Re: Gravimagnetics

On 13 Jul, 18:55, Horace Heffner <hheff...@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Jul 12, 5:42 am, Ian Parker <ianpark...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:





On 7 Jul, 18:56, "gb6...@xxxxxxxxx" <gb6...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Jul 6, 9:35 pm, Horace Heffner <hheff...@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

An amateur paper that may provide some insights into various
gravitational phenomena:

http://mtaonline.net/~hheffner/FullGravimag.pdf

See the theory of the Universe at the end of my project atwww.geocities.com/gb6726/index.htm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dirac_equation
The matrices appearing in the covariant form of the Dirac equation
are defined as follows: 0 = 0 and = 0 for j = 1,2,3. A
convenient (but not unique) choice of s then leads to

Now this is the fundamental Fermion equation. There are in fact 4
matrices and the waveform has 4 components. Now General Relativity
represents one set of components.
The spin is set be the transformation properties (like for the photon
and graviton). In fact the electron, like all Fermions has spinor
transformation properties. My idea is this. If you take some larger
matrices. If you have a 8*8 matrix you can represent Maxwell's
equations and the Dirac equation in one matrix.
If you have a spin of 2 boson (again massless and travelling at c) we
again represent it as an 8*8 matrix. However this time it is not a
straight diagonal
A 0
0 B
but something a little bit more complicated. An imaginary magnetic
field is a little bit of a Fermion.
I am not going to attempt to work it al out. You must really do this.
It was just something which struck me.
Here is an introduction to supersymmetryhttp://hitoshi.berkeley.edu/public_html/susy/susy.html
There is one thing that should always be remembered, and that is that
the masses of particles is set by their interactions and their
Feynmann diagrams. In modern particle physics, powerful computers can
churn for days working out masses and interactrions.http://supersymmetry.com/Forspecific discussion on gravity.

I know this is a lot to plough through.

A better and coreccted reply follows. I posted this earlier, but
again google groups seems to have swallowed it up somehow.

Gravitational charge, as defined by the isomorphism, is an *aspect*
of a fermion, something bound to the fermions location and other
qualities, not a fermion in its own right. It might be considered to
be a quality of the fermion string that interfaces with the imaginary
world. The imaginary world can be viewed as a quality of the vacuum
characterized by epsilon_0_g and mu_0_g, which are the
gravitational analogs to epsilon_0 and mu_0. The fact that c and c_g
can differ in any particular volume of space, due to strong field
effects, i.e. a change in the index of refraction, accounts for the
apparent space warping and time warping effects of GR.

In normal (weak field magnitude) circumstances, when it comes to the
flat space Dirac equation, the interaction Hamiltonians, etc., the
gravitational world can be viewed as *completely independent* for
computational purposes. The exact same equations can be applied to
the gravitational portion of the computation in order to derive the
gravitational forces, energies, waveforms, etc. The formulations are
completely independent. They are isomorphic, so the same equations
are used with the isomorphism substitutions as defined. However, the
*results* are not similar, because, though the equations are all
formally identical, there are imaginary values coming into play, and
h_g = - h, etc. Because the gravitational charge and EM charge are
bound together, the forces and Hamiltonians can be summed to
characterize the fermion as a whole. This all so far jives with the
idea of a diagonal (corners zero) 8x8 Dirac matrix, as the A and B
portions are totally independent.

Similarly, photons can be treated as two bound entities, an
electromagnetic portion and a gravimagnetic portion. Virtual
photons don't have a gravimagnetic portion and gravitons don't have
an electromagnetic portion.

The tricky part comes when strong fields change the the qualities of
the vacuum.

From the expected effect on the path of a photon in a gravitational

field, Jefimenko provides (*Gravitation and Cogravitation*, p. 290) a
description of the field interrelationship:

epsilon * mu = 1 - (phi_g)/c^2

where phi_g is the potential function

phi_g = g ds

If the apparent epsilon* mu changes then the speed of light

c_new = (epsilon mu)^(-1/2)

changes as well, as does the refractive index of the vacuum:

n = c / c_new

It is interesting that the dual is true also. There should exist
general relativistic effects (though they are not gravitational
effects) on graviphotons due to powerful EM fields, because

epsilon_g * mu_g = 1 - (phi)/c^2

where phi is the potential function

phi = E ds

Now, the independent treatment of the gravitational and
electromagnetic fermion portions, using the appropriate gravitational
or electromagnetic description portion of the boson messenger
particle, produces the bending of light according to Jefimenko's
derivation. Therefore, this independent treatment of the two
qualities of fermions and bosons, must indeed reproduce GR effects
without the use of a more complicated 8x8 Dirac treatment. There is
no difference in effect between changing the velocities c and c_g and
the bending of space, i.e. changing the apparent distances between
objects.
Horace Heffner- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -


I think what you must mean is a connection involving supersymmetric
fermions like the photino and gravitino. You are (in essence) talking
about gamma ray gravitons. What happens when gamma ray gravitons meet?

A short range force (very strong fields) would suggest a massive guage
particle, like for strong and weak interactions. This is hinting at a
theory of everything.

This is sci.astro and perhaps I should say something about missing
mass which is generally supposed to consist of supersymmetric
particles. We can see clouds of it though gravitational lensing, but
we don't really know what it is. The odds are that the Universe is
just open (Omega = 1) as Inflatiion insists.

An "antigravitational" pasrticle has been proposed.

http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=antigravity&hl=en&lr=

for most of these you have to be a member and pay a massive
subscription to get the full article.

However there is still antigravity at places like Aea 51. As I keep
saying they tend to start, you don't hear anything for a long long
time but it isn't definitely shelved.

Area 51 antigravity is based on there being a connection between
gravity and electromagnetism on the Groom Lake scale. This is what I
believe can be quickly disposed of.


- Ian Parker

.