Re: Gravitomagnetism

From: Louis Nielsen (Louis_N_at_edu.herlufsholm.dk)
Date: 10/17/04 

Date: 17 Oct 2004 11:57:43 -0700

Robert and Ziggi please read the following:

A Maxwell-analogous Gravitational Theory with two gravitational
fields.

 By Louis Nielsen Denmark http://www.rostra.dk/louis

More than thirty five years ago (in the sixties) I suggested and
derived a Maxwell-analogous gravitational theory with two
gravitational fields. The two fields are the 'gravito-static' field of
Newton and the 'gravito-magnetic' field, which is a gravitational
rotation-field. The two fields exist around matter in relative
motions.
In my treatise I show that the four field equations, which must be
fulfilled by the 'gravito-static' field and the 'gravito-magnetic'
field, are mathematical identical to Maxwell's electromagnetic
equations.
I show that the four field equations and the 'gravitational
Lorentz-force equation' are a consequence of:
 
1) Newton's gravito-static force law,

2) The transformation equations for positions, times, velocities, and
forces as given in the special theory of relativity,

 
3) The assumption that the 'gravitational mass' is Lorentz invariant.

In the equations I introduce a quantity, the ‘gravito-magnetic
permeability' which is coupled to the 'gravito-magnetic' field. The
‘gravito-magnetic permeability' has connection to the gravitational
constant of Newton and the propagation velocity of the gravitational
fields.
The velocity of propagation of the gravitational fields can be assumed
to be equal to the velocity of light, in accordance with the made
observations.

 Decreasing cosmic gravity.
According to my quantum-cosmological theory (see my treatise) Newton's
gravitational 'constant' is not a constant but is decreasing along
with the expansion of the Universe.
If the propagation velocity of the gravitational fields does not
change in cosmic time then it has as a consequence that also the
'gravito-magnetic permeability' is a decreasing quantity along with
the expansion of the Universe.
In our epoch the 'gravito-magnetic' fields are extremely small around
moving bodies from daily life, and they are difficult to measure. But
around massive bodies with great velocities there exist measurable
'gravito-magnetic' fields. In earlier epochs of the cosmic evolution
of the Universe the magnitude of the 'gravito-magnetic' fields were
higher. As we look back in time to distant objects in the Universe,
these objects moves in more intense and strong cosmic
‘gravito-magnetic' fields, which give a lot of astrophysical
consequences and which can give explanation of different observations.

You can study my derivation of the gravitational field-equations in
part 6 of my treatise:
 
    http://www.rostra.dk/louis/

Best regards Louis Nielsen, Denmark

     
robert bristow-johnson <rbj@audioimagination.com> wrote in message news:<BD91ABA2.F73%rbj@audioimagination.com>...
> in article ckh4d2$6fb$1@titan.btinternet.com, Ziggi at one_ziggi@hotmail.com
> wrote on 10/12/2004 14:45:
>
> > This is going to sound like a very bizarre and possibly insane question, but
> > indulge me if you can.
> >
> > Ok, so I was thinking the other day: "Would it be possible to write down a
> > set of differential equations for some field that, in flat space, looks
> > kinda like EM, but it curved space has a gravity term/component? Sort of
> > like the way a magnetic field at zero velocity looks partially electric at 0
> > < v < c".
> >
> > I know it's a bit of an odd question, but I was curious as to how one would
> > contruct such a theory and what it would look like. Answers on a postcard
> > :p
>
> i don't see it as an odd question at all. i've been thinking about it
> myself for as long as i understood (as best as a "lay" physiker can - i'm an
> electrical engineer so that might give you an idea of the limits of my
> physics expertise) how Electromagnetic forces could be derived from
> Electrostatic forces with Special Relativity taken into consideration. i
> have thought "Why not do the same for gravity? They are both inverse-square
> forces and have a velocity of propagation of c, so why not?" folks on this
> newsgroup haven't been too impressed and that's fine with me.
>
> Anyway, there is a name for this theory and it's called
> "Gravitoelectromagnetism" (GEM) and there isn't yet a Wiki page for it yet.
> This GEM theory has counterparts to Maxwell's Equations that look just like
> Maxwell's Equations (and the Lorentz force equations) with "q" replaced by
> "m", 1/(4*pi*epsilon0) replaced by -G (just as it is in the Coulomb force
> law to get to Newton's law of gravitation) except that the magnetic flux in
> GEM is expressed as "B/2" instead of "B". There are at least two papers:
>
> http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/gr-qc/pdf/9912/9912027.pdf
>
> http://www.iop.org/EJ3-Links/26/B2PcnrMQ9Qr,dG8lppV,HA/q01911.pdf
>
> that derive these GEM equations from GR (Einstein's Field Eq.) for flat
> spacetime.
>
> I haven't understood the B/2 scaling thingie (they say its because gravitons
> are spin-2 particles) because it seems like, at velocities of c/2, the
> gravito-magnetic forces completely counteract the gravito-static force and
> that should not happen (from the p.o.v. of Special Relativity) until the
> velocity is close to c. at least that's how this amateur looks at it. i
> wish the experts here could give me an explanation of that seeming
> contradiction.
>
> > ps, spare no technicality in your response... I'm not exactly a "lay" person
> > :)
>
> but i am.
>
> r b-j

Relevant Pages

  • Re: World without Lorentz transforms wrong
    ... | the original velocity including normal ... | of the expanding universe. ... | dependence of mass is right, when v is the absolute local velocity. ... | Subject: Re: Do photons take part in gravity? ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: World without Lorentz transforms wrong
    ... Then you have the true local absolute velocity. ... | of the expanding universe. ... | dependence of mass is right, when v is the absolute local velocity. ... | Subject: Re: Do photons take part in gravity? ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: The Measurement of Contraction
    ... The effects are in proportion to the velocity of the object ... If you would study physics, rather than memorizing a text and ... a fluid co-ordinate system. ... from gravity U. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Gravity slows light, why not the clocks inside 1971 plane experiment?
    ... light storage for computing tasks more than on the velocity of light ... also light (photons) perhaps it also affects their initial photon ... Present belief is that gravity slows down clocks of SAME ALTITUDE by ... then also perhaps a faster moving clock (than ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Dayton Millers Data have no Real Signal
    ... >it is a function of the velocity of the electron, ... Not among the attributes of matter are gravity. ... >> can your technology produce anything I might want? ... >> to hate bugs, the Box Elder and Lady bugs have turned ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)