 2016.01.15, 22:20:00
It would be great to find serious articles by others thinking about non-conservation of momentum p...
I think many of such articles are referenced by
this device (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RF_resonant_cavity_thruster).
Quote from: PhysicsProf on 2016.01.15, 22:20:00
Lets start with a parallel-plate capacitor in a vacuum, and we want to charge it up then discharge it in as SHORT a TIME as possible. Perhaps a short pulse to each plate every microsecond - with each pulse as NARROW as possible. HOW would we do this?
To do this you need to decide whether you want 1-wire electrostatic charging or 2-wire charging by displacement current.
...and to what voltage.
I thought about this subject when I was still employed and had access to equipment. I came up with the idea of having a series of parallel plates each made of conductive netting, the idea being that the E field from any plate could penetrate through the adjacent plate and be "seen" by the next one. Then the idea was to drive each plate with a sine wave voltage, but to have a 90 degree phase shift between adjacent plates. Thus there was a progressive phase shift along the array of plates. So it acted something like an end-fire antenna array except the spacing between "elements" was much less than a quarter wavelength. It seemed in theory to produce thrust because of the finite propagation delay from plate to plate. Of course the well known end-fire array produces thrust because it sends photons in a given direction, it is a photon rocket. But like any photon rocket you need to transmit 300 megawatts to get one Newton of thrust. I argued that my near-field end fire array produced its thrust because it transmitted virtual photons. Never did try it though :( . An alternative arrangement uses an array of flat coils arranged along a single axis again with progressive 90 degree phase shift from coil to coil. In both cases the simplest construction has three elements with the outer ones driven in anti-phase from a center-tapped transformer and the central one having a 90 degree phase shift.
Smudge
I might add that if near-fields effects are explained by the emission and absorption of EM quanta (that are sub-photons aka virtual photons), and the known forces are due to momentum imbalance associated with that absorption and emission, then the virtual-photon rocket I describe will work. There is a transmission of momentum (and energy!) in a given direction so that overall momentum is conserved, but that transmission is not in the form of classical photons. It is in the form of virtual photons, and associated with that transmission will be an energy "beam" emanating from the device. But the rate of energy transmitted to achieve a given thrust is much less than in the classical photon rocket. It all comes down to the virtual photons/particles that invade our space and which cannot be ignored since they form part of the momentum balance (or seemingly imbalance) equation. So the virtual-photon rocket can be considered as something that hitches a ride on the virtual particles of space itself, like grabbing on to particles that are going in the direction you want and ignoring those that don't.
Smudge
Quote from: Smudge on 2016.01.17, 14:41:20
I might add that if near-fields effects are explained by the emission and absorption of EM quanta (that are sub-photons aka virtual photons), and the known forces are due to momentum imbalance associated with that absorption and emission, then the virtual-photon rocket I describe will work. There is a transmission of momentum (and energy!) in a given direction so that overall momentum is conserved, but that transmission is not in the form of classical photons. It is in the form of virtual photons, and associated with that transmission will be an energy "beam" emanating from the device. But the rate of energy transmitted to achieve a given thrust is much less than in the classical photon rocket. It all comes down to the virtual photons/particles that invade our space and which cannot be ignored since they form part of the momentum balance (or seemingly imbalance) equation. So the virtual-photon rocket can be considered as something that hitches a ride on the virtual particles of space itself, like grabbing on to particles that are going in the direction you want and ignoring those that don't.
Smudge
Lets say I wish to go towards B in my separated- two-sphere experiment. Then I charge B negative, while A is repeatedly charged positive. OTOH, same set-up and same thing on A (positive charge, on/off) but B is going to be pulse-charged negative - now B will be pulled in the opposite direction, towards A.
But how do your virtual photons "know" which way to carry momentum when they are emitted from A? (at the time of launching these v-photons, B has zero charge - only later, during transit of the v-photons, is B charged either + or - .
In physics classes, I've heard it taught the the virtual photons are like baseball, thrown from A to B = CARRYING MOMENTUM. But I'm pointing out here that the momentum they carry must then be either + or - (in terms of direction, set up an x-axis between A and B) -- and THIS is determined when the v-photon encounters B or B's emerging field. So I see a problem with the picture of v-photons carrying real momentum in a known direction (at the time the v-photons are launched).
Quote from: verpies on 2016.01.15, 22:50:43
I think many of such articles are referenced by this device (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RF_resonant_cavity_thruster).
To do this you need to decide whether you want 1-wire electrostatic charging or 2-wire charging by displacement current.
...and to what voltage.
The "resonant cavity thruster" is intriguing - thanks - let's look into this further as a possible way to violate p conservation. I had heard about the RCT some time ago, forgot about it... but yes, very interest - a different approach from mine, possibly easier.
QUOTE
QuoteA radio frequency (RF) resonant cavity thruster is a proposed new type of electromagnetic thruster. Unlike conventional electromagnetic thrusters, they are designed to use no reaction mass, and to emit no directional radiation. Their design principles are not supported by prevailing scientific theories, and they apparently violate the law of conservation of momentum.[1]
A few variations on such thrusters have been proposed. Aerospace engineer Roger Shawyer designed the EmDrive in 2001, and has persistently promoted the idea since then through his company, Satellite Propulsion Research.[2][3] Chemical engineer Guido Fetta designed the Cannae Drive, based on similar principles. If they are found to work as claimed, providing thrust without consuming a propellant would have important applications to all areas of propulsion.[1][4][5][6][7]
Some independent teams of scientists, notably a team at Xi'an's Northwestern Polytechnical University (NWPU),[8] one at NASA's Eagleworks laboratories,[9] and another at the Dresden University of Technology in Germany,[10] have built prototypes of these designs and a number of their experiments have tentatively observed small net thrust.[11] This experimental work has been published in university journals,[12] conference proceedings,[11][13] and peer-reviewed journals.[14][15][16] Research is in progress to see if the positive results are caused by some as-yet-unknown phenomenon or by artifacts due to experimental error.
I'd like to see some of those references, 11 through 16... any help on getting those?
As for my little experiment, lets suppose 1-wire electrostatic charging (1 wire to each sphere, 2 wires total), and say to 50 V.
Quote from: PhysicsProf on 2016.01.14, 21:16:04
Good stuff! I thoroughly enjoyed the article by Steve Carlip. Thanks, EApe!
So we'll take that expt'l evidence that gravity propagates at the speed of light c - and we expect that E and B fields do so also.
EApe's paper addresses part 1 above.
This is exciting - "I also remember reading about experiments that violate conservation of momentum, I'll have to do some research and get back."
Please do!!
Gravity and magnetic fields have no speed, they propagate from the source instantly. Nature shows us this in the way of black holes, where both gravity and magnetic fields can exit a black hole, but light can not.
Quote from: TinMan on 2016.01.18, 04:19:15
Gravity and magnetic fields have no speed, they propagate from the source instantly. Nature shows us this in the way of black holes, where both gravity and magnetic fields can exit a black hole, but light can not.
Just because gravity and B fields can exit a black hole - does not mean these propagate from the source instantly. Photons are affected by gravity, light is bent by a gravitational field for example, not so magnetic fields. Interesting questions though.
QuoteLets say I wish to go towards B in my separated- two-sphere experiment. Then I charge B negative, while A is repeatedly charged positive. OTOH, same set-up and same thing on A (positive charge, on/off) but B is going to be pulse-charged negative - now B will be pulled in the opposite direction, towards A. But how do your virtual photons "know" which way to carry momentum when they are emitted from A? (at the time of launching these v-photons, B has zero charge - only later, during transit of the v-photons, is B charged either + or - .
In physics classes, I've heard it taught the the virtual photons are like baseball, thrown from A to B = CARRYING MOMENTUM. But I'm pointing out here that the momentum they carry must then be either + or - (in terms of direction, set up an x-axis between A and B) -- and THIS is determined when the v-photon encounters B or B's emerging field. So I see a problem with the picture of v-photons carrying real momentum in a known direction (at the time the v-photons are launched).
The v-photons carry momentum directed along their velocity direction. So a test charge receives inward pointed momentum from all directions, mostly coming from all directions of space but some coming from the (retarded position of) nearby charge. The signal carried by the v-photon in its spin vector is not momentum as such, but it tells the test charge in which direction to
emit its next v-photon (one-for one absorption/emission for stable charge particles). Hence it directs the momentum at that
emission stage. The force on the test charge averaged over many momentum impulses in all directions is what we measure. For an isolated test charge, it receives electrically neutral v-photons from all directions of space, i.e. they arrive in equal numbers with spins parallel and anti-parallel to their velocity vectors. Although on a one-for one basis half of the momentum exchanges create an inward force impulse (they emit backwards) and half create none (they emit in the forward direction), when averaged over the enormous number occurring from all directions the net effect is a zero force. It may be noted that when averaged over a smaller number the effect is a spatial jitter.
In the case of a test charge near another charge it can be seen that the nearby charge sends out v-photons with their spins
all parallel (or
all anti-parallel depending on the charge polarity) to the velocity vector. I emphasise
all since these are now different to those from outer space. Those from outer space arriving at our test charge are electrically neutral having equal numbers parallel and anti-parallel. That difference creates the averaged imbalance of momentum that we perceive as an electric force.
In the case of neutral matter against neutral matter we have to give the v-photons arriving from outer space a small degree of tansversivity, their spin vectors are at some angle relative to their velocity vectors. This occurs quite naturally when we deal with relative velocities of moving charges, and is responsible for what we perceive as magnetic forces. For an isolated piece of matter although each one-for-one absorption-emission results in a momentum imbalance due to this transverse angle, for the enormous number of impulses this averages to zero force in any direction. But when there is another piece of neutral matter nearby the v-photons coming from that have lost their transverse spin component. This creates a small force that is always attractive, that we call gravity.
Smudge
Quote from: TinMan on 2016.01.18, 04:19:15
Gravity and magnetic fields have no speed, they propagate from the source instantly. Nature shows us this in the way of black holes, where both gravity and magnetic fields can exit a black hole, but light can not.
I have never measured gravity waves, but I have measured the speed of magnetic waves and I can assure you they do travel at the speed of light. The measurements were done with a HP time domain spectrometer.
Smudge
Quote from: Smudge on 2016.01.18, 16:59:28
I have never measured gravity waves, but I have measured the speed of magnetic waves and I can assure you they do travel at the speed of light. The measurements were done with a HP time domain spectrometer.
Smudge
Were you measuring the actual speed of the magnetic field,or more so the speed at which it took to create that field?. Also,if you were measuring the speed at which magnetic !waves! travel,then that is not a magnetic field alone,but also an electrical field,as a magnetic field that changes with time also has an electrical field,and electrical fields do travel at the speed of light.
Both the gravity and magnetic field do not require continual work to be done to exist,where as light can only exist while work is being done. The reason for this is that both the gravity and magnetic !field! have no mass,where as light dose. We know light has mass,as it cannot escape the gravitational pull of a black hole,and gravity only has an effect on something that has mass.
Brad
TinMan writes:
Quoteelectrical fields do travel at the speed of light.
Agreed! and that's the crucial point for the 2-plate experiment I've proposed.
Smudge agrees also, although we may differ on details of HOW the electric field interacts with objects.
So again - as experimentalists - can we comment on what the outcome of the proposed wxperiment will be? do we expect the wheel to start turning, with NO external torque or force acting, violating conservation of angular momentum?
Quote from: PhysicsProf on 2016.01.14, 21:23:37
I'll go ahead and post my thought experiment + some variations.
The experiment is planned along the following lines. Instead of the sun, we have sphere A (may later choose another shape like plates) which is charged to +Q, thus have electric field E-A all around it. At a certain time T0, the charge is quickly drained from A.
At that same time T0, a second sphere B 1 foot (1 nanosecond for light) is quickly charged up, to -Q. It feels the field E-A which is still present as it charges up, so it is pulled towards A, being of opposite charge.
However, the field forming from B, namely E-B, reaches sphere A when that sphere has been depleted of its charge (we'll assume sufficient time for charge on A to be zero; but even if just somewhat depleted of charge, the experiment still works). Hence, B is pulled towards A, but A is NOT pulled towards B.
The result is an imbalanced force, in the direction towards A. Now if both A and B are fixed on a boat which is free to move, it will move - picking up a momentum which was zero before. It appears that momentum is not conserved.
Alternatively, A and B could be mounted on the edge of a large wheel which is free to spin - and due to the force on B, the wheel starts spinning. In which case, angular momentum is evidently not conserved. (This is probably the easier experiment to do in a lab setting.)
The key is in the timing and the finite time for electric fields to propagate - at the speed of light.... the decreasing charge on A is "found" by the "emerging" field from B, so there is an imbalanced force even if the charge on A is not zero.
Say there is just a 5% difference in force, but the pulses to A and B are in the megahertz range -- then a small imbalanced force each cycle will add up to a larger (presumably measurable) force over time.
Do you all agree - the wheel will start to spin due to (imbalanced) force on B?
Quote from: PhysicsProf on 2016.01.18, 12:50:40
Just because gravity and B fields can exit a black hole - does not mean these propagate from the source instantly. Photons are affected by gravity, light is bent by a gravitational field for example, not so magnetic fields. Interesting questions though.
Not sure that it will change anything in regards to your experiment,but magnetic fields can indeed have an effect on light,and bend/rotate it if you will.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XhU-nNiAgtI
In regards to your experiment,are you looking at the possibility of getting sphere B to pull toward the electromagnetic field created by sphere A,and not sphere A it self? If in regards to opposite charges attracting,then when sphere A is charged,would it not be attracted to sphere B that is yet to be charged?,as a positive or negative charge will both be attracted to something that has a neutral charge/no charge. As long as there is a difference in charge amount-even if both objects have a positive or negative charge,then an attraction will be evident between the two objects.
Quote from: TinMan on 2016.01.18, 22:23:01
Were you measuring the actual speed of the magnetic field,or more so the speed at which it took to create that field?. Also,if you were measuring the speed at which magnetic !waves! travel,then that is not a magnetic field alone,but also an electrical field,as a magnetic field that changes with time also has an electrical field,and electrical fields do travel at the speed of light.
I used the fast step from the TDR to create a magnetic field by feeding it to a single turn loop. Then used another loop some distance away to receive the fast step field and measured the time delay. I agree that there is an electric field associated with that fast rise time but that is a narrow impulse, not a step. My receiving loop of course gave a voltage output from rate of change of magnetic field, so it "saw" that narrow impulse. You could argue that this agrees with your view that it is the electric field that propagates at light velocity, not the magnetic field. But if that fast rise-time magnetic field propagated instantly I should see the electric field from that non-delayed rise time at my distant point with no time delay, and I did not. The only conclusion you can reach is that I detected the rise-time of the
delayed magnetic pulse, that what we perceive as magnetic and electric fields propagate together, both at the speed of light. And that means that they are not separate entities, that there is only one "thing" propagating and our division into magnetic and electric effects is due to the methods we use to measure the effect.
There is a wrongly held view that in far field EM radiation the magnetic and electric effects appear because of that "changing magnetic field producing an electric field", that the two field are tied together by that statement of fact.
Not so!! The two fields are in phase, the electric maxima do
not coincide with maximum rate of change of the magnetic field. The electric field maxima occur when the rate of change of magnetic field is zero. So both electric and magnetic effects are traveling together, and if we wish to quantise the transmission into photons then the photon carries both effects. We don't have electric photons alongside magnetic photons, we have just photons carryng both effects.
QuoteBoth the gravity and magnetic field do not require continual work to be done to exist,where as light can only exist while work is being done. The reason for this is that both the gravity and magnetic !field! have no mass,where as light dose. We know light has mass,as it cannot escape the gravitational pull of a black hole,and gravity only has an effect on something that has mass.
Well light is EM propagation so gravity has an effect on those EM photons that produce both electric and magnetic effects. So this beggars the question, can electric, magnetic and gravity effects be explained by some sort of single virtual-particle that travels at some characteristic speed? I believe it can.
Smudge
Quote from: TinMan on 2016.01.19, 11:48:03
Not sure that it will change anything in regards to your experiment,but magnetic fields can indeed have an effect on light,and bend/rotate it if you will.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XhU-nNiAgtI
In regards to your experiment,are you looking at the possibility of getting sphere B to pull toward the electromagnetic field created by sphere A,and not sphere A it self? If in regards to opposite charges attracting,then when sphere A is charged,would it not be attracted to sphere B that is yet to be charged?,as a positive or negative charge will both be attracted to something that has a neutral charge/no charge. As long as there is a difference in charge amount-even if both objects have a positive or negative charge,then an attraction will be evident between the two objects.
The force of attraction between a charged sphere and an uncharged sphere comes about because the E field from the charged sphere creates an electric dipole at the neutral sphere. There is a wrongly held view that the charged sphere induces an equal but opposite charge on the neutral sphere (you get the same wrong view in magnetics in relation to induced poles). That is utter hogwash. Charge cannot suddenly appear on an isolated sphere. What can and does happen is charge separation, positive charge on one side and negative charge on the other side, and that's an electric dipole. The force law is therefore different. So PP's scheme will work as the charge to charge force is much greater than the charge to dipole force.
Smudge
Quote from: Smudge on 2016.01.19, 12:13:50
I used the fast step from the TDR to create a magnetic field by feeding it to a single turn loop. Then used another loop some distance away to receive the fast step field and measured the time delay. I agree that there is an electric field associated with that fast rise time but that is a narrow impulse, not a step. My receiving loop of course gave a voltage output from rate of change of magnetic field, so it "saw" that narrow impulse. You could argue that this agrees with your view that it is the electric field that propagates at light velocity, not the magnetic field. But if that fast rise-time magnetic field propagated instantly I should see the electric field from that non-delayed rise time at my distant point with no time delay, and I did not. The only conclusion you can reach is that I detected the rise-time of the delayed magnetic pulse, that what we perceive as magnetic and electric fields propagate together, both at the speed of light. And that means that they are not separate entities, that there is only one "thing" propagating and our division into magnetic and electric effects is due to the methods we use to measure the effect.
There is a wrongly held view that in far field EM radiation the magnetic and electric effects appear because of that "changing magnetic field producing an electric field", that the two field are tied together by that statement of fact. Not so!! The two fields are in phase, the electric maxima do not coincide with maximum rate of change of the magnetic field. The electric field maxima occur when the rate of change of magnetic field is zero. So both electric and magnetic effects are traveling together, and if we wish to quantise the transmission into photons then the photon carries both effects. We don't have electric photons alongside magnetic photons, we have just photons carryng both effects.
Smudge
QuoteWell light is EM propagation so gravity has an effect on those EM photons that produce both electric and magnetic effects. So this beggars the question, can electric, magnetic and gravity effects be explained by some sort of Quotesingle virtual-particle that travels at some characteristic speed
? I believe it can.
Ah Ha.
Smudge
Is there a thread that is based around what you have just mentioned above?,so as we do not side track this thread.
If not,then one needs to be started O0 O0
Quote from: Smudge on 2016.01.19, 12:32:03
The force of attraction between a charged sphere and an uncharged sphere comes about because the E field from the charged sphere creates an electric dipole at the neutral sphere. There is a wrongly held view that the charged sphere induces an equal but opposite charge on the neutral sphere (you get the same wrong view in magnetics in relation to induced poles). That is utter hogwash. Charge cannot suddenly appear on an isolated sphere. What can and does happen is charge separation, positive charge on one side and negative charge on the other side, and that's an electric dipole. The force law is therefore different. So PP's scheme will work as the charge to charge force is much greater than the charge to dipole force.
Smudge
Are you sure that is right Smudge?.
I was just thinking about the good old!!rub the balloon on your hair !trick,and attract a piece of paper that has an opposite charge. Dose the balloon not have one charge over it's whole surface? ,as the piece of paper is attracted to any point of that balloon that is now charged.
The electric dipole only needs two indifferent charge amounts to exist,and those charges do not have to be 1x positive,and 1x negative charge. Or do you see/consider the lower value to be the !negative!charge of the dipole ?.
Quote from: TinMan on 2016.01.19, 12:45:04
Are you sure that is right Smudge?.
I was just thinking about the good old!!rub the balloon on your hair !trick,and attract a piece of paper that has an opposite charge. Dose the balloon not have one charge over it's whole surface? ,as the piece of paper is attracted to any point of that balloon that is now charged.
The electric dipole only needs two indifferent charge amounts to exist,and those charges do not have to be 1x positive,and 1x negative charge. Or do you see/consider the lower value to be the !negative!charge of the dipole ?.
When you rub the balloon on your hair charge gets transferred from your hair to the balloon (or vice versa). This is known as the tribo-electric effect and it comes from contact then separation of the two surfaces. The amount of charge transferred depends upon how far the different materials are in the tribo-electric series. Without that contact charge cannot transfer, so I stand by my statements. An isolated sphere cannot gain or lose charge, but it can have positive charge (a lack of electrons) on one side and a negative charge (surfeit of electrons) on the other side. That electron movement from one side to the other occurs when the sphere is in an electric field. It is then an electric dipole.
I learnt all this tribo-electric stuff because I had to deal with raindrop impact on missiles. Aircraft get charged from impact with atmospheric particles to the point where the voltage reached causes corona discharge at sharp points. This can play havoc with the comms equipment if the discharge occurs on antenna, so they have deliberate "wick dischargers" that ensure the discharge occurs where it doesn't cause problems.
Smudge
Quote from: Smudge on 2016.01.19, 12:32:03
The force of attraction between a charged sphere and an uncharged sphere comes about because the E field from the charged sphere creates an electric dipole at the neutral sphere. There is a wrongly held view that the charged sphere induces an equal but opposite charge on the neutral sphere (you get the same wrong view in magnetics in relation to induced poles). That is utter hogwash. Charge cannot suddenly appear on an isolated sphere. What can and does happen is charge separation, positive charge on one side and negative charge on the other side, and that's an electric dipole. The force law is therefore different. So PP's scheme will work as the charge to charge force is much greater than the charge to dipole force.
Smudge
I totally agree with Smudge - and thanks for saving me time with your adept explanation.
Now, I agree also that the "same" v-photons carry both electric and B fields; but gravity fields are different in strength (MUCH weaker in far field) and also in what they interact with (mass, not charge) - so I think the G-field carriers (called gravitons) must be different from the E/B-field carriers (virtual photons).
Quote from: PhysicsProf on 2016.01.21, 16:21:38
Now, I agree also that the "same" v-photons carry both electric and B fields; but gravity fields are different in strength (MUCH weaker in far field) and also in what they interact with (mass, not charge) - so I think the G-field carriers (called gravitons) must be different from the E/B-field carriers (virtual photons).
If you accept that electrically neutral mass is actually made from charged particles (like electrons and positrons) but in equal numbers, then there is no reason why so called gravity should not be just another arrangement of electrical v-photons or v-particles. If you consider the shielding theory for gravity, where incoming v-particles from space apply an inward force onto matter, but a nearby mass acts as a shield to those incoming particles, then there is the question of what is a graviton? It is the incoming particles from space that do the work, that apply the force, not in this case the non-existent outgoing particles from that nearby mass. I don't subscribe to that shielding theory, but I do believe that v-particles emanating from neutral matter are slightly different to those coming from outer space, and that is what causes gravity. It is not a shielding effect as such, but it is a change in some arrival characteristic plotted against solid angle.
I like to think of spin vectors as carrying the electrical signal, so that v-particles emanating from a positron are all spin-up while those emanating from an electron are all spin-down. Spin-up means spin vector parallel to velocity vector and spin-down means anti-parallel. V-particles emanating from neutral matter exhibit equal density of spin-up and spin-down, but they all have this longitudinal characteristic, there is no transverse component of spin. V-particles coming from outer space being electrically neutral also exhibit equal density of spin-up and spin-down, but unlike those arriving from the other mass they do have on average a small transverse component. It is this change of characteristic in arrivals from different directions that creates a force imbalance as seen by a mass near another mass. And we call that force gravity. Any particular v-particle is electrical in nature because it carries an electrical signal in its spin vector, but we can have electrically neutral space when considered as an average effect of many v-particles.
Smudge
Here is another possibility for getting electro-magnetic thrust, this time from the little known scalar magnetic potential of the earth. That scalar potential is huge but rarely ever mentioned. This doesn't rely on field propagation delay. And if proved it might explain other things like the TPU.
Smudge
Quote from: Smudge on 2016.01.25, 15:36:36
Here is another possibility for getting electro-magnetic thrust, this time from the little known scalar magnetic potential of the earth. That scalar potential is huge but rarely ever mentioned. This doesn't rely on field propagation delay. And if proved it might explain other things like the TPU.
Smudge
I concur, my specific gravity field model energised around a fluid mass has a hydraulic energy reservoir and a pneumatic energy reservoir in equilibrium around a natural boundary plane.
The scalar field equalisation potential and the vector force potential are separate frames of reference, and can be switched causing oscillation between potential and kinetic energies.
http://www.irishtimes.com/news/technology/has-a-dublin-company-made-a-never-die-battery-1.2509360
At the 6 min mark Sean begins to talk about speeding up a slowing down magnetic fields and converting time into energy. He does not give much away but thought I would post here as seems to be related.
Quote from: evolvingape on 2016.01.25, 18:45:12
I concur, my specific gravity field model energised around a fluid mass has a hydraulic energy reservoir and a pneumatic energy reservoir in equilibrium around a natural boundary plane.
The scalar field equalisation potential and the vector force potential are separate frames of reference, and can be switched causing oscillation between potential and kinetic energies.
As a matter of interest I am writing a paper on the possibility of using the Earth's large magnetic vector potential. Again few people realize that at the earth's surface the magnetic vector potential is about 200 Weber/m at the equator and points E-W. If you wanted that magnitude of
A field you could create it on the cylindrical surface of some magnetized iron that is 400m in diameter and much greater than 400m long, which is rather crazy considering it is there already for free.
Smudge
Quote from: Smudge on 2016.01.26, 15:57:35
As a matter of interest I am writing a paper on the possibility of using the Earth's large magnetic vector potential. Again few people realize that at the earth's surface the magnetic vector potential is about 200 Weber/m at the equator and points E-W. If you wanted that magnitude of A field you could create it on the cylindrical surface of some magnetized iron that is 400m in diameter and much greater than 400m long, which is rather crazy considering it is there already for free.
Smudge
I think it is an interesting idea O0
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnetic_potential
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tensor_field
A couple of links to help those following the conversation :)
Perhaps the wrong place to post this but here is my paper on using the Earth's magnetic vector potential.
Smudge
Quote from: PhysicsProf on 2016.01.19, 10:51:45
So again - as experimentalists - can we comment on what the outcome of the proposed wxperiment will be? do we expect the wheel to start turning, with NO external torque or force acting, violating conservation of angular momentum?
Do you all agree - the wheel will start to spin due to (imbalanced) force on B?
Is there anyone interested in actually PERFORMING the experiment?
Quote from: PhysicsProf on 2016.02.23, 11:56:01
Is there anyone interested in actually PERFORMING the experiment?
I am.
I'm wondering what practical values of capacitance coupling to the "U" loop would yield reasonable output to drive a sensitive meter directly. (I'm sure it an be worked out from Smudge's formula)
Any meter that is used to measure the voltage across RLoad should be battery operating and floating with very little capacitance coupling to either side of the drive transformer.
I'm also wondering if co-axial cable would work as elements of the "U" loop, with the dielectric forming the capacitance, or would this use shield the "A" vector potential.
Also, would this still work if driven from a full wave pulsating DC source?
Quote from: PhysicsProf on 2016.02.23, 11:56:01
Is there anyone interested in actually PERFORMING the experiment?
The biggest problem is getting the charge to accumulate at the speed of light. They cannot even achieve light speeds with the LHC. Em waves may travel at the speed of light,but the creation of that EM wave cannot be produced at the speed of light. To induce and remove a charge within 1 nanosecond is wayyyy out of my league.
As far as the gravitational field traveling at the speed of light,magnetic ,and electric field's-well i do not believe that the gravitational field has a speed-->it is instantaneous. The reason behind my thoughts on this,are as follows.
Light,magnetic,and electric fields all have a source,and a receiver. Light is produced at a source,and can only be seen when it reaches the receiver. Magnetic and electric fields all originate from a source as well,and can be detected only by receivers. The gravitational force originates from a mass,and only acts on another mass that also has a gravitational force. When you have two masses acting upon one another,and then one of the masses is removed instantly,then you no longer have any interaction between masses,and so no gravitational force can exist between two masses,as you only have one mass.
The other issue is in regards to the earth orbiting the sun. This simply cannot happen,as you cannot orbit a moving mass. The path taken by the earth in relation to the sun is a helical path,not an orbital path. As there is a delay of 8.2 seconds for light leaving the sun,to the time it reaches earth,then that would mean the light would have a curved path,where that curve is equal to 8.2 arc seconds. The gravitational pull on the other hand,is a direct line from the sun to the earth,and has no curve. This alone tells us that gravity has no speed,it is just there,as long as there is two masses for the force of gravity to interact between.
Brad
Hi Brad,
I have an explanation that might explain why gravity appears to be instantaneous. I came up with this idea about 30 years ago and have seen that some other people have come to the same conclusion. I don't believe gravity is an attraction between masses. I believe gravity is a force that exists in space everywhere there is no mass. When a single mass is in space the force of gravity pushes against that mass equally from all sides. Now if another mass comes near (near being a relative term) then the masses will each block some of the force of gravity and therefore they will be pushed towards one another. As far as I know this idea would not change any of the math involved in calculating the force of gravity. It just involves looking at things from a different perspective.
Carroll
Quote from: CITFTA on 2016.02.23, 14:51:18
Hi Brad,
I have an explanation that might explain why gravity appears to be instantaneous. I came up with this idea about 30 years ago and have seen that some other people have come to the same conclusion. I don't believe gravity is an attraction between masses. I believe gravity is a force that exists in space everywhere there is no mass. When a single mass is in space the force of gravity pushes against that mass equally from all sides. Now if another mass comes near (near being a relative term) then the masses will each block some of the force of gravity and therefore they will be pushed towards one another. As far as I know this idea would not change any of the math involved in calculating the force of gravity. It just involves looking at things from a different perspective.
Carroll
Hi Carroll
The problem with that analogy is that the force of gravity would still exist between the two masses-EG,the sun and earth. Lets look at your analogy using a body of water,and boat's. If we place a boat in the water,we will have a pressure exerted on the hull of the boat from the water. The boat is planet earth,and the water is your gravity that is exerting a force on the boat hull. If we place another boat in that body of water(the sun),that second boat(the sun) in no way changes the force being placed on the hull of the first boat (the earth). The reason for this is because the water still exists all around the boat,like your gravity would still exist all around the body of mass,regardless of another body of mass near by.
The magnetic and gravitational force have one thing in common--no one knows what either of them are O0
We know how to ,and what creates them,and how to use them to our advantage--but we still dont know what they are.
Brad
Sorry Brad,
I guess I didn't explain it well enough. The more space there is the stronger the force. So if you block part of the force then the opposing force will force the objects together. Also the water has no horizontal force. It is only supporting the boat.
Carroll
From Brad:
QuoteThe magnetic and gravitational force have one thing in common--no one knows what either of them are O0
We know how to ,and what creates them,and how to use them to our advantage--but we still dont know what they are.
Very true and and worse yet, no one has supposedly unified these fundamental forces since Einstein, at least that is what we are told........I find that very hard to believe, but if they have been unified, it is probably one of the best kept secrets of highest national security and global security.
Willie Johnson unified gravity and magnetism in his gyroscopic force theory, but it awaits to be proven with experiments.
His books are not censored or classified at this time, and are available on LULU.com
Quote from: Grumpy on 2016.02.23, 21:21:50
Willie Johnson unified gravity and magnetism in his gyroscopic force theory, but it awaits to be proven with experiments.
His books are not censored or classified at this time, and are available on LULU.com
Can he devise a simple physical test of his hypothesis?
IMO the thing that unites everything is the aether. Or more accurately the active aether full of massless particles whizzing along at light speed. Although massless, these particles have energy and momentum. Also spin. When they come into contact with a particle of matter that is not traveling at light speed the matter particle get a force impulse. What we measure as a continuous force is really an enormous number of these impulses merging together. It is that background of aether generated impulses that is responsible for the Heisenberg uncertainty. The random nature of that background gets modified somewhat by the presence of a nearby matter particle, that modification taking on different forms depending upon the type of nearby particle and its velocity. We see the result of such modification as different forces which we have labelled as electric, magnetic, gravitational etc. But the common link is those aether particles. EM waves are not smooth waves, they come in chunks that are part of the background of aether particles. That background is also responsible for inertia, if there were no aether particles there would be no inertia. Inertia is not an internal property of a body. Acceleration through the aether generates the restraining force from contact with the aether particles, so it is external in nature. Newton was not aware of the impulsive or corpuscular nature of inertia, so he can be forgiven for getting it wrong.
Smudge
Quote from: Smudge on 2016.02.24, 11:56:15
IMO the thing that unites everything is the aether. Or more accurately the active aether full of massless particles whizzing along at light speed. Although massless, these particles have energy and momentum. Also spin. When they come into contact with a particle of matter that is not traveling at light speed the matter particle get a force impulse. What we measure as a continuous force is really an enormous number of these impulses merging together. It is that background of aether generated impulses that is responsible for the Heisenberg uncertainty. The random nature of that background gets modified somewhat by the presence of a nearby matter particle, that modification taking on different forms depending upon the type of nearby particle and its velocity. We see the result of such modification as different forces which we have labelled as electric, magnetic, gravitational etc. But the common link is those aether particles. EM waves are not smooth waves, they come in chunks that are part of the background of aether particles. That background is also responsible for inertia, if there were no aether particles there would be no inertia. Inertia is not an internal property of a body. Acceleration through the aether generates the restraining force from contact with the aether particles, so it is external in nature. Newton was not aware of the impulsive or corpuscular nature of inertia, so he can be forgiven for getting it wrong.
Smudge
Thank You for posting your work here, I really enjoy your posts.
What if the elementary particles, which are supposedly building the atom's , just a part of a cycle of the Atom. Electron's proton's neutron's are only definite positions in the atom's wavelength arc. Each atom is alive, and breathing like we do in an extremely high frequency, which we have no instrument yet to observe, but we observe several effect, which could support this theory. Gravity may just a result of the atom's identity. The collapsing atomic field (after the electron wavelength tangent out till it reaches the atom energy boundary) having the difference between the local and the atom identity wavelength. This could be compatible with your theory i guess!
I believe the binding forces between atom's are flowing wavelengths which phasing the atoms together. This phasing wavelength is different in each location of the universe, depending on what focus point we are., It could be possible,if our space probes reaching the interstellar space, after several thousand year somebody may will wonder, how this cloud of different atoms came together, because each atom's would be separated from each other, because of the missing phasing wavelength. Only their own identity will survive, the binding force (overload on the atomic cycle) slowly will disappear.
What do you think?