Re: Anti-gravitational effects demonstrated using a Van De Graaf generator

On Feb 8, 3:42 pm, carlip-nos...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
frankli...@xxxxxxxxx wrote:
On Feb 2, 1:36 pm, carlip-nos...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
frankli...@xxxxxxxxx wrote:
On Jan 31, 1:18 pm, carlip-nos...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
frankli...@xxxxxxxxx wrote:
[...]
I was looking for something like "Why gravity can't be the
electrostatic force", but I find almost nothing in the literature
or the web.
The simplest reason is this: in gravity, all masses attract, while
in electrostatics, like charges repel.
This is too simplistic. The main attractive force caused by an
electrostatic gravity is the attraction of neutrally charged matter to
a point electrostatic force. This is called the dielectrophoretic
force and is cause by the separation of charges within neutrally
charged matter. This is the same force that allows a charged balloon
to pick up neutrally charged bits of paper.
This is not an inverse square force -- it goes, I believe, as the
inverse fifth power of distance. If you want to get an inverse square
attraction from an electrostatic interaction, you are restricted to
the direct Coulomb interaction between two opposite charges; all other
interactions are based on dipole and higher moments, and fall off more
strongly than an inverse square.

I notice that you didn't address this. It's the simplest flaw in your
model.

Yes, I knew this was problematic, but the post by Mitchell Jones
provides another way.

http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_frm/thread/31c614c6d4104d67/0d4314741d49b80b?tvc=1&q=fhugravity&;

Seems with a straight forward application of Coulomb's law and the
assumption that the positive and negative charge do not exaclty cancel
each other with a ratio in the range of 1 X 10^-74, then we can fully
account for the gravitational constant. 10^-74 is extremely, extremely
small, well below our abilities to experimentally determine the charge
ratio of a proton/electron which is currently around 10^-20. I was
originally thinking dipole forces, but this seems to be a better way.
I will have to look into it more. So with that, your inverse square
argument falls away. Thanks Mitchell Jones.


[...]
What other objections do you have against the gravity=electrostatic
theory?

[...]

Among the more obvious ones:

1. Light is does not interact electromagnetically -- not just no charge,
but no dipole or higher multipole moments -- but it is observed to be
deflected by gravitational fields.
Yes, light is deflected by gravitational fields. In order to
understand why, you need to understand more about my overall model of
the universe which does include an aether. The aether is made up of
positron/electron pairs and is very similar to normal matter in that
it forms atomic dipoles and these are attracted to gravitational
(electrostatic) field. With higher gravity, it compresses the aether
like water deep in the ocean and causes the aether to become denser.
Since we have a density difference, simple refraction from the density
differences can explain the bending of light in the presence of strong
gravitational fields.

Physics is a quantitative science. How much deflection do you predict,
as a function of the mass of the object deflecting the light and as a
function of the distance the light passes from the object?

I'm sure this can be calculated. Since time is limited, I will outline
how the calculation will have to go since the actual calculations
require more research than I have time. There should be a formula
relating density of a gas relative to a gravitational source. This is
the same thing that determines air pressure at differing levels of
altitude. From this and mathematical formulas describing the effects
of refaction depending on density, one should be able to calculate the
degree of refraction expected. One thing we don't know is the actual
density, so we may have to work backwards by determining what the
density is based on actual deflection measurements and then working
forward again to see that it meets other experimental conditions.


Suppose the object that is deflecting the light is moving relative to
the source and receiver of the light. How much, if at all, does the
deflection depend on the velocity? Numbers, please.


Movement may induce dialation based effects. These effects should be
calulated using the same 1 - v^2/c^2 formulas as relativity since the
model used to explain these dialation effects which is typically shown
as a boater travelling across a running river is actually based on an
aether model - what do you think the running river is? It isn't
nothing - it's absolute space.

In all observed instances of refraction of light, the amount of refraction
depends on the frequency of the light. Deflection by a gravitational field,
on the other hand, is observed to be achromatic, that is, independent of
frequency. How does your model explain this?


I did have a previous discussion with PD on this exact subject. I
think the real question is what causes the frequency dependent
refraction? If you think about it, if a wave is travelling through a
perfectly elastic lossless medium, why should the speed of light
through a material change with frequency? Really, it should not if it
is such a perfect medium. The only thing I could think of is that in
the process of absorbing and re-radiating the light, the atoms induce
frequency dependent delays in the propogation of the light waves.
Perhaps the inertia of the atoms slow down the propagation and the
inertia has different effects at different frequences. There are a
number of possibiities and is an interesting question in of itself.

However, the aether takes a priveleged position in the transmission of
EM waves since it does not pass waves by absorbing and then emission.
It simply passes the wave directly through mechanical motion like
waves passing through balls connected with springs. Therefore, this
truly is a lossless medium and it transmits EM as we would expect
which is achromatic.

I have heard that the equations involving GR basically can be broken
down into a difference in density or are equivalent to density differences.
I don't know if that is true,

It's definitely not true.

I seemed to have lost my reference to this. The point of the article
was that the effects attributed to relativity either really didn't
exist or must have been lost in the other effects which can cause a
similar bending. This isn't the reference I was thinking of, but it
certainly puts a doubt in my head that the bending of starlight by the
sun has been accurately measured even to this day. This is the sort of
thing which should be done on a spacecraft.

http://www.newtonphysics.on.ca/ECLIPSE/Eclipse.html


2. An electrostatic description would violate the equivalence principle.
We observe that materials with very different electrical properties
fall with exactly the same accelerations. This has been tested with
such substances as glass, cork, and brass in Eotvos's early experiments,
and platinum, beryllium, aluminum, lead, alnico magnets, samarium cobalt
magnets with highly polarized electrons, and single crystal silicon in
more recent ones. There is no reason for an electrostatic model to
produce exactly the same accelerations -- typically measured to a part
in 10^11 or so -- in all of these cases. (Certainly attraction based on
dielectric characteristics, as you are proposing, will depend strongly
on the dielectric constant, which differs from substance to substance,
and, in fact, on the shape and internal structure of the falling body.)
The gravitational attraction I am envisioning would happen at the
atomic level. In my model, the electrons and protons that make up an
atom are relatively spread apart and so each proton and electron
within an atom generates a dipole that gravity works on independently.
As far as gravity is concerned, that big red brick you see is composed
of trillions and trillions of identically sized objects which all act
independently. So naturally, it wouldn't matter what something is made
up of.

First: we can observe the effect of gravity on single neutrons. We don't
need "trillions and trillions" of atoms.

This is my point exactly, the force which creates gravity effectively
ONLY acts on individual proton/electron or neutron (made up of
positron/electron) pairs. That they congolmerate into larger units is
of no consequence.


Second: if gravity depends ony on the "electrons and protons that make up
an atom," then different isotopes of the same element -- with equal numbers
of protons and electrons, but different numbers of neutrons -- would fall
differently (same gravitational force, but different masses). They don't,
observably.


Of course, they wouldn't. Mass at this scale is irrelevant. Everything
falls in a gravitational field as a relatively loose collection of
charged pairs.

Third: take two identical collections of protons, neutrons, and electrons.
Use one to make a bunch of beryllium atoms, and the other to make a bunch
of copper atoms. The resulting two masses have identical constituents,
but different nuclear binding energies. The inertial mass of an object
includes a contribution E/c^2 from the binding energy. In your model, the
two bodies would therefore experience equal gravitational forces, but they
would have different inertial masses, so they would accelerate at different
rates. They don't: observably, the acceleration is the same, to a precision
of parts per trillion.

This is an interesting question, although I could probably just say
that inetial mass is irrelevant at this scale as well. But I will have
to think about the relationship between inertial mass and binding
energy. That is an interesting question.

We thus *observe* that nuclear binding energy gravitates.

I would say that nuclear binding has no effect upon the observed
effects of gravity. Not that binding energy gravitates. There is a
subtle difference in interpretation. My model indicates no
experimental difference between a hydrogen atom and a block of steel
since the block of steel is effectively made up of individual hydrogen
atoms as far as the gravitational force is concerned.

So, also from
observation, does electrostatic energy, magnetostatic energy, the energy
of weak interactions, gravitational binding energy, and even the kinetic
energy of electrons. How does your model explain this? Why, in your model,
should the gravitational force an object experiences depend on how fast the
electrons are moving in its atoms?

I am unfamiliar with the kinetic energy of electrons. The reasoning
follow the same reasoning as the binding energy - basically a NULL
result of gravity rather than a real change in gravitational action.
If so, then my same comments apply.


[...]

3. We observe that many forms of energy -- electrostatic energy, nuclear
binding energy, energy of weak interactions, even kinetic energy of
electrons in atoms -- gravitate. But these do not interact with electric
fields.
I have never head of nuclear binding energy gravitating - do you have
any references? Electrons with kinetic energy definitely interact with
the electric field and are strongly deflected, so I am unsure what you
are referring to here.

A good technical reference is Will's review Living Reviews article,http://relativity.livingreviews.org/Articles/lrr-2006-3/index.html, section 2.1.
If you want something less technical, get Will's book, _Was Einstein Right?_
For kinetic energy of electrons, seehttp://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/9909014.

4. We observe that *gravitational* potential energy gravitates. (Look up the
Nordtvedt effect in the Earth-Moon orbit). This implies that gravity must
be nonlinear. Electromagnetism isn't.
What I read in wiki indicates that the Nordtvedt effect doesn't exist.
The connection with a non-linear gravity wasn't clear. I would have
expected that if gravity were non-linear, it would be difficult to
keep planets in their neat and unchanging orbits.

Gravitational energy gravitates. If it did not, the Earth and the Moon would
experience slightly different accelerations toward the Sun, since they have
different proportions of gravitational binding energy. These different
accelerations would lead to changes in the Moon's orbit, called the Nordtvedt
effect. The fact that this effect is not observed is an experimental test
of the fact that gravitational energy gravitates.

That's what nonlinearity means. It causes no problems with orbits; I don't
know why you think it would.

Again, Will's _Was Einstein Right?_ has a very nice, clear discussion.

5. Gravity is observed to affect the rate of clocks -- including atomic
clocks, clocks based on weak interactions, and even "mechanical clocks"
(e.g., rotating neutron stars). Electrical interactions do not; and
if one could contrive an effect on a particular kind of clock, there
would be no reason to expect it to work for others based on different
physical principles.
To explain this, I once again rely on the concept of a gravitaionally
compressed aether. In such a compressed aether, you must cross many
more aether particles to go from point A to point B and this is the
source of the clock slowdown for any kind of clock. The density of the
aether sets the basic speed at which particles can interact.

Where are the numbers? How much does a clock slow down? Why, specifically
(i.e., by calculation, not verbiage) should a clock based on weak interactions
slow by exactly the same amount as, say, a clock based on atomic transitions,
or one based on simply measuring the spin rate of a neutron star?

All interactions happen at the speed of light c. Clocks slow down due
to a decrease in the effective speed of light due to increasing aether
density. Therefore all physical interactions are slowed. For example
between a fixed point A and B are 10 aether particles. It takes 10
absolute units of time for anything to traverse from A to B. Now the
aether density increases such there are now 12 aether particles
between the same 2 points. It now take 12 absoulte units of time or
20% more time for it to do the same interaction.

For a mathematical description, check this reference.

http://www.egtphysics.net/GPS/RelGPS.htm

See the section starting with the quote "The effects of gravitational
potential described above can be easily matched to the effects of
ether density." I think I could agree with most of what is being said
here - lots of math to prove it for those who are in to that.

Why does a clock *at rest* in a gravitational field (not "go[ing] from point
A to point B") slow down?

Once, again, aether density increases the number of particles that
have to traversed to get from point A to point B even in a motionless
clock. (A clock always must have some motion associated with it to
determine the length of the click).


6. Binary pulsar systems slowly decay by emitting gravitational waves..
(Hulse and Taylor won the 1993 Physics Nobel Prize for this discovery.)
The observations show that gravitational waves couple to the mass
quadrupole moment. Electric fields, on the other hand, couple first
to dipole moments; this would lead to *much* stronger radiation,
contradicting observation.

A search of the net on gravitational waves and quadrapole moments
brought up nothing. Do you have any handy net references?

Will's Living Reviews article has a discussion, but it's fairly technical.
The best less-technical discussion I know of is section 36.1 of the textbook
by Misner, Thorne, and Wheeler, which I don't think you'll ...

read more »- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -


.

Relevant Pages

  • =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Re=3A_Schr=F6dinger=27s_Universe?=
    ... This puts us back into a steady state universe again because if you ... cannot discern acceleration from gravity ... quanta bits, the same as energy. ... the emitting and receiving electrons are involved and if these "see" ...
    (sci.edu)
  • Re: Anti-gravitational effects demonstrated using a Van De Graaf generator
    ... in gravity, all masses attract, while ... For example, the Earth ands the Moon attract, so in an electrostatic ... they must have opposite charges. ... the Earth, e2 is the charge of the electrons in Luna, and r is the ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: Anti-gravitational effects demonstrated using a Van De Graaf generator
    ... in electrostatics, like charges repel. ... We observe that many forms of energy -- electrostatic energy, ... electrons in atoms -- gravitate. ... This implies that gravity must ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: New Electricity
    ... -perspective with virtual photons emanating from individual electrons ... drifting through the fixed positive charges in a conductor. ... I the case of alternating current the real photons ... The enclosed self energy is such that the photon cannot ...
    (rec.radio.amateur.antenna)
  • Re: Anti-gravitational effects demonstrated using a Van De Graaf generator
    ... in electrostatics, like charges repel. ... electrostatic gravity is the attraction of neutrally charged matter to ... interactions are based on dipole and higher moments, ... the electrons and protons that make up an ...
    (sci.physics)