Dear Alexander,

Thirring first tried to use the effect of a “centrifugal force” of 'something' inside a hollow sphere. Of course, that effect doesn't exist. After a letter to Einstein, he considered the “Coriolis force” of 'something' inside that hollow sphere. However, this effect doesn't exist either, because the Coriolis effect is only existing for a particle that travels radially upon a rotating body. That is not the case in special relativity either.

Thirring's effect is a fake attempt to obtain what was expected to be needed: a transversal effect in gravity, such as an analogy to magnetism. However, Thirring's effect is only kinematics, allegedly an extension of special relativity.

Several authors have attempted to “naturally” extract this magnetic effect from GR. Without any success, only an imitation of "gravitomagnetism" (the analogue of electromagnetism for gravity) with false tools.

Kerr attempted to imitate gravitomagnetism by including the effects for rotation in General Relativity, by adding an angular term to the Schwarzschild solution. However, Kerr needed to postulate the plane of action as being perpendicular to the vector of the object's angular motion. Others attempted to design central oblate objects instead of spherical ones, and to design orbits that would get a perturbation by the oblate spheres.

However, none of these attempts allowed to explain the prograde direction of all the orbits in systems, which we find back all the time, i.e. the spin rotation direction is the same as the orbits'.

Neither allowed these attempts to explain the displacement of the angular axis of the gyroscopes in the Gravity Probe B experiment, caused by the rotation of the Earth.

So, Thirring's attempt to use the kinematics of special relativity failed.

The drag in the Gravity Probe B results was not expected because Lense-Thirring is only about alleged Coriolis kinematics, allocated to special relativity for a spinning sphere.

Hence, drag by an orbiting Earth is not "predicted" by Lense-Thirring.

In other terms, Lense-Thirring made a pure invention, which is not even related to gravity.

So, SRT and GRT became a cookbook, trying to be fitted with the Gravity Probe B.

However, gravitomagentism, in which a second, velocity-dependent magnetic-like field appears, accounts for all motions of masses, and not only the spinning masses.

Best regards,

Thierry De Mees

Dear Thierry,

Thank you for historical review on the topic. I agree that "gravitomagnetizm" is more correct general name for the effects. But it is also roughly because of gravity field always attracts the mass. Electric field, in contrast, may as well repulse a charge. Do you suppose that rotating electric field can affect only magnetic dipoles, not the charges (and vice versa for rotating magnetic field)?

"none of these attempts allowed to explain the prograde direction of all the orbits in systems, which we find back all the time, i.e. the spin rotation direction is the same as the orbits"

Don't forget about "aether" :-) Partially entrainment of it near a rotating gravity center (as in mechanical whirl) can explain different spin directions of the planets.

Dear Alexander,

A rotating charge gives an electrical dipole. According to Maxwell's equations, this induces a magnetic field.

A rotating magnetic field doesn't appear in Maxwell's equations as inducing anything. Only increasing or decreasing magnetic fields will induce electric fields again.

So, if you want, increasing or decreasing magnetic fields can imitate electric fields. However, the imitated electric field is rotatinal, not divergent as with charges.

Thus, it is difficult to produce a charge with divergent field out of magnetic fields.

I wrote: "none of these attempts allowed to explain the prograde direction of all the orbits in systems, which we find back all the time, i.e. the spin rotation direction is the same as the orbits"

You wrote: "Don't forget about "aether" :-) Partially entrainment of it near a rotating gravity center (as in mechanical whirl) can explain different spin directions of the planets."

I didn't express myself well. When one looks at a spherical galaxy, and in the center, because of the high activity, merging etc, there are collapsing spinning stars, these stars start to spin very fast (millisecond pulsars).

Fast spinning stars create additional magnetic-like gravity fields.

Compare it with electromagnets in a magnetic field: they will all tend to swivel parallel with the magnetic field.

Also the orbits of the spherical galaxy will align with the global gravitational angular momentum of the galaxy's center, and swivel to the equatorial plane.

Also the orbits of the solar system are alighed with the spin of the Sun. Small variations are due to the inclination of the Sun with 62° wrt the Milky Way, which inclines Mercury's orbit especially due to the motion of the Sun in the Milky Way (+-325 km/sec).

The spin directions are, rather than because of aether, caused by the origin of the planets themselves.

A study that hypothesized a huge electromagnetic explosion from the Sun, explains with a high probability the formation of a group of four gas planets and four core-planets. The latter emerged from a sunspot, the former, from matter around it.

Energy studies, chemical content studies, proton-electron balance studies, momentum studies, dispersion studies of the planets' orbit, all sustain this hypothesis.

The origin of the spin of the planets is harder to show, since it depends at what place on the Sun, the explosion occurred. However, as seen higher in this post, whatever that place is, the orbits will still swivel to the Sun's equatorial plane.

See the booklet below.

Book The Solar Protuberance Theory - Our Solar System and the Pla...

Best regards,

Thierry De Mees

Dear Thierry,

A rotating charge gives in theory not an electrical dipole but the magnetic one only (spin). Maxwell equations describe variable electric and magnetic fields, not the rotating ones with constant strengths.

Thank you for attention to my question.

Dear Alexander,

You wrote: "A rotating charge gives in theory not an electrical dipole but the magnetic one only (spin)."

In fact, each charged particle of a rotating charge is making an orbit during the spin. All the particles on that same orbit together form an electric dipole. And, right, it induces a dipole magnetic field.

Maxwell's equations describe that elementary fields are diverging, elementary magnetic fields are dipoles, and it describes the induction equations at one place and time at once, not at a distance.

By integration, all the steady system solutions can be found from it, even the rotating ones.

The only thing Maxwell's equations don't account for is the induction at a distance, due to the limited propagation speed of the fields. The larger the system and the more deformed the orbits, the larger the correction that has to be made. Excellent books on that have been written by Oleg Jefimenko.

Best regards,

Thierry De Mees

Dear Thierry,

Unfortunately, your views are pseudoscientific. I can recommend you to study basic physical programm more carefully. Wikipedia can help. Good bye.

Dear Alexander,

It is not the first time that you think you are right about science and that you nevertheless are plain wrong. You don't understand the Coriolis force, neither Foucault's pendulum, and now, you pretend knowing electromagnetism and gravity better. Instead, you use your own wrong and biased ideas to ask others to study Wikipedia, which is known to contain many errors.

Good luck with Wikipedia and biased voodoo science!

Regards,

Thierry De Mees

Hello Alexander!

It has been suggested that there should be electromagnetic counterparts of GR's rotational "gravitomagnetic" effects: A test electric charge placed inside a hollow charged sphere should feel a radial force at ~right angles to the rotation axis if the sphere is then spun, analogous to the outward force felt by gravitational charges if the outside universe rotates around them.

Before we could measure Lense-Thirring-type effects experimentally, some people argued that Machian arguments were "empty" and unscientific because they could only redescribe existing effects and couldn't predict new (testable) ones, as we didn't have the option of changing how the outside universe moved: the "electromagnetic analogue" argument was then used as a counterargument to illustrate that Machian arguments did actually allow us to extrapolate from known inertial effects described according to the general principle of relativity, and obtain new predictions and results for other fields of science.

----

The problem with trying to carry out the "spinning charged sphere" experiments in real life (or trying to do some fancy computer-modelling) is the additional complication of charge separation: If you have a conducting sphere with free electrons, the electrons tend to get centrifuged towards the equator, and your spinning sphere then ends up with a negatively-charged equator and positively-charged poles. Which messes things up for the effect that you're actually looking for. So you'd probably need the charge to be "anchored", or to divide the sphere into a series of alternating conducting and insulating rings, parallel to the equatorial plane.

You'd still have the complicating issue of radial charge separation (centrifuged negative charges moving freely from the inside surface of the sphere to the outside surface), but I guess you could treat the sphere as a nested pair of co-rotating spheres, positive (inside) and negative (outside). You'd then only really have the complication of the degree of radial charge separation varying with latitude on the sphere, but with a sufficiently thin sphere the resulting departure from strict sphericality of the two virtual charged surfaces might not be so much of a problem. Maybe.

Dear Eric,

In your example, the electric field in the center of spinning charged sphere equals zero (if the sphere is ideal). It is unlikely that in the similar case for gravity field a probe mass in the center of hollow massive spinning sphere will be under any gravitomagnetic force.

Realizable experiments on the question may be in investigation of orbital motion of probe charges/magnetic dipoles near strong spinning electric/magnetic filed sources. Such a source may be a charged sphere (piece of electret)/a magnetic coil (permanent magnet). The experiment should be carried out in zero gravity, in vacuum.

Dear Alexander,

In the gravitational case the gravitational field inside a hollow massed shell cancels completely if the shell is not rotating: but if the shell rotates, there is an outward force on an internal test mass that pulls the mass outwards, and also a force that pulls the mass around with the shell.

This is in Einstein's 1921 Princeton lectures.

If we stand at the Earth's equator and fire a rocket directly upwards, and the rocket's path moves in mostly a straight line wrt the background stars, then in our rotating frame, we see the rocket's path arcing Westwards , apparently being pulled around by the motion of the rotating hollow shell of surrounding stars.

If we turn the situation inside out, so that we are outside a solid rotating outward-facing sphere and looking inwards, the rotation of the body produces an additional inward force (gravitational mass associated with kinetic energy), and also a sideways dragging force (due to the twist in spacetime cased by the rotating body).

Or we can go from the "hollow sphere" case to the "rotating solid sphere" case by applying the principle of mutuality: If a star is placed at the centre of a hollow relatively-rotating sphere, and the relative rotation of the massed shell pulls the outer layers of the star outward and around, then the principle that there must be a back-reaction says that the relative rotation of the star must also create an inward pull and a relative dragging effect associated with the star. If spacetime is stressed by the relative motion of the shell to the star, it must also be stressed by the relative motion of the star to the shell.

.. Einstein put this more concisely:

Einstein, 1921: " A rotating hollow body must generate inside of itself a 'Coriollis field', which deflects moving bodies in the sense of the rotation, and a radial centrifugal field as well. "