Second Essay For The Gravitational Research Foundation

[Dubbelosix]

you mean the gravimagnetic potential [math]\mathbf{A}[/math]?

[Dubbelosix]

The torsion is actually related to the curl of the gravitational field from more recent analysis of the equations. 

 

[math]\nabla \times \Omega = \gamma\ \frac{\partial \mathbf{B}}{\partial r} = \gamma \frac{1}{c}\frac{\partial \mathbf{B}}{\partial t} = \frac{e}{2m} \frac{\partial \mathbf{B}}{\partial r} = \frac{\mathbf{J}}{2e^2} \frac{1}{mc^2}\frac{\partial^2 U}{\partial t^2}[/math]

 

The torsion can be found from the following:

 

[math]\Omega^2 = \frac{1}{mc^2}(\frac{d^2U}{dt^2})[/math]

 

We stated before, the square of the torsion can be seen to be related to the curl of the gravitational field:

 

[math]\nabla \times \Gamma = \frac{\partial \Omega}{\partial t}[/math]

 

In which case we also have:

 

[math]\nabla \times \Omega = \gamma\ \frac{\partial \mathbf{B}}{\partial r} = \frac{\mathbf{J}}{2e^2} (\nabla \times \Gamma)[/math]

 

Featuring again the Von Klitzing constant which has remained invariant throughout a lot of the equations from derivation. 

Edited October 8, 2018 by Dubbelosix

[Super Polymath]

The torsion is actually related to the curl of the gravitational field from more recent analysis of the equations. 

 

[math]\nabla \times \Omega = \gamma\ \frac{\partial \mathbf{B}}{\partial r} = \gamma \frac{1}{c}\frac{\partial \mathbf{B}}{\partial t} = \frac{e}{2m} \frac{\partial \mathbf{B}}{\partial r} = \frac{\mathbf{J}}{2e^2} \frac{1}{mc^2}\frac{\partial^2 U}{\partial t^2}[/math]

 

The torsion can be found from the following:

 

[math]\Omega^2 = \frac{1}{mc^2}(\frac{d^2U}{dt^2})[/math]

 

We stated before, the square of the torsion can be seen to be related to the curl of the gravitational field:

 

[math]\nabla \times \Gamma = \frac{\partial \Omega}{\partial t}[/math]

 

In which case we also have:

 

[math]\nabla \times \Omega = \gamma\ \frac{\partial \mathbf{B}}{\partial r} = \frac{\mathbf{J}}{2e^2} (\nabla \times \Gamma)[/math]

 

Featuring again the Von Klitzing constant which has remained invariant throughout a lot of the equations from derivation. 

Well I suppose the idea is to find T, A, & H relative to J in your "main equation" you made t ridiculously difficult to isolate. 

[Dubbelosix]

[math]\mathbf{A}[/math] is different to [math]a[/math] which is acceleration. What is [math]T[/math]? [math]H[/math] in the work I have written refers to a Hamiltonian and [math]\mathbf{J}[/math] is just a spin vector with same dimensions as Plancks [math]\hbar[/math].

[Super Polymath]

[math]\mathbf{A}[/math] is different to [math]a[/math] which is acceleration. What is [math]T[/math]? [math]H[/math] in the work I have written refers to a Hamiltonian and [math]\mathbf{J}[/math] is just a spin vector with same dimensions as Plancks [math]\hbar[/math].

One's allotted and designated Area, Time, space & J is just what the universe is doing

[Super Polymath]

[Dubbelosix]

One's allotted and designated Area, Time, space & J is just what the universe is doing

 

It's conventional to differentiate lowercase and uppercase letters as important, for instance, [math]T[/math] is more than often associated with temperature while [math]t[/math] is almost always identified as time. 

[Dubbelosix]

Gravitational dipole moment is

 

[math]\mu = \gamma\ \frac{\mathbf{J}}{c} = \frac{e}{2m} \frac{\mathbf{J}}{c}[/math]

 

Under Sciama's units we identify the moment directly with the potential:

 

[math]\frac{c^2}{4 \pi G} = \frac{m}{r} = \phi[/math]

 

Retreiving Sciama's definition of the gravimagnetic field gives:

 

[math]\frac{1}{4 \pi G} = \frac{m}{r^2} = \frac{\phi}{c^2}[/math]

 

Which is an observation I have not seen within his theory and in a sense unifies the idea that gravitational permeability and permittivity really are preserved in his theory like I suspected. The obviousness of those parameters disappears when Sciama drops the definition of Newtons constant from the equations. 

Edited October 8, 2018 by Dubbelosix

[Super Polymath]

Just plug in "4.35252e+17 seconds" into t to get to the present moment:

 

 

Gimme the t

 

[Dubbelosix]

No Polymath, before you start lecturing people on math, a corner rule you should remind yourself, is that you need to understand mathematically what you are criticizing, and/or suggesting. I implore you to take time working out the puzzle which is dimensional analysis, because it tells us more about what an equation is made of, rather than just an advanced derivation, which ends up like an ugly equation. In fact... Dirac made such a point in his lifetime, that if a formula looks ugly, it most likely wasn't right, and this ''aesthetic'' view on equations, isn't so displaced from rationality. Many ''well-working'' and even experimentally-varified formulae look incredibly beautiful. From Newton, Heaviside, Lorentz, Einstein and many more, have shown that the simplicity and beauty of such simplicity rules over the complexities sought in other models. Such as string theory. 

[Dubbelosix]

Anyway, I won't be posting any more equations in this post, my paper in now complete. I will finish with leaving my audience the entire passage from the conclusions in the work:

 

 

 

....................................................................................................................................

 

Conclusions:

 

Gravity and magnetism are very similar and may be analogues in respect of each other when they couple to electric fields. The unification of gravity with magnetism yields the Coriolis force. From Sciama’s model of gravielectromagnetism, I learned that is it very possible that the units for Newtons constant he worked in may have been an attempt to model it so that the gravitational force was not fundamental - but I soon discovered that if this was the case, the units he worked in removed any importance behind gravitational permittivity and permeability - with the discovery of gravitational waves, it seems unlikely we can just ignore their roles. Both these properties are suggested in this essay to pertain to fundamental properties of spacetme which can be considered an aether. Einstein’s theory can have a mechanical explanation for gravity while still preserving curvature within our understanding of motion in the universe. When it comes to the black hole and possible [smallest refrigerators], while I cannot rule a system out at absolute zero, it seems unlikely. It was interesting to find theoretical cases which may support a stable black hole particle as a special system existing at zero temperatures, but we have to remain curious to such a violation of the third law. Such a black hole particle would technically be a ‘’perfect insulator.’’ I still hold that they don’t exist and in fact, a photon condensate will answer why larger black holes emit less energy than small black holes, because the larger the condensate will minimize the free energy of the system. One thing is for sure, if the theory of a gravitational aether is on the right track, then there definitely won’t be any perfect insulators in the universe since radiation by principle is allowed to escape black holes. One last word on gravielectromagnetism, I had, during investigation into the theory for this essay, has an interpretation that seems to vary among many physicists - what does gravielectromagnetism actually mean and is it a unification? Well, I cannot answer that as disappointing as that may seem, but I will not leave you on an anticlimax! At least ponder that perhaps, gravity and electromagnetism is already unified, instead of thinking the other way around, which implies unification happened at some earlier time, or can only be understood as a ‘’phase’’ in the early universe. Perhaps the fact that any force can live side by side, must in a sense of symmetry, unify in some way already.

[Super Polymath]

No Polymath,

oh yes

 

string theory.

SDB Theory>F Theory>M Theory

[Dubbelosix]

Polymath, you hear buzzwords, but speaking them does not mean you understand them. Besides... anyone with good knowledge in physics, like Penrose and many others, are well aware M-theory is not even a theory. It's as wild in math as you are with stringing buzzwords together making word salad. You need to have some humble approach about what little you know, so you can start making the leaps into learning this stuff. I know you want to learn it so bad, and teaching yourself is not easy...it takes time.But you are young and so you have a while yet. So do i... in fact. I may come across like I know a lot, but I know enough to know I don't know enough. 

[Dubbelosix]

And hopefully, you respect me more for just being honest. I am not saying this to openly hurt you, I am just a reality-checker. 

[Super Polymath]

I control the horizontal, I control the vertical. 

[Super Polymath]

Just plug in "4.35252e+17 seconds" into t to get to the present moment:

 

For the interior of all black branes (spheres) & the reverse continuum they project simply switch the numerator and the denominator and you may be able to erase certain events in the past to alter the present. 

Edited October 8, 2018 by Super Polymath

[Dubbelosix]

If you were a true student, you'd listen.

 

 

When have I ever said anything ''about branes?''

 

This is why I cannot communicate with you --- you won't understand why my terminology strings together and why yours doesn't. I want you to learn, but you already think you know it all.