In a vacuum, has an object of mass the gravity?

All masses are influenced by gravitation, independent from vacuum.

The source of gravitation are all masses, except for photons and neutrinos which are not sources of gravitation.

JES

Nothing in our universe is working mechanically as Newtonian and Einsteinian stated. Article Quantum Mechanics Gravity, Mechanical Gravity of Newton is Myth

Javad Fardaei.

Newtonian mechanics is accepted. For examples, rocket and satellite.

Einstein's theory of general and special relativity is hypothetical.

In Newtonian and and classical mechanics, concepts, definitions, and formulae such as Newtonian laws, kinetic energy, potential energy, conservation of energy, velocity, angular velocity, gravity, momentum, force, acceleration, mass, weight, centripetal force, centrifugal force, etc. work well.

Stellan Gustafsson,

photons behave in the same way as any object with mass with respect to gravity. It is described in my first book (in my profile). I also calculated the neutrino mass to .13eV.

Hans Gennow

No, the Photon and the Neutrino are not sources of gravitation. But, they are influenced by the gravitational field, two times stronger than for a normal particle.

The neutrino, just like the photon, has no specific mass. It has a specific geometry such that there are only few possible interactions possible. This is the reason for the belief that there exist 3 different neutrinos.

The mass of the photon and the neutrino do not follow (E=mc²), but have a constant mass (energy), produced at the moment of creation, independent of their velocity.

JES

Dear Chinnaraji Annamalai

Yes it is true in kinematic mechanics. In electromagnetic mechanics now synchronized with kinematic mechanics, it is related to the charges of the elementary particles of which all masses are made. The more charged particles a mass contains, the more strongly they will interact with the charges of other masses. Their individual interactions are additive. The same calculations and gravity strength can be made either with kinematic mechanics equations or with electromagnetic mechanics equations.

Analyzed in this article, with all historical formal references provided, with direct links to those that are now available on the internet:

Article Introduction to Synchronized Kinematic and Electromagnetic Mechanics

Best Regards, André

André Michaud

I have discovered lately that the addition of the interaction between charge (or masses) can't be exactly correct! This is due to the radial equilibrium around charges and masses. The force around e sphere is symmetric and therefore minimized. If the radial equilibrium is distorted by other particles (charges,masses) then the mass must increase. This is especially important when the different bodies are in disorder i.e., not alined with each other.

JES

Dear Stellan Gustafsson

You wrote: "I have discovered lately that the addition of the interaction between charge (or masses) can't be exactly correct!"

This is because you are using the uncorrected classical mechanics and electrodynamics equations.

With the harmonized kinematics and electromagnetic equations, the calculations are exactly correct, as put in perspective in the article I just referred Chinnaraji to.

This summary explanation of the electromagnetic equation to be used is detailed in Section 13. Gravitation of this previously published article:

Article Demystifying the Lorentz Force Equation

For this other article, as for the previous one, references to all historical formally published articles are provided, with direct links to those that are directly available on the internet.

Best Regards, André

André Michaud ,

As always, you take the part of the so called "main stream" physics. I'm sorry, put this type of physics has been sterile since more than 100 years.

Please open your mind to new physics, using logic instead of old papers.

JES

Dear Stellan Gustafsson

You wrote: "As always, you take the part of the so called "main stream" physics."

Saying this means that you have not read any of my articles. If you had, you would become aware that there is nothing that mainstream hates more than what I am doing, which is to reground research on experimental evidence and to equip the upcoming generation with the tools to show the now ignorance driven mainstream Copenhagen interpretation aficionado professors the door of their classrooms.

Best Regards, André

André Michaud

I remember reading your paper on your model (theory) of physics, And after reading the initial fundament of it, I realized that it must be wrong (or without importance). In your response to my comment, your reaction was identical, I believe. So we are back to zero.

JES

Dear Stellan Gustafsson

Note that all my articles are were meant to be read and analyzed only by interested people. This is why I typically introduce them in context with the following phrase: "if interested..."

All others can go on living their lives as before.

So "you" are back to zero with respect to my analyses, and they remain available all the same for interested people, irrespective of your obviously uninformed opinion about them, given that you read only what you name "the initial fundament of it", but none of the analyses.

Best regards, André

“…Anything that has mass also has gravity. Is it true?….”

- yeah, that is completely true; though at that it is necessary to clarify also that in Matter there exist two “masses” – “inertial mass”, mi, that is measure of “inertia”, and so is in the fundamentally universal part of mechanics, say, in equation E=mc2, where “m” is mi, and “gravitational mass”, mG, which is the charge of the fundamental Nature force “Gravity”, and is in mechanical equations only at description of what happens in gravitationally couple systems of bodies; say, as that is in Newton gravity law f=Gm1m2/r2, where m1,2 are mG.

Why that is so, including, first of all, why at least at statics – and small speeds of bodies in the systems – inertial and gravitational masses are equivalent? – that can be and is, clarified only in the Shevchenko-Tokarevsky’s 2007 initial model of Gravity and Electric Forces, see

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/365437307_The_informational_model_-_Gravity_and_Electric_Forces

- moreover it turns out to be that at least 3 fundamental Nature forces act by one scheme, , besides the two Forces above the Nuclear Force” acts by this scheme as well, more see

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/369357747_The_informational_model_-Nuclear_Force

Though note the principal difference of Gravity from all other Forces: every particle – and so every body has gravitational charge/mass – practically everything in Matter attracts gravitationally everything, while particles can have charges of other different Forces, say, be electrically neutral, etc. ;

- and – again at fundamental contrast to other Forces – Gravity is completely symmetrical Force, and so, say, rather probably since the primary particles that were firstly created at Matter’s Beginning had only gravitational charges, Matter doesn’t contain antimatter now – while what is observed now at interactions where other Forces act, in such cases if some interactions result in creation of particles, since other Forces aren’t symmetrical, practically completely obligatorily only particles-antiparticles pairs are created. More see the initial SS&VT cosmological model in https://www.researchgate.net/publication/355361749_The_informational_physical_model_and_fundamental_problems_in_physics , section “Cosmology”.

Cheers

mass naturally goes hand-in-hand with Gravity ...........

In case today's post-modern physics has so turned things upside-down that no-mass "things" bring about [ CAUSATIVE ! ] gravitation fields , well . ... that is a totally different issue ;;;;;;;;

REZA

CA: Newtonian mechanics is accepted. For examples, rocket and satellite. Einstein's theory of general and special relativity is hypothetical.

That is the wrong way round, general relativity is accepted and has a vast body of confirmatory evidence up to and including the form of gravitational waves. Special relativity is obtained from it where the effects of gravity are small enough to be negligible and it is locally accurate.

Newton's law was proven to be wrong by Eddington in 1919 but it remains a useful approximation.

As for your question, mass, energy and pressure all create gravity as terms in the stress-energy tensor, and photons carry energy so also create gravity, see the electromagnetic stress-energy tensor for that contribution.

Chinnaraji Annamalai , I send you one of my article to read, obviously you did not read it. Just for your information: if Earth was following Newtonian gravity, Earth never would have rain, due to Newtonian concept.

Earth's gravity is working under influence of temperature, pressure and mass of object on three dimensional phenomenon, not under one dimension, static, a formula that does recognize temperature and pressure, that it Witten in past with made up 9.81 g-force.

You said>>formulae such as Newtonian laws, kinetic energy, potential energy, conservation of energy, velocity, angular velocity, gravity, momentum, force, acceleration, mass, weight, centripetal force, centrifugal force, etc. work well.

Me>> you are absolutely wrong. Read my article to understand the gravity.

Javad Fardaei ,

The oceans and the atmosphere are the two large reservoirs of water in the Earth's hydrologic cycle. Gravity causes precipitation to fall from clouds and water to flow downward on the land through watersheds. Energy from the sun and the force of gravity drive the continual cycling of water among these reservoirs. As the water is heated, it changes state from a liquid to a gas.

Quote: "Newton's law was proven to be wrong by Eddington in 1919 but it remains a useful approximation."

Eddington's 1919 data did not prove Newton's mechanics wrong. It only proved that only half of any electromagnetic photon energy is subject to transverse gravitational interaction.

The photon (and also the neutrino) is a specific particle, it simply hasn't a centrifugal force, otherwise it behaves like a normal particle.

JES

Dear Stellan,

The double deflection angle of the trajectories of light photons by the mass of the Sun is the proof that photons are not normal massive particles, and that only half of the energy of each of them is subject to transverse gravitational interaction. The other half can only be its momentum energy, which is not subject to transverse interaction, and that propels it at c.

“…CA: Newtonian mechanics is accepted. For examples, rocket and satellite. Einstein's theory of general and special relativity is hypothetical.

That is the wrong way round, general relativity is accepted and has a vast body of confirmatory evidence up to and including the form of gravitational waves…”

- though yeah, Newtonian mechanics really doesn’t describe completely what happens in gravitationally coupled systems of bodies – quite similarly Coulomb law doesn’t describe completely what happens in electrically coupled systems of bodies – that Maxwell-Lorentz classical electrodynamics does, where Coulomb law is only one among other laws,

- and so the correspondingly developed Gravity theory will, of course, contain some other laws besides the Newtonian one,

- however the claim that “general relativity is accepted and has a vast body of confirmatory evidence” looks as rather strange – nothing besides the few 1916 “confirmatory evidences” [and 19060-s the Pound-Rebka-Snyder, and really the same GPS, experimental evidences, though] really exist till now,

- which [the evidences], at that, are obtained in the weak Gravity field case, whereas if Gravity field is strong, the GR equation solutions quite evidently violate the energy conservation law, what is fundamentally impossible in any really scientifically correct theory.

Including so, say, that

“….As for your question, mass, energy and pressure all create gravity as terms in the stress-energy tensor, and photons carry energy so also create gravity, see the electromagnetic stress-energy tensor for that contribution.…..”

- looks as rather strange claim also – the electromagnetic stress-energy tensor doesn’t contain terms that relate to gravitational interactions; and, moreover, in the GR it is postulated that photons don’t change their energy/frequency at propagating between points in Gravity field with different potentials.

The last GR postulate can be quite easily tested – see https://www.researchgate.net/publication/277710038_The_informational_model_-_gravity_a_next_experiment where, in principle, it would be shown that the postulate is wrong. This experiment would be much more informative, and, if the GR would be confirmed, that would be much more rigorous and strong confirmation than, say, in the PRS experiments,

- however, despite that the experiment now could be made in a couple of weeks and at ~ $100 000 financing, and despite that really was proposed by Clifford Will yet in 1986, the experiment wasn’t made till now officially; though practically for sure was made, but the result turned out to be real confirmatory evidence of the Shevchenko-Tokarevsky’s 2007 initial model of Gravity and Electric Forces [the link see SS post on page 2], and by no means in accordance with the GR.

The thread question is scientifically answered in the SS post on page 2, here note only again that Gravity is fundamentally nothing else than some fundamental Nature force, while the postulated in the GR interactions in systems “mass-spacetime-mass” fundamentally cannot, and so by no means, exist; and that SS posts in https://www.researchgate.net/post/What_is_the_speed_of_light_inside_the_black_hole

, and

https://www.researchgate.net/post/If_you_were_to_look_for_a_new_theory_of_gravity_to_replace_general_relativity_what_criteria_would_that_theory_have_to_meet/47

- are relevant to this thread question.

Cheers

Dear André Michaud ,

The double deflection angle can also be explained as a lack of centrifugal force. The centrifugal force is equal to the centripetal one, so if you have no centrifugal force the deflection will be two times stronger.

JES

Another fantastic question that I may spend a great deal of time answering it. When one who is scientifically or mathematically inclined is presented with a scientific question, and the immediate thought is more logical or philosophical, then the indicator it is vested within my conscience as a palpably thought provoking question has presented itself. You ask if everything with mass has gravity. It shows a lack of acknowledgment on the part of humans that their is wealthy of information we do not have that simply make answering questions like this technically impossible. I'll give a simple reason: Dark Matter. It eludes us. We have essentially no knowledge in any technically definable sense of the properties of Dark Matter. It could be massless. It could be appearing as mass, affecting mass, or devoid of it yet still representative of our perception of matter. In that regard, in relation to your question I believe the correct answer is "Most matter" has gravity. The matter we are aware of and can study physically. We can account for that, but we cannot account for the properties of something we currently fo not understand the full ramifications of. And if we are being technical, we cannot even say "most matter" has the properties indicated because "most matter" which comprises ninety give percent of the universe is dark matter. It's a glaring hole and probably one of the most essential questions in physics so that we may understand the place of matter in the universe. Including ourselves as human beings. We can say dark matter appears to have gravitational pull, or doesn't. Either way we still cannot say much. For example: we can say that Dark matter has mass. And therefore gravitational pull. But without knowing the machinations of how this works, we cannot overlook the possibility that it simply appears to have mass because of some unknown "backdoor process" which we currently do not understand. Perception is a fickle source of basing calculations. The failure to account for things we do not and can not understand. When humans start to account for this and it's relation to constants we are aware of, the real constants of these elusive constructs may once and for all shed light on the full implications of your question.

I was wondering yesterday about the same question from a different perspective.

I am speculating that the object's self-rotation will affect the gravitational pull because each part of the object now carries the centrifugal push that is independent of rotation angles, and thus stay un-canceled from integrating the effective force of parts of the object.

That is if correct, we might be able to make a device that rotates crazily to provide an anti-gravity lift. This still obeys energy conservation but no need to burn explosives. Imagine a double helicopter that spins orders of magnitude faster.

Some galaxies with a significant amount of dark matter could just be they have a core that is spinning crazily. Otherwise, due to their weak interactions with others, they should be uniform across the universe.

Here is the link to the question I have asked:

https://www.researchgate.net/post/Relative_rotation_and_Machs_principle

Dear Stellan Gustafsson

You wrote: "The double deflection angle can also be explained as a lack of centrifugal force. The centrifugal force is equal to the centripetal one, so if you have no centrifugal force the deflection will be two times stronger."

I agree. In 1911, Einstein assumed that the equivalent mass of the whole complement of energy of each light photon was subject to transverse centripetal force, which caused him to calculate from Newton mechanics an angle twice shallower than was observed in 1919 – an angle of 0.83 Arc second.

Einstein A. Über den Einfluß der Schwerkraft auf die Ausbreitung des Lichtes. Annalen derPhysik. 1911;340(10):898-908.

http://myweb.rz.uni-augsburg.de/~eckern/adp/history/einstein-papers/1911_35_898-908.pdf

You can re-do his calculation yourself with half the equivalent mass value, and you will obtain the correct double deflexion angle.

If he had used the equivalent mass of only half the energy of each photon, in accordance with de Broglie's conditions, that the latter published only later in the 1930's, he would have obtained in 1911 the correct twice stronger centripetal force related angle with straight Newton mechanics equations.

The application of de Broglie's conditions is what led to the establishment of the LC equation for the de Broglie double-particle photon:

Article De Broglie’s Double-Particle Photon (Expanded republication PI)

Best Regards, André

Dear Alex Wolf III

We must keep in mind that "dark matter" and "dark energy" were conceived of in trying to explain why GR strays so far from well understood Newtonian mechanics as successfully applied here on Earth.

For example, "dark matter", which has never been observed but whose existence is presumed so that the theory of General Relativity is not rejected as invalid, was conceived as an ad hoc unobservable by Fritz Zwicky in 1933, when he realized that the virial theorem associated with GR could not explain the existence of distant galaxies, since the calculation of their masses based solely on their luminosity, in relation with the assumed red shift related to increasing velocity, the farther away the galaxies were, was much lower than what was possible according to the theory of General Relativity.

Note that Zwicky was such a staunch believer that RG was right, that he did not even consider the possibility that it could be wrong, or that the increasing red shift with distance could be explained by some other cause.

This led him to hypothesize the existence of unobservable "dark matter", which had to be added in an ad hoc manner to arrive at reasonable masses according to this theory.

So, if so-called dark matter and dark energy, unobservable and having no measurable properties (but strangely having the ad hoc assumed measurable property of "mass") simply did not exist, Newton's gravitational theory would allow calculating reasonable masses for distant galaxies from their luminosity alone, if the increasing red shift with distance was explained simply by the normal expenditure of some of the energy of each of the incoming light photons as work according to the 2nd principle of thermodynamics each time their trajectories are deflected as they pass by the large masses of intervening galaxies on their way to us. The farther away they are emitted, the more energy they will have had to spend as work in this manner on their way in due to the increasing number of intervening galaxies, the farther away from us they are emitted.

Best Regards, André

André Michaud Your answer above on photons is extremely pointed and eloquent. And supplemented with the paper which perfectly supports the information in your answer. I'm going to study what you have attached heavily. Then I will respond in due time in relation to centrifugal force/photons. If you have any research you may want to point me in the right way of, I will gobble it up quickly. I want to assure that I view this part of the discussions from every angle before responding.

Dear Alex Wolf III

You asked me: " What is your personal opinion of the mass of matter in relation to DM/DE? I'd love to hear, you always have very pointed observations."

Thanks for your appreciation of my straight off the wall opinions.

About DM/DE, I have no opinion other that I found no trace of any dark matter or dark energy in a universe in which all observable energy is confirmed to be electromagnetic in nature and in which all masses are made of the whole set of atoms already listed in the periodic table, each of which being stabilized systems of stable charged and massive elementary particles whose constituting energy is confirmed to be electromagnetic in nature, the whole very restricted set of which has been confirmed to physically exist by mutual non-destructive scattering over the course of the past century.

My conclusion is that SR is an incomplete kinematic theory due to the rejection by Einstein and the entire community in 1907 of the confirmed electromagnetic behavior of electrons in Kaufmann's bubble chamber, and that GR is also incomplete by not taking into account the electromagnetic nature of all particles making up all existing masses.

Both SR and GR still treat macroscopic masses as if they were solid bodies with no internal structure.

Best Regards, André

Dear Alex Wolf III

You asked me – I assume in relation with the electromagnetic internal photon structure proposed by de Broglie: "Your answer above on photons is extremely pointed and eloquent. And supplemented with the paper which perfectly supports the information in your answer. I'm going to study what you have attached heavily. Then I will respond in due time in relation to centrifugal force/photons. If you have any research you may want to point me in the right way of, I will gobble it up quickly."

Actually, I have been at it for the past 25 years, locating and carefully analyzing the historical formal articles and books of the initial discoverers of the known aspects of electromagnetic energy in relation with photons and elementary particles at the subatomic level. The outcome is spread out over about 20 formally published articles that analyze and synthesize what I understood of their discoveries, so, if you aim at really digging in their research results, all their articles are given in reference in these articles, with links to those that are directly available on the internet (most being older than 75 years and thus now in the public domain).

To enter the set, I provided a general index into the lot, in which the first article proposed was published less than 2 months ago, that summarizes how kinematic and electromagnetic mechanics can be harmonized from the whole set of separate analyses, and that points to the various previously published articles that provide deep analysis of each aspect:

Article INDEX -Electromagnetic Mechanics (The 3-Spaces Model)

Doubtful that the whole could be "gobbled up quickly" given the amount of reading involved, but you should get a good picture of the model on rather short order.

Best Regards, André

The centrifugal force is mv^2/r and at 11200 m/s on Earth's surface, it equals gravitational pulling force. So the antigravity force is v^2/11200^2 of gravitational force at rest.

Thus if we spin up a gyroscope of 1 m radius at 2000 cycle/s, the edge will reach 12560 m/s and be ready to take off the ground. Imagine a small piece at the edge falls off the wheel, it will orbit the Earth. Even it is confined by the wheel and forced to turn, in the new direction it still want to escape. This is a crazy speed 100 time faster than bullet speed so very dangerous and a normal person should not try.

If we place it horizontally, then all parts are escaping gravity and we may have a UFO. But 2000 cycle/s of such a large flydisk is very difficult to reach with our current technology. A very fast gyroscope say 20000 cycles per minute and 5 cm diameter will reach an edge speed of only 100 m/s providing 100^2/11200^2 = 0.00007 force.

From above rationale, I conclude that gravity is relative and mass rotating or travel at different speed will feel different gravity. If we assume mass itself is curled up energy say photon, then the current gravity is some interaction after the rotation correction.

I think it's necessary to remind you that strongly red shifted photons can't be red shifted due to interactions (even extremely weak) since this would imply a broadening of the detected frequency peaks. This is not observed, even extremely far away objects can have very small width in their spectra!

JES

Stellan Gustafsson I'm not being cheeky, but I wanted clarification. The way I see it, it can be quite difficult to differentiate between red-shift due to low energy interactions and red-shift due to extremly far distance, and I want to understand more how (in a laboratory setting) they differentiate between shift in that direction due to great distance and shift due to some form of low energy interaction. I know how the math works, but unfortunately I haven't been able to work with actual astronomical tools other than my trusty telescope. Is it only sensitive instruments which can greatly determine the difference? What about complex concomitant situations where it's both? For things such as this I can do the mathematics very well but if you have any experience with instruments related to this and what methods are generally used I'd love to hear.

Stellan Gustafsson I mean I guess you already answered. STRONG red shift. I'd suppose the stronger the shift within red the easier to differentiate. And then a concomitant situation would lie somewhere in the middle correct? I'm interested in learning the exact values of the frequency which tend to indicate strong red shift due to distance. Is it a case by case situation accounting for specifics of the situation and the various factors? And I guess this may be a confusing response knowing I'm speaking mainly in the context of astronomy.

Alex Wolf III

Well, it's difficult to give you a complete answer. But, I'll put a paper on Gravity and Cosmology, which explain it all, but I'm occupied at the moment,

so maybe in about a couple of month.

To give you a simple answer; the red shift is directly proportional to the distance from the target. There is a problem with the methods of distance measurements used today, since several "constants" vary with the expansion of the Universe.

JES

Dear Stellan Gustafsson

You wrote: "I think it's necessary to remind you that strongly red shifted photons can't be red shifted due to interactions (even extremely weak)"

According to the 2nd principle of thermodynamics, however weak an interaction may be, it is not possible for the state of motion of a body or particle to be changed without some energy to be expended as work. So, each time the trajectory of a light photon, or of any frequency photon for that matter, is changed through gravitational interaction on its way to us, it is not possible for some of its energy not to be used up as work to execute this work.

Every time a light photon enters the gravity field of a mass, such as that of a star on its way to us, it will blue shift until it reaches the most intense point of its run into the gravity gradient of this mass, to then red shift back towards it initial entry energy in the field, but the uncompensated change in direction of its trajectory that results from having been pulled towards this mass remains uncompensated and this is the cause of some of its own energy to be spent as work to sustain this change in direction of its trajectory (2nd principle of thermodynamics) which is what will cause a resulting amount of permanent red shift increase for each of these occurrences on the way to us of each light photon.

The alternative to this explanation would be that the 2nd principle of thermo, that we know to operate for all changes of the state of motion of all masses and particles here on Earth, does not operate universally. I reject this possibility. I think that the laws of nature confirmed to apply here on Earth apply universally.

Best Regards, André

Dear Jixin Chen

You wrote: "The centrifugal force is mv^2/r and at 11200 m/s on Earth's surface, it equals gravitational pulling force. So the antigravity force is v^2/11200^2 of gravitational force at rest."

Note that the centrifugal force on the Earth surface and velocity at each point on the Earth surface varies from strongest at the equator and weakest at the poles.

This is analyzed and put in perspective with the kinematic equations to do the calculations in this article published in 2013, in Section VII Rotation Velocities at the Surface of the Earth:

Article On the Einstein-de Haas and Barnett Effects

The previous Section VI analyzes why bodies are immobilized at the surface of the earth when in least action state, despite the centrifugal force.

Best Regards, André

Dear André Michaud ,

I don't think that the 2nd principle of thermodynamics can be applied to photons. As I've already stated the photon (and the neutrino) doesn't have a centrifugal force, this is due to the photon's interaction with its surrounding which makes that the photon just follow the surrounding "characteristics".

The photon is a closed energy-mass lump, it can only exchange energy in an electromagnetic interaction and not with a gravitational field.

But, a photon can change its internal characteristics (frequency) without changing its energy-mass, in the passage of a nearby star for example.

JES

Stellan Gustafsson Thank you! Yes please let me.know any literature you have on this. Also can you please explain your last statement? I am under the belief every electromagnetic interaction affects or results in a gravitational field in some way.

Dear Stellan Gustafsson

You wrote: "I don't think that the 2nd principle of thermodynamics can be applied to photons."

You are entitled to your opinion of course. But opinions cannot change the fact that any change in the state of motion of whatever physically exists cannot be accomplished without some energy being expended as work.

Like Einstein and no doubts numerous others, I am of the contrary opinion that light photons physically exist and that consequently they are subject to the 2nd principle of thermodynamics.

Best Regards, André

Dear Alex Wolf III ,

The photon's characteristics can change without any change of energy-mass but it will be too complicated to answer directly (I haven't even considered this specific scenario) I'll soon put a paper explaining the characteristics of the photon and the neutrino before the paper on gravity.

But, first I have to finish a paper on atomic physics (I have a factor of 2 giving me head ace concerning the Lamb shift)

Have patient, I'll deliver, sooner or later.

JES

Dear André Michaud ,

You are correct that, any interaction produces a change of state but, in this discussion IMO the change of energy is entirely done by the star.

I might add a subsection on this specific scenario in the paper on gravity.

JES

Stellan Gustafsson André Michaud ,

I am getting stuck in thinking of anti gravity matter.

If we design a gyroscope with just a spinning ring, it is easier to analyze by parts since all parts are the same.

Now it spins at 12km/s edge speed and we don’t care about angular velocity just its real velocity respect to earth surface.

If a small piece fall of the spinning ring, it will carry the speed and shoot at this 100x bullet speed and orbits the Earth free of gravity. So it will not feel a pull at anytime of it’s flying.

Question is will this piece feel a pull from the Earth before flying off? My guess is no even it turns angle it still maintains its speed so the whole ring flies. This will be amazing and we can build a ship to Mars.

Stellan Gustafsson Sounds good. I'll be watching for this. If you feel so inclined please message me when you release this so that I may support and read it!

Dear Stellan Gustafsson

You wrote: "You are correct that, any interaction produces a change of state but, in this discussion IMO the change of energy is entirely done by the star."

Actually, both the interacting star and the photon are concerned by the outcome of their interaction, according to the 2nd principle of thermodynamics, infinitesimal in the case of the star or galaxy and maximized in the case of the travelling photon with respect to their common center of interaction equilibrium. So it is not physically possible that the change in direction of the trajectory of the photon would not impact its own only reserve of energy, resulting in a lessening of its total complement of energy, thus of red shifting of its frequency.

Best Regards, André

Dear Jixin Chen

You wrote: "If a small piece fall of the spinning ring, it will carry the speed and shoot at this 100x bullet speed and orbits the Earth free of gravity. So it will not feel a pull at anytime of it’s flying."

From what I understand, in physical reality, both the spinning ring and the Earth are made of charged elementary particles, each of which is in permanent Coulomb restoring force interaction with all other existing charged particles.

This means, according to what I understand that as it is spinning, the charges making up your ring are still permanently attracted to the opposite sign elementary charged particles making up the large mass of the Earth, and so are each of the individual charged particles making up the mass of the small piece that flies off the spinning ring.

So at all times, all of these elementary charged particles, small piece, spinning ring and the Earth mass remain in interaction (gravity) with a strength that depends on the number of charged particles making up each of them.

Best Regards, André

I keep thinking and coming up with a reason that a gyroscope may not be anti-gravity. The part shooting off the surface is following a curved trajectory following the circumstance of the earth rather than a straight line in space. Thus when it force to turn, it is converting from one curved trajectory to another, which require force to push it down.

Another one is the spinning parts can be replaced with a symmetry argument that it is replaced by its neighbor such that nothing is changed. So Although spin can be treated as if still. Bummer, there goes the antigravity device and space ship.

Dear André Michaud

you mention: " So at all times, all of these elementary charged particles, small piece, spinning ring and the Earth mass remain in interaction (gravity) with a strength that depends on the number of charged particles making up each of them."

Indeed. This logic makes sense. My mistake in the reasoning is missed the other reference frames and take the curved spin as if it is straight.

Dear Jixin Chen

Note that I also dreamed and analyzed as you did, like no doubt many others, of the possibility of antigrav displacement. But I ended up concluding that it did not seem to be possible.

Best Regards, André

Dear André Michaud ,

I agree with you that it is fun and also believe that we will reach a conclusion that anti-gravity could be impossible.

The argument may help us analyze gravity from a different angle. If we draw a field line from a particle to space far away, the field line will be dense near it and sparse far away.

If we assume another particle in the field is a spinning ring, then the parts of the ring will feel the same situation as the spinning gyroscope on the Earth's surface. It may want to follow the circumstance of the field line but be forced to stay pinned thus providing a force to its neighbor in order to keep the whole structure attached.

That is, gravity might be just an electromagnetic force applied to spinning materials where each part of the materials is forcing its neighbors to stay in its own trajectory.

The problem with the question is there are 3 different properties of bodies as defined by Newton - weight (ability to be influenced by gravity), gravity (ability to produce a gravitational field that influences other bodies), and inertia. Using just the word ``mass'' then confuses the physics. So, the question becomes for any body that has weight, does it also have exert a gravity field? OR For any body that has inertia, does it also have exert a gravity field? Newton and physics since Newton Had to postulate proportional relations between these types of body properties. But the proportionality constant need not be the same for photons and baryonic matter, which is a cause of much conversation. Secondly, postulates should NOT include the equality (=) sign. The = sign is reserved for derived relations between postulates. Assuming the equivalence principles is only indicating problems for the models.

Jixin Chen I wouldn't neccesarily assume that. It defies conventional logic but I have read studies where an effect similar to anti-grav was created, indicating the possibility of anti-grav on a larger and more actual scale. By analyzing buoyant objects and vibrating and levitating Dense liquids in a chamber. This is not anti-grav, only similar to anti-grav but it gives indications that there may be more to it than meets the eye. Apparently it had something to do with an unknown aspect of Rayleigh-Taylor instability but I need to find the entire study and post it here. I remember it had indicated the researchers thought it may reveal the possibility of anti-grav but to me that seems like a loose association, because fluid dynamics aren't neccesarily representative of overall gravitational situations. Maybe someone can explain this to me, and I'll find the study but to me it seems like a stretch to say that research is any sort of proof of the possibility of anti-grav. I'll find the study. Maybe im missing something. But Im also in the boat it isnt possible.

Alex Wolf III, Yes, there are a few logic problems in the reasoning that a spinning mass can be anti-gravity. I think there is no effect now. I guess many of us that are interested in this thread Chinnaraji Annamalai are interested in anti-gravity matters that triggers my crazy thought yesterday.

You will get the explanation to gravity, probably at the end of the year.

By the way, antigravity is possible, it's in fact quite simple, it has simply been overlooked all the time since it's mixed up with magnetic fields. I'll end the gravity paper with the explanation.

JES

Dear John Hodge

Strangely, your comment rang bells for me at each step of my reading it.

To simplify what came to my mind as I read along, I will put what came to my mind between brackets at each step of my reading in your here reproduced comment:

The problem with the question is there are 3 different properties of bodies as defined by Newton - weight (ability to be influenced by gravity) [pressure exerted on each other by two bodies or particles as a function of the pressure applied by their instantaneous amount of momentum energy], gravity (ability to produce a gravitational field that influences other bodies) [free motion of a body or particle as a function of its instantaneous amount of momentum energy], and inertia [resistance to any change in the state of motion of a moving body or particle]. Using just the word ``mass'' then confuses the physics [Complete agreement. Mass=omnidirectional inertia]. So, the question becomes for any body that has weight [applies pressure according to its instantaneous amount of momentum energy], does it also have exert a gravity field?[Does it possess the amount of momentum energy required to move if not hindered in its motion? The answer is yes] OR For any body that has inertia [any body that has omnidirectional inertia], does it also have exert a gravity field?[does its momentum energy apply pressure if the motion of the body is hindered. The answer is yes] Newton and physics since Newton Had to postulate proportional relations between these types of body properties [Newton was not aware that the momentum energy is permanently induced in all charged particles of which all masses are made, so he could not come up with the idea that when velocity of a free moving body or particle is hindered, this momentum energy simply applies an equivalent pressure against whatever other body is blocking its motion]. But the proportionality constant need not be the same for photons and baryonic matter [yes. Baryonic matter has omnidirectional inertia, while only half the energy of photons has omnidirectional inertia, the other half being its momentum energy], which is a cause of much conversation. Secondly, postulates should NOT include the equality (=) sign. The = sign is reserved for derived relations between postulates [or for derived relations between collected experimental data]. Assuming the equivalence principles is only indicating problems for the models.

See if in turn my comments ring any bells on your side.

Best Regards, andré

André Michaud

Kinda. Is your ``momentum energy'' a field? Or is it a real component of our universe? Or both?

Modern standard physics seems to like energy and momentum as a base for calculation such as the right hand side of the General Relativity field equation. I use force in my STOE instead. I think Newton meant the ``gravity'' part to be the emitter/source of a field in the Principia but changed to be an influencer of the aether in his ``Opticks'' (see the 1730 edition). So, in the STOE, bodies warp (gravity) the plenum and the plenum directs (weight) the bodies. The Newtonian aether in Opticks also had to support wave action to form diffraction patterns of light. So, the aether has to obey the wave equation, and this requires the aether (plenum) to have the property of inertia. Although Newton is a bit vague, he suggests (I think) the bodies incorporate some amount of aether between the corpuscles of bodies in proportional amounts which then provides the Equivalence Principle. Your momentum energy may do the same.

Dear John Hodge

You ask: " Kinda. Is your ``momentum energy'' a field? Or is it a real component of our universe? Or both?"

The momentum energy that I am mentioning is not a field. It is a real "physically existing" component of our universe. It is not considered as permanently existing real energy in classical Newton, nor in the SR theory, nor in GR theory.

In these 3 kinematic theories, as well as in QM, momentum is not really seen as "permanently existing kinetic energy", but as "something" directly related to velocity, that ceases to physically exist when velocity is impeded.

In electromagnetic mechanics, the permanent "physical existence" of the "unidirectional kinetic energy substance" that allows "a velocity" to be expressed, or alternately, that allows "an equivalent pressure" to be exerted in the same vectorial direction against whatever is preventing a velocity to be expressed can be understood as what is being induced by the Coulomb interaction in all charged elementary particles as one half of the total energy thus induced, the other half being the energy that self-orients on a plane transverse to the direction of application of the pressure applied by the unidirectional momentum energy. This second half simultaneously induced is the energy that cyclically oscillates between what we represent as the local E and B field states of photons and elementary electromagnetic particles such as the electron at the subatomic level.

You wrote: "Modern standard physics seems to like energy and momentum as a base for calculation such as the right hand side of the General Relativity field equation."

If they had not decided to ignore in 1907 the confirmed electromagnetic behavior of the electron as revealed by the data collected in Kaufmann's bubble chamber, Modern Standard physics would have long ago preferred to use the unidirectional momentum energy combined with its simultaneously induced transversely oriented electromagnetic other half to base their calculation on, and they would not have needed the General Relativity field equations at all in their attempt to explain gravity, and neither would they have needed the Special Relativity theory to correctly account for relative motion, and also for absolute motion, by the way.

Put in perspective in this article published 2 months ago:

Article Introduction to Synchronized Kinematic and Electromagnetic Mechanics

Best Regards, André

André Michaud

I think if your bracketed comments about inertia and gravity were interchanged, would be better.

Dear John Hodge

You wrote: "I think if your bracketed comments about inertia and gravity were interchanged, would be better."

They were not. Gravity is easily explainable without GR if the real physical existence of the energy induced in all elementary charged particles by the Coulomb interaction is taken account of as it should have from the electromagnetic behavior of electrons confirmed by the Kaufmann data, as explained in my last 3 articles, summarized in the last paper referred to.

Best Regards, André