Gravity and Inertial mass

[jaycrooks]

Anyone want to discuss the origins of gravity and inertial mass.

 

http://www.livit.co.uk/theoryofeverything/

 

This was publish around thirty years ago but could explain the 99% of dark matter and Energy. :wave:

[Erasmus00]

Anyone want to discuss the origins of gravity and inertial mass.

 

http://www.livit.co.uk/theoryofeverything/

 

This was publish around thirty years ago but could explain the 99% of dark matter and Energy. :wave:

 

I agree with GR. Gravitational and inertial mass are equivalent because GR is essentially a "fictitious" force (this means a force that doesn't really exist, just an artifact of a non-inertial frame).

-Will

[UncleAl]

The theory predicts that the value of the gravitational constant G will vary within any galaxy, and predicts that G will be zero in any intergalactic region of space where no rotation of matter occurs.

What about self-gravitating diffuse gas and dust clouds? Doppler shift measurements show no rotation.

 

Google

"Great Attractor" 16,000 hits

 

Let us examine hyper-spinning (e.g., 23-ms pulsar PSR J0737-3039A), hyper-dense (2.3x10^14 g/cm^3) examples,

 

Science 303(5661) 1143;1153 (2004)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PSR_J0737-3039

http://arXiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0401086

http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0312071

http://relativity.livingreviews.org/Articles/lrr-2003-5/index.html

http://skyandtelescope.com/news/article_1473_1.asp

Deeply relativistic neutron star binaries

 

They fly exactly by the book to the limits of experimental uncertainty. Your theory is empirically falsified. The equatorial surface speed of a millisecond pulsar is 0.01-0.1 of lightspeed. The pulsar binary has an orbital period of just 2.4 hrs. Is that fast enough for you? Nothing known is faster.

 

For a weak-field large-scale rotating system,

 

http://arXiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0411113

<http://www.npl.washington.edu/eotwash/pdf/prl83-3585.pdf>

http://arXiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0301024

Phys. Rev. Lett. 93 261101 (2004)

Nordtvedt Effect

 

Your theory is empirical crap again. For a small scale rotating system, the two pairs of anti-parallel rotating gyroballs in Gravity Probe B. Your theory is empirical crap again.

 

Up until now everyone has considered it ridiculous to suggest that the inertial motion of matter could generate gravitational forces.

For good reason - observation at scales from grams (Gravity Probe B gyroballs) to 1.4 solar masses (binary pulsars),

 

http://relativity.livingreviews.org/Articles/lrr-2001-5/

 

All fly by the book - but not by your book. You cannot support large scale effects without concommittant small scale effects. Where do you draw the line?

 

http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/RelWWW/tests.html

Mathematics of gravitation

 

Go head, use your "theory" to predict the perihelion precession of Mercury. We'll wait.

 

When dealing with realistic observations one must always start with a Hertz dipole detector, and then integrate up for a larger receiving antenna.

Arecibo uses a spherical reflector with dipole antenna receiver elements. Arecibo is 305 meters in diameter, the largest curved focusing dish on Earth. Is that large enough? Has Arecibo detected any anomalies vs. expected physics since it was commissioned in 1963, 42 years ago? No.

 

(BTW, Arecibo located Soviet radar installations by detecting their leakage bouncing back off the Moon.)

[jaycrooks]

:eek:

 

HI UNCLE AL,

 

I SET THIS UP FOR MY FATHER IN LAW AND HE HAS AN EXPLANATION FOR ALL THE POINTS YOU HAVE MADE.

 

He wrote the theory, would you mind if he e-mailed the answers to you?

 

Could you contact him at

 

[email protected]

 

I'm not sure how to get your e-mail address off the system.

 

regards Jeremy

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edit: Complete quote of UA's post above deleted by Tormod for brevity

[Tormod]

:eek:

 

HI UNCLE AL,

 

I SET THIS UP FOR MY FATHER IN LAW AND HE HAS AN EXPLANATION FOR ALL THE POINTS YOU HAVE MADE.

 

Then post them here. This is a discussion forum.

 

And please turn off your caps lock.

 

I'm not sure how to get your e-mail address off the system.

 

In most cases you can't.

[jaycrooks]

Caps lock well and truely off!!!!!

 

I'll be back tomorrow with all the Answers.

 

Thanks for your interest

 

Jeremy

 

 

 

 

QUOTE=Tormod]Then post them here. This is a discussion forum.

 

And please turn off your caps lock.

 

 

 

In most cases you can't.

[jaycrooks]

~~ A reply to Uncle Al ~~

 

Great to have a response, even if it is critical! I am just getting this

web site going and feed back is valuable. Your first point is invaluable

to me.

 

To take your points in order:

 

Self-gravitating gas and dust clouds are, as far as I am aware, always

found in galaxy clusters, which are themselves rotating. The value of G

appropriate to the intergalactic space within a galaxy cluster will be

based on the rotation of the cluster. Hence, the gas and dust cloud does

not itself need to rotate for a value of G to apply. I thought my

wording covered this point, but your comments will make my argument much

stronger. I am changing the web site to read:

 

"The theory predicts that the value of the gravitational constant G will

vary within any galaxy, especially at the outer edge of the galaxy, and

predicts that G will be zero in any intergalactic region of space which

is not part of a rotating galaxy cluster."

 

The value of G appropriate to the intergalactic region within a galaxy

cluster will depend on the rotation and mean density of the cluster.

Hence, the theory will predict that non-rotating gas and dust clouds may

exist in intergalactic space within a galaxy cluster, but may not exist

in intergalactic space external to a galaxy cluster. This prediction

appears to conform with observations.

 

To take all of your other points, generally, to start with:

 

I am proposing that G will vary within a galaxy, but G will only change

if the angular velocity and mean density of the region changes. This is

not a small scale and local effect, except for incremental increases in

the basic galactic value of G that may apply within spinning bodies.

These incremental increases in the galactic value for G are mentioned

later.

 

In the standard Newtonian galaxy stability result I give in equation 4

of Paper 1, which assumes a universal, constant G, different regions

may have different angular velocities and different mean densities

provided the square of the former, divided by the latter, is constant.

Standard Newtonian theory allows for widely separated, particulate

bodies, and the variations in the mean density just mentioned.

 

Hence, with my proposed varying G, the value of G will still be sensibly

constant over any given (large) region of the galaxy. It is only at the

outer edges of the galaxy, where densities are low, that a larger value

of G will apply (and is needed to account for galactic stability). For

the whole of the solar system, which forms a minuscule part of the

galaxy, G will be constant. It is only internally to any spinning body

(such as the Earth) within the galaxy that the value of G might be

increased, over and above the galactic value, by an incremental amount.

 

Hence, for neutron stars, rotating binaries, and rotating gyro balls,

the value of G will be the galactic value appropriate to their local

region of the galaxy which, unless it is very near the edge of the

galaxy, will be substantially our terrestrial value of G.

 

General relativity, with a terrestrial value for G, will apply to the

whole of the solar system, and to the rest of the galaxy provided that,

for some extreme regions, the value of G for that region is used. No new

theory is needed for the perihelion precession of Mercury. This was all

covered in detail in my Foundations of Physics paper - volume 6, 143,

1976.

 

I made it clear that my Hertz antenna comments are only relevant to

pre-cursor transients. These transients are associated with the arrival

of the first few photons at the detector, and are not relevant to the

fastest transient signals used in digital communications or radar

systems.

 

I am grateful for the comments, especially those regarding intergalactic

gas clouds. I think I will get my Foundations of Physics paper scanned

and add it to the web site to save any confusion.

 

Lawrence Stephenson

[UncleAl]

He wrote the theory, would you mind if he e-mailed the answers to you?

I would very definitely mind. I want no part of it.

 

thermodynamics + Bekenstein bound = General Relativity

 

Jacobson, T., "Thermodynamics of space-time: The Einstein equation of state" Phys. Rev. Lett. 75, 1260 (1995); http://arXiv.org/abs/gr-qc/9504004

 

That you have not read the multitude of links I so kindly provided is indicative of your *********. Science is empirical. A theory, any of whose predictions are falsified by observation, is wrong. You have not got a chance. You, each and collectively, are wrong.

 

One cannot square a circle or trisect an angle by Greek rules (straightedge and compass). It is not for want of looking. Greek rules are linear and quadratic operations. The two cited goals require higher order operations. End of discussion. A flat sheet of cloth has zero geometric curvature (Euclidean geometry). A face (certainly an angular caucasoid face) has positive geometric curvature (elliptic geometry). It is mathematically impossible to project elliptic geometry (all triangles' interior angles sum to greater than 180 degrees) onto Euclidean geometry (all triangles' interior angles sum to exactly 180 degrees) without distortion. Ask a cartographer. The Shroud of Turin is a trivial fake.

 

You argument is unsustainable.

 

No aspect of physics can be internally disproven. The math is rigorously internally self-consistent. All extant theory agrees with observation. There are only three valid approaches out of existing theory,

 

1) Disprove a founding postulate. Postulates cannot be defended or they would not be postulates. Euclid fell to his Fifth (Parallel) posulate in the 1800s. I am challenging a founding postulate of General Relativity, the Equivalence Principle, in Huazhong University as you read this. Results are due in mid-September. qz.pdf below.

 

2) Discover an empirical observation that falsifies a theoretical prediction. "All swans are white" was OK until Australian black swans were discovered. End of theory.

 

3) Create a new or superset of theory that contains existing theory as special cases and makes new testable predictions outside of existing theory. Newton less gravitation is wholly contained in Special Relativity. Special Relatvity is wholly contained in General Relativity (that adds gravitation and then wholly contains Newton without exception). None of that contains quantum mechanics. M-theory seeks to contain it all, except M-theory is not predictive. M-theory is not science (yet).

 

Nothing you have is (1), (2), or (3). Observation violates what you do have. You have nothing.

[Qfwfq]

Please avoid being caustic UA.

That you have not read the multitude of links I so kindly provided is indicative of your pathology.

Nobody is under any obligation to follow your links, the default to do so indicates nothing.

 

I agree JC that has not supplied any support for a dubious claim, at the most it could be moved to the Strange Claims forum.

[jaycrooks]

Second reply to Uncle Al

 

I agree that in the few hours before replying to you I did not study in detail the 10 or so references you sent me. The reason is simple, I think you are reading into my theory much more than I state.

 

I am proposing that the spin of a body will only change the value of G within the boundary surface of the body. Any em radiation leaving a rapidly spinning body located in the galaxy will be affected by the the value of G at its surface (i.e. the galactic value) and not the internal value. As I made clear, I propose that all inertially generated gravitational force components have a limited range of operation. Hence, in a free space region, the only value of G that is relevant is that generated by the rotation of the galaxy (because we exist within the boundary surface of the galaxy).

 

Hence, in many ways, my theory is not as radical as I think Uncle Al is imagining. General relativity will apply within the galaxy. However, at the outer edges of the galaxy a larger value of G may have to be used. All of the pulsar etc observations he mentions are not going to be changed by my theory.

 

This brings me to Uncle Al's philosophy on how a theory can change. I agree with him.

 

What I am proposing is simple. Both Newtonian theory and general relativity assume that the value of G is a universal constant, in the same way that Newton assumed that mass was constant and that time proceeded in an unchanging way.

 

I am proposing that G need not be constant throughout the universe, but will be near enough constant (for all observations made external to local spinning bodies) over most of our galaxy. This proposal is not contradicted by general relativity. Imagine some scientists on a distant planet in another galaxy where the value of G is, say, 20% larger than the terrestrial value of G and, as in our galaxy, is constant over large regions of their galaxy. These scientists would develop general relativity and find that all of the tests of the theory are met.

 

What I am proposing, therefore, is a possible extension of general relativity. I am not criticising or contradicting general relativity. In 1916 there was no evidence of rotating galaxies and Einstein very naturally carried over Newton's assumption of G being a universal constant. In 2005 it seems to be a good idea to at least look at the possibility that G may not be a universal constant.

 

Lawrence Stephenson

[jaycrooks]

I forgot to add

 

In the main body of the website

 

http://www.livit.co.uk/theoryofeverything/

 

there are actually references to many experimental papers that would support this theory as well.

 

so to say I have nothing is wrong.