Science > Physics > Does the Electromagnetic field have a Gravitational field? (kst)
| Topic: |
Science > Physics |
| User: |
"Ken S. Tucker" |
| Date: |
25 Jan 2005 08:46:07 PM |
| Object: |
Does the Electromagnetic field have a Gravitational field? (kst) |
Does the Electromagnetic field have a Gravitational field?
That question was posed in sp.research, and suffered
severe thread drift.
Let's ask if a *static* EM-field has an energy content?
The mathematics can be so over-powering it obscures
the modest foundations of our beloved concepts.
My historical accuracy is legendary, i.e. based on
the legend that Ben Franklin introduced the concept
of (+) and (-) charge, rather arbituarily, to describe
a relation.
As a technician and teacher, I've heard endless
complaints about how *real* electrons flow in the
opposite direction of positive current...how come?
Well because the assignment of (+) and (-) was
merely relative, to account for the experimental
observation that a pair of pith-balls can be set
to *repel* or *attract*, so Ben, being an educated
man for his time, realized he could set attraction
to be (+)*(-) and repulsion to be (-)*(-) or (+)*(+),
hence giving a reality to the concept of charge,
independent of the relativity of the charges that
persists to this day.
Yet the only GR acceptable relation describing charge
relations is found in the Lorentz Force,
f_u = q*F_uv U^v
where q is charge, F_uv is the EM field, and U^v is
4-velocity. But the LF above needs two distinct
charges, the "q" that reacts to a field caused by "Q"
that creates F_uv.
No where is it possible to assign an absolute existance
to "q" apart from it's relation to Q.
We postulate "q" is relative to "Q".
That is as profound to EM-theory as postulating the
relativity of velocity was to SR. It's interesting
to note that the velocity "c" is invariant and the
value of charge "q" is invariant. But we need an
FoR to measure "c", and an FoR containing a "q" to
measure "Q". That's based on experience and theory.
What does that mean for GR?
Energy can be stored in a "charge configuration"
given by standards as,
energy = q*Q/r,
for example push repelling particle together to
reduce r and energy increases, that assumes "q"
and "Q" remain constant.
In GR (c=1) that is the gravational mass of the
couple, no absolute EM-field is needed, it's
rather like the old ether thoery, you can use it,
but it's undetectable.
Makes you wonder how many mathematical physicists
are aware of the huge amount of their calculations
are based on Ben's unproven assumption by dividing
charge into distinctly real bits (+) and (-) the way
he did in the first place, with NO physical evidence
to support that, but only a mathematical convenience.
Put yourself in the position of a referee today and
consider Franklin's hypothesis. He chooses to sub-
divide a relation of charges into two absolutes,
without any evidence for 100's of years, by today's
theoretical standards Franklin would be a crack-pot.
Why does his theory prepetuate...religion, definitely
faith based. I suspect I shall be a *lightning rod*
for many Benny fanatics for posting that.
Moving to Coulombs law, F = q*Q/r^2, (static).
Note this, when q=Q or q=-Q, the magnitude of "F" is
exactly the same to an infinte number of decimal
places, unquestionably I should add. I ask why is
that 18XX formula imposed on me? I see all around
me attraction to be a bit stronger than repulsion,
aka as gravity, I find GR does find a slight
difference between the attractive and repulsive
effects between charges that exactly accounts for
gravitation, attraction be slight more effective.
I've developed theory (unitivity) based on
questioning past assumptions, and recommend serious
theoreticians maintain a critical PoV of the
assumptions they are *trained* to import into
theory.
In a hippie way, I do see good evidence that the
universe prefers attraction to repulsion, because
of the formation of structure, that the dominance
of repulsion would prevent. Whether looking at
galaxies, solar systems, or the reproduction,
perpetuation and evolution of life, there is an
underlying attraction within the universe to
create increasingly complex structures.
As unscientific as that may sound, it a very
profound and shared observation, that Decartes
summarized by, "I think, therefore I am"!
The "I am" is definitely a complex structure,
formed by many attractive relations.
Regards
Ken S. Tucker
.
|
|
| User: "Uncle Al" |
|
| Title: Re: Does the Electromagnetic field have a Gravitational field? (kst) |
25 Jan 2005 08:53:54 PM |
|
|
"Ken S. Tucker" wrote:
Does the Electromagnetic field have a Gravitational field?
[snip 143 lines of waffling *****]
Energy has mass-equivalent. Short argument. A bound chemical
compound masses less than its constituent elements' isolated atoms -
and it's all in static EM fields. Ditto gravitational binding energy.
<http://www.npl.washington.edu/eotwash/pdf/prl83-3585.pdf>
http://arXiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0301024
Nordtvedt Effect
Learn something, idiot,
http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0103044
http://arXiv.org/abs/hep-th/0307140
GR structure, especially Part 4/p. 7
--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/qz.pdf
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ken S. Tucker" |
|
| Title: Re: Does the Electromagnetic field have a Gravitational field? (kst) |
25 Jan 2005 09:45:09 PM |
|
|
Al, you've pushed the medium of spacetime until it
looks like ether. I endorse the thinking but have no
theory to support the experimental differentiation you
seek.
I'm a hard-assed GRist, who finds the Strong
PoE, to be substance independent. If it falls in an
elevator it falls in a g-field.
I don't care how many whistles and bells you
attach to a substance, it looks the same to me
while my rocket-ship accelerates past it.
I think your fuckin with conservation of Energy...
that underpins PoE.
You haven't demonstrated a variation in the
transformation between accelerating frames that
is a function of substance, and you have claimed
a function of substance where gravity is concerned,
with no theory to support that except a desire to
do so.
I'm on your side, everyone is, but the generally
covariant theory of *chirally* is weak, i.e you don't
have one.
Al, your pissing on a dandelion to make Jack's
bean-stauk, and adding your usual load of
fertilizer...hope you get lucky...someday.
Ken S. Tucker
.
|
|
|
| User: "Uncle Al" |
|
| Title: Re: Does the Electromagnetic field have a Gravitational field? (kst) |
26 Jan 2005 10:10:45 AM |
|
|
"Ken S. Tucker" wrote:
Al, you've pushed the medium of spacetime until it
looks like ether. I endorse the thinking but have no
theory to support the experimental differentiation you
seek.
I'm a hard-assed GRist, who finds the Strong
PoE, to be substance independent. If it falls in an
elevator it falls in a g-field.
Falls, yes. Falls along a local parallel geodesic, maybe. There has
been no test of an Equivalence Principle parity violation. If
gravitation is parity-odd affine rather than parity-even metric,
extremal opposite parity test masses [e.g., crystallographic space
group P3(1)21 vs. P3(2)21] of identical chemical composition (e.g.,
quartz) and external form (e.g., single crystal solid spheres) will
fall measureably differently. Inertial and gravitational masses will
diverge for opposite parity test masses.
http://web.iihe.ac.be/seminars/Toncelli.pdf
By the numbers for a torsion balance
If gravitation is parity odd, Lorentz invariance breaks as space is
demonstrably not isotropic. That breaks conservation of angular
momentum via Noether's theorem. It also demonstrates space has a
characteristic scale about as large as a quartz unit cell (about 0.5
nm radius) as opposed to a Planck length (1.6x10^(-26) nm). That
knocks the pins out from under quantum mechanics and 3/5 of M-theory.
We'll know by end of 2005. This could be a wonderful whole lot of
fun.
I don't care how many whistles and bells you
attach to a substance, it looks the same to me
while my rocket-ship accelerates past it.
Not true by a huge gap,
<http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/RelWWW/tests.html>
Mathematics of gravitation
<http://wugrav.wustl.edu/people/CMW/update98.pdf>
<http://www.astro.northwestern.edu/AspenW04/Papers/lorimer1.pdf>
Equivalence Principle testing
<http://www.npl.washington.edu/eotwash/pdf/prl83-3585.pdf>
http://arXiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0301024
Nordtvedt Effect
You don't know your founding postulates and boundary conditions.
Euclid contains no errors, but you cannot survey land or navigate with
Euclid - not if you want the empirical answer to match the
prediction. The Earth is not a zero curvature surface (which, of
course, do not have to be planar). The Earth's surface is
non-Euclidean.
I think your fuckin with conservation of Energy...
that underpins PoE.
Has nothing to do with it. If the minimum energy paths of two local
test masses are not parallel geodesics, energy is still conserved.
Their inertial and gravitational masses will diverge. Conservation of
energy is contingent upon the homogeneity of time via Noether's
theorem. Those books will exactly balance.
If you do not know what you are doing your opinion is unsupportable
crap.
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/eotvos.htm#b21
You haven't demonstrated a variation in the
transformation between accelerating frames that
is a function of substance, and you have claimed
a function of substance where gravity is concerned,
with no theory to support that except a desire to
do so.
You don't know your postulates from your derived results. Your are
demanding your assumptions. Doesn't mean *****. Learn the
fundamentals before you spew.
I'm on your side, everyone is, but the generally
covariant theory of *chirally* is weak, i.e you don't
have one.
Al, your pissing on a dandelion to make Jack's
bean-stauk, and adding your usual load of
fertilizer...hope you get lucky...someday.
Uncle Al says, "Those who know nothing should voluntarily limit their
output to what they know lest stupidity prove lethal."
--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/qz.pdf
.
|
|
|
| User: "tj Frazir" |
|
| Title: Re: Does the Electromagnetic field have a Gravitational field? (kst) |
27 Jan 2005 10:30:48 PM |
|
|
Again Unce idiot is utterlt stuupid.
Think uncle idiot.
UP IS A GAIN IN MASS
An ATOM CHANGES MASS AT C.
Now in the energy slope of gravity UPis a gain in mass .
No dienie that fact .
Fact 2 .
The center of the atom is where all its parts are trying to fall.
As the parts orbit the atoms center...
they change mass.
UP is more mass in the energy slope.
1/2 the atom has more mass falling in one direction than the other.
Eienstien tryed like hell to explane this...
1/2 the atom pushes the other 1/2 twards less mass.
The gain in mass vrs the mass it must push is proportional and V is
math identical to evrything falling the same speed.
Or you can say Up is a gain in mass and gravity is a push to less
mass.
A push to less energy.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "tj Frazir" |
|
| Title: Re: Does the Electromagnetic field have a Gravitational field? (kst) |
27 Jan 2005 10:31:28 PM |
|
|
Again Unce idiot is utterlt stuupid.
Think uncle idiot.
UP IS A GAIN IN MASS
An ATOM CHANGES MASS AT C.
Now in the energy slope of gravity UPis a gain in mass .
No dienie that fact .
Fact 2 .
The center of the atom is where all its parts are trying to fall.
As the parts orbit the atoms center...
they change mass.
UP is more mass in the energy slope.
1/2 the atom has more mass falling in one direction than the other.
Eienstien tryed like hell to explane this...
1/2 the atom pushes the other 1/2 twards less mass.
The gain in mass vrs the mass it must push is proportional and V is
math identical to evrything falling the same speed.
Or you can say Up is a gain in mass and gravity is a push to less
mass.
A push to less energy.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Ken S. Tucker" |
|
| Title: Re: Does the Electromagnetic field have a Gravitational field? (kst) |
26 Jan 2005 05:21:13 PM |
|
|
Uncle Al wrote:
"Ken S. Tucker" wrote:
Al, you've pushed the medium of spacetime until it
looks like ether. I endorse the thinking but have no
theory to support the experimental differentiation you
seek.
I'm a hard-assed GRist, who finds the Strong
PoE, to be substance independent. If it falls in an
elevator it falls in a g-field.
Falls, yes. Falls along a local parallel geodesic, maybe. There has
been no test of an Equivalence Principle parity violation. If
gravitation is parity-odd affine rather than parity-even metric,
extremal opposite parity test masses [e.g., crystallographic space
group P3(1)21 vs. P3(2)21] of identical chemical composition (e.g.,
quartz) and external form (e.g., single crystal solid spheres) will
fall measureably differently. Inertial and gravitational masses will
diverge for opposite parity test masses.
Using spacetime you have 16 metrics to play with,
4 g_uu (u=0,1,2,3) (no summation)
6 g_uv where g_uv=g_vu (symmetric)
6 g_uv where g_uv =/= g_vu (nonsymmetric)
If you intend to retain the General Principle
of Relativity, then Absolute acceleration must
vanish, given by the absolute derivative,
DU^u=0 , with U^u being contravariant 4-velocity,
in turn, that equation directly derives the
equations of motion in GR.
Now DU^u=0 is independant of substance, parity,
chirally or whatever. It is (IMO) the best
description of the *Strong Principle of
Equivalence*.
http://web.iihe.ac.be/seminars/Toncelli.pdf
By the numbers for a torsion balance
If gravitation is parity odd, Lorentz invariance breaks as space is
demonstrably not isotropic. That breaks conservation of angular
momentum via Noether's theorem.
There is no Lorentz invariance in GR, correct me
if I'm wrong. The best I know is to import the
vanishing of absolute velocity given by the
vanishing of the covariant 3-velocity U_i=0,
that is consistent with DU^u=0, by association,
using the covariant derivative g_uv;w=0.
That's the usual way of defining motion in GR and
it's substance independent, unless you use the
nonsymmetrical g_uv, and stick an EM field to the
g-field.
So what do you do specifically to vary the GR
principles, IOW's where does the reasoning above
fail in your view?
It also demonstrates space has a
characteristic scale about as large as a quartz unit cell (about 0.5
nm radius) as opposed to a Planck length (1.6x10^(-26) nm). That
knocks the pins out from under quantum mechanics and 3/5 of M-theory.
We'll know by end of 2005. This could be a wonderful whole lot of
fun.
I don't care how many whistles and bells you
attach to a substance, it looks the same to me
while my rocket-ship accelerates past it.
Not true by a huge gap,
You see AL, that's why you're not taken seriously.
That's the standard simple test of the Strong PoE,
and you write it off, anyway answer question above
please.
<http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/RelWWW/tests.html>
Mathematics of gravitation
<http://wugrav.wustl.edu/people/CMW/update98.pdf>
<http://www.astro.northwestern.edu/AspenW04/Papers/lorimer1.pdf>
Equivalence Principle testing
<http://www.npl.washington.edu/eotwash/pdf/prl83-3585.pdf>
http://arXiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0301024
Nordtvedt Effect
You don't know your founding postulates and boundary conditions.
Oh, well then by all means let's discuss GR's
boundary conditions, it's my favorite subject.
Euclid contains no errors, but you cannot survey land or navigate
with
Euclid - not if you want the empirical answer to match the
prediction. The Earth is not a zero curvature surface (which, of
course, do not have to be planar). The Earth's surface is
non-Euclidean.
Al, are you a re-incarnation of Columbus, geez
Ferdinand & Isabella fell asleep listening to
that lecture in 1491.
I think your fuckin with conservation of Energy...
that underpins PoE.
Has nothing to do with it. If the minimum energy paths of two local
test masses are not parallel geodesics, energy is still conserved.
Their inertial and gravitational masses will diverge. Conservation
of
energy is contingent upon the homogeneity of time via Noether's
theorem. Those books will exactly balance.
Yes, I think you're right. That could be demonstrated
by a magnetic field, but we presume that's not what
you are using, it's be done.
If you do not know what you are doing your opinion is unsupportable
crap.
Yup.
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/eotvos.htm#b21
You haven't demonstrated a variation in the
transformation between accelerating frames that
is a function of substance, and you have claimed
a function of substance where gravity is concerned,
with no theory to support that except a desire to
do so.
You don't know your postulates from your derived results. Your are
demanding your assumptions. Doesn't mean *****. Learn the
fundamentals before you spew.
No way, you're transforming measurements between
accelerated frames, (if Strong PoE holds), and
making a substance dependance in that transform.
Can't you just down-shift to *weak* PoE and give
us some generally covariant equation of motion,
that may be substance dependant.
You could have a look at Tolman's "Relativity
Thermomdynamics...", Eq. (103.1) and find a
so-called deviation from strong PoE.
Once again good luck
Ken S. Tucker
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "tj Frazir" |
|
| Title: Re: Does the Electromagnetic field have a Gravitational field? (kst) |
27 Jan 2005 10:19:48 PM |
|
|
Learn some physics Uncle dumbass.
No EMF is not gravity.
Waves alike colide and raze the energy between.
Waves that pass by each other lower the energy between .
Gravity is the low that forms around mass.
Mass is the sum of that low.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Tim Golden" |
|
| Title: Re: Does the Electromagnetic field have a Gravitational field? (kst) |
26 Jan 2005 04:35:15 PM |
|
|
Ken S. Tucker wrote:
Does the Electromagnetic field have a Gravitational field?
That question was posed in sp.research, and suffered
severe thread drift.
Let's ask if a *static* EM-field has an energy content?
The mathematics can be so over-powering it obscures
the modest foundations of our beloved concepts.
I have a construction that may be helpful.
Lets just use attractive force, or gravity.
two balls, one stationary, the other on a trajectory toward the first
but goes behind it then comes back somewhat toward where it came from.
This is an orbital path. The net result looks like repulsion but the
forces were attractive.
So hurtling a sattelite at a planet could look like repulsion if it
comes back toward where it came from. No collision, just attraction.
Now if two stationary bodies are hurling attractive flux at either
other which always comes back to the source then what would really
matter is which side of the other body did more of the flux go by. If a
flux goes close to the far side of the other body repulsion. If a flux
goes to the near side attraction. A few symmetry relations could get
there. Flux path is an open problem. The interaction is between the two
bodies.
-Tim
snip
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ken S. Tucker" |
|
| Title: Re: Does the Electromagnetic field have a Gravitational field? (kst) |
27 Jan 2005 07:34:21 AM |
|
|
Tim agreed...
Let me add that the last 100 years of theory and
experiment have shown energy (and mass) to be
relative.
Let me turn that statement inside out, relativity
requires two FoR's. Relativity is about relating.
You and I are relatively defined to one another
by our communications, and that's all that's
possible. Only if I were to become you would
communications vanish as our defining medium,
and so would one FoR, and our relativity.
Hence, energy requires two distinguishable FoR's
to exist, IOW's energy is a relation because it's
relative.
The simplest relation that is able to define energy
(I know of) is the relativity of two charges, aka a
charge couple.
Thanks
Ken S. Tucker
.
|
|
|
| User: "Tim Golden" |
|
| Title: Re: Does the Electromagnetic field have a Gravitational field? (kst) |
27 Jan 2005 07:04:32 PM |
|
|
Is this a top post? Sorry if it is, not sure how the new google does
with that.
Well here is another more sane and acceptable argument.
When we set up two magnets to repel we are really disallowing the
ability of them to twist so that they can attract.
So this form of repulsion could be interpreted as an attractive force
also. Certainly the rest state of the system were the two free would be
such that the magnets aligned N1S2 and N2S1 with zero distance.
Sorry if I=B4m drifting your thread which is put here to avoid thread
drift, but you raised some nice fundamental questions.
Is the q in your OP the same as the 'test charge' used to develop
E-field equations?
Ken S. Tucker wrote:
Tim agreed...
Let me add that the last 100 years of theory and
experiment have shown energy (and mass) to be
relative.
Let me turn that statement inside out, relativity
requires two FoR's. Relativity is about relating.
You and I are relatively defined to one another
by our communications, and that's all that's
possible. Only if I were to become you would
communications vanish as our defining medium,
and so would one FoR, and our relativity.
Hence, energy requires two distinguishable FoR's
to exist, IOW's energy is a relation because it's
relative.
The simplest relation that is able to define energy
(I know of) is the relativity of two charges, aka a
charge couple.
Going down to the simplest form may not be the best solution if it does
not account for all of the effects. Maybe a three charge model would be
consistent too. Back to complex mass with three-signed values... Yikes,
maybe back to Y x Y too.
=20
Thanks
Ken S. Tucker
- Tim
.
|
|
|
| User: "tj Frazir" |
|
| Title: Re: Does the Electromagnetic field have a Gravitational field? (kst) |
27 Jan 2005 10:39:00 PM |
|
|
There is no such thing as attraction.
No attractive forces.
Wave intractions rise or lower the energy DARK energy between objects.
repel is a push apart and attraction is a push together.
Fall is 1/2 the atom pushing the other 1/2 because up is more mass .
Gravity is the low that forms around mass as the universe expands and
mass takin up more space per tme unit in motion.
The sum of the low is mass/energy.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
