Given that the orbital period doesn't depends on the mass, and in addition that the acceleration depends on altitude / Earth's diameter, it can only be a coincidence.

This may be indicating a resonance between Sun and Earth; i.e. the circumference of Earth's path around the Sun may be written as 2*pi*r where r is the distance between Sun-Earth. The 'wavelength of the radiation, lambda' is also assumed to be 2*pi*r. In this case the Sun is acting as an 'emitter' and the Earth is acting as a 'receiver'; the Earth is moving along a 'current path' forming a loop like a magnetic loop antenna.

Notice this indicates a possible physical link between gravitation and light speed.

What is the reciprocal value in terms of the Sun's orbit? It may be in balance with the planets.

In which case this matches Self-Field Theory (SFT) which finds that gravitation is based on a differential form of electromagnetism.

Jerry, on another issue using this type of theory of loop antennae, there appears to be a biological link between the varying sizes of chromatids (orders of 30-60 nm) and the UV frequency at which they might resonate. (See two of my projects).

This is very interesting, but note that the earth's gravitational field is different from the sun's, so it would not make much sense to associate an object's gravitational acceleration (with respect to Earth) with its centripetal acceleration (with respect to the sun).

Sasha

This is slightly different to Jerry;s question, however it is an implication. I think the Sun would be in balance with the planets in terms of forces (mediated by photons) so this balance if truly a resonance might appear like a ' multi-person see-saw'. There's both (di)electric and (di)magnetic fields involved very like the single atom (where electric and magnetic forces exist) but with respect to the differentiated forces via the dielectric and dimagnetic characteristics of the atoms involved.

I hadn't realized the relationship Jerry had found actually existed but it the same relationship I used in confirming self-field theory works in atoms. 

Also it is just like biological forms of this possible resonance effect that I've been investigating. 

For instance I've been looking at the chromosome as a loop antenna where there are (at one stage of the cell cycle) electrostatic fields pulling it across its centre so the 'loops' of the chromosome become 'ellipsoids' emitting EM fields down its axis. Then at another stage of the cell cycle (further along in time) there are EM fields possibly resonating with the structure of the now separated chromatids and possibly helping in the transcription of the DNA. Its interesting to note that these biological 'coils' are sometimes referred to as 'solenoids'.

Dear Tony Fleming,

I like the idea of resonance, but should it not apply to all planets of our solar system, then?

Kind regards,

Sascha Grusche

Absolutely Sacha. Agreed.

Perhaps via such calculations we might find that this form of 'quantum gravity' gives us an overall quantum of energy possessed by the Sun which would give us its orbit about the centre of the Solar System.

Thank you 

Tony Fleming

There are resonances between the planets' orbits but that has nothing to do with surface gravity, the answer to the original question is that it is just coincidence.

 That's an interesting viewpoint; I agree that SURFACE gravity is different to say the gravitation underground. Gravitation should be related to what is experienced at any point in free-space, on Earth's surface, or at the core of the Earth. 

I think what this is saying is that the gradient of photon flux leaving the Sun is equal to the gradient of the photon flux reaching Earth, not underground inside Earth, or at its core where other factors including media interfaces have to be taken into account.

But in the free-space region connecting Sun and Earth we can assume as a first (and very crude) approximation there's no sources or sinks of photon energy. (Ignore Venus and Mercury and the other planets as a first approximation.) We should be able to determine a gravitational constant for Earth's surface in this case.

Dear Tony Fleming,

I think it is crucial to distinguish between Earth's surface gravity, which is created by Earth itself (gravitationally interacting with an object on its surface), and Earth's centripetal acceleration related to 1 year, which is created by the sun (gravitationally interacting with the Earth).

Kind regards,

Sascha Grusche

Agreed Sacha. I guess when we say resonance we're talking about Earth interacting with the Sun (a mutual interaction, i.e Sun-Earth is equal to Earth-Sun); in this case we are saying that mutual interaction is a resonance. In the case of the Sun, we are saying this resonance is only part of the energy of the Sun; we need to take into account ALL the planets and masses orbiting within the Solar System for an accurate estimate.

I like to think about the Earth interacting with say rocks of various kinds, which is the Earth's own gravitational field you are talking about. Take the case of 'heavy metals', a lump of uranium ore; since the atoms are heavy and have relatively high magnetic moments, these rocks will over time descend through the Earth's outer crust to its core where the U235 in its composition is involved in nuclear avalanche. The lighter elements including the gases don't get 'gravitated' nearly as much and are part of the Earth's crust or ionosphere. 

Notice in the mutual case, and with the lump of U235 ore, we have two rotations, both a radial orbital effect and another rotational effect due to the magnetic field, a spin or cyclotron effect (similar but essentially different to the case of the hydrogen atom). The lump of ore not only descends through to the centre of the Earth, but it also spins at a different rate to the material nearer the surface of the Earth; so there's two different 'spins' involved because of the difference in the magnetic moments. (This difference in rate within the mantle and at the surface has been observed and I'll try to find a link) 

All of which makes me wonder: what is the significance of the dimagnetic spin being a day while the dielectric 'orbital spin' is a year? Is there something in the overall or average composition of the Earth in terms of permittivity and permeability to make it so?

For those who haven't come across orbital resonances before, I suggest reading the linked article.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orbital_resonance

Very interesting George, an integer ratio between the periods of the moons of Jupiter may well be based on the same theory as gEarth~c/r; but this wikipedia article is not the full story; but very interesting, and related.

I wonder what the composition of those moons is? Are they similar? Do we know how they were formed? The 'integer' relationships between them suggests the overall composition is related. What are their relative permittivities? This should give us an insight into their orbital distances, perhaps.

The orbits come about due to the history of their formation and subsequent gravitational interactions. For any given mass, the composition only affects the density hence the size, but the size of the planet doesn't affect its gravitational interactions.

I  suggest you'll find there's a link to their composition in terms of their permittivity and permeability as well as their density and radius and that of Jupiter's. Do we know their history?

Johannes Kepler was looking for harmonies in the solar system, as well. He once realized that the planets' orbits have diameters corresponding to the Platonic solid's sizes. Later, he realized that orbits are ellipses, and he discovered the  fixed ratio of T^2/a^3 (Kepler's third law), which he considered to be like music. This ratio is independent of the mass or chemical composition or magnetic properties of the orbiting planet. 

Its Units are different. Be careful.

Jerry,  One year on Jupiter is about 3.7x108 seconds and its gravity is about 25 m/s2. Therefore, your observation is off by a factor of 30 for Jupiter.  There is no connection unless you are also arguing that life can only develop on planets which obey this rule.  

John my question is open with no claims of my own except that the numbers work out and are convenient for travelers from Earth.

So far the answers are better than I guessed at.

There must be some factor of coincidence because of all the complicated relationships that have been mentioned.  There might be a deterministic factor based on harmonics and resonances in the way planetary systems form.

Among the exo planetary systems the geometry, dynamics, and distribution of mass varies greatly and doesn't seem to approximate the solar system.

I would like to avoid the Anthropic arguments, which in this case would seem to be the week argument anyway   

What I hope to demonstrate is that ordinary people are able to cope with the times and distances associated with deep space, when they are expressed in familiar units of measure. Also in proposing deep space transport, an understanding of the destination would be helpful.

John 

I would say it's possible there's a factor of 30 between Earth and Jupiter in terms of their permittivity; specifically Earth has the higher permittivity than the gas giant by a factor of 30. Using a long range dipole-dipole calculation for the Earth-Sun system (first approximation to the radial component of gravity of each) I found the (averaged) relative permittivity of Earth was ~4.6 x 106 so Earth has a large permittivity which is highly metallic; the Sun I found had a much lower relative permittivity of ~ 5.9 so pretty light in atomic weight, mainly gas. 

I know next to nothing about Jupiter's composition but perhaps this question says Jupiter has a relative permittivity of 1.5 x 105 so this indicates a solid rocky-metallic conglomerate at some depth below the gas surface, perhaps.

(these calcs are very first order).

We must do a dimagnetic moment balance to get the cyclotron period.

TF: these calcs are very first order

Dipole interactions go as the inverse cube of the separation, gravitational effects are inverse square, so that doesn't work.

No George

I think your confusing the electric field which is an inverse cubic of the separation, and the force between dipoles where you must take a dipole moment times a radial partial derivative of the electric field from a dipole. This is quite complicated but comes out as inverse square.

So not that inaccurate that they are useless.

Have a look at the links, they're not very good but the best I could find with a quick search.

http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/160649/force-between-two-point-dipoles

https://www.quora.com/How-do-I-derive-the-equation-for-the-force-between-2-electrical-dipoles

http://www.physicspages.com/2012/11/14/dipole-dipole-forces-and-torques/

This dipole-dipole calculation is the first approximation I used to calculate gravity, but I applied it to planets as large heterogeneous dipole moments, in particular between Earth and Sun. This led to the Self-Field Theory solution where the magnetic moments (mu_0) must be taken into account as well. So we have two forces that are in balance with each other same as the EM case and the atom.

We've got to be careful here as the second and third links reminds us. We know there's a difference between the electrostatic case and the gravitational case of a factor of about 10-39 or 10-41 as a general rule between the higher magnitude electrostatic case given by Coulomb's Law and the gravitational case given by Newton's Law.

So when we choose to ignore the quadratic terms 'because they are insignificant' we have to be pretty sure of ourselves in this planetary case. Perhaps in the case where we are looking over small distances, orders of a few atoms this is OK; e.g. Van Der Waals force.

You will notice the presence of eps_0 the permittivity of free-space in links 1 and 3; somehow it doesn't appears in the other link.

I seem to recall using Ashcroft and Mermin which had a complicated version of the dipole moment between nuclei and I managed to get an answer within 11% of G the universal constant. We find there are many terms to be taken into account and these end up with the factor eps_0 in our numerical 'G'. When we do the corresponding calc for the magnetic moment we end up with mu_0.  Notice that when we take the derivative (divergence or curl, can't remember) of the magnetic field as we need to do with the electric field we end up with the Earth spinning about its axis rather than in the azimuthal direction in the atomic case. (This is how Self-Field Theory is equivalent to GR; it doesn't use geometry as Einstein did but uses both the (di)electric and (di)magnetic field to achieve relativity.) 

In any case in my previous post  I left out the number of atoms in Jupiter's case. Do you happen to know the size and average density of Jupiter? We need to know the overall number of atoms;  so this is where the radius and density comes from in conventional calculations.

TF: .. the magnetic moments (mu_0) must be taken into account as well

Magnetic dipole interactions are also inverse cube though, so no combination will produce an inverse square dependence.

TF: Do you happen to know the size and average density of Jupiter?

I'd recommend the NSSDC site but it seems to be down at the moment:

• nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/planetary/factsheet/

Thanks George

The cyclotron period, like with the hydrogen atom, is much smaller than the orbital period. It appears to be a method of physics to stabilize the gravitational dynamics, in the same way as atoms via the magnetic field; perhaps a bit like the small tail rotors of a helicopter

I'm involved in a project to 'complete the Bohr Theory' by calculating this magnetic dynamics in the hydrogen atom. Bohr calculated the Bohr Radius but not the magnetic dynamics.

"Magnetic dipole interactions are also inverse cube though, so no combination will produce an inverse square dependence." But don't forget the magnetic force is q x v x B so the inverse cubic of the H or B fields becomes an inverse quadratic force. This is how the mu_0 gets into the equations for the dynamics.

BTW it is important to understand the link between relativity (SR and GR) and having BOTH the (di)electric and (dia)magnetic fields in your dynamics 

TF: the magnetic force is q x v x B ...

For a static object with v=0, the force is then zero too. Gravity acts on objects that aren't moving so there can't be a magnetic component.

George

Normally when a gravitating object such as a planet is in balance with a larger particle, such as a Sun, both objects are moving, in which case there is a magnetic force at play. This is also the case for solar systems in galaxies, except there are now THREE forces, electric, magnetic, and acoustic, not TWO as in the case for the planets in solar systems where there are TWO forces either electric or magnetic.Notice that this does not change what we call 'the universal constant G' which is the radial or (di)electric force; in the case of the Galaxy there is now a third rotation due to the acoustic field, one that bobs up and down as a solar system moves around the Galaxy, and spins on its axis (a trispinor)

So we are talking about the 'normal' case when we wish to determine the dynamic equilibrium and not the unstable case which is another mathematics altogether. As we know our Solar System is gradually expanding and therefore somewhat unstable, but it is still not the case where v=0.

The case v=0 is very a interesting special case. We know from parabolic studies that when an object is tossed vertically up it eventually reaches a zenith and falls back down. 

See too the link below where the metric of both GR and quantum theory, which is the Pythagorean metric, is shown to be wrong since atoms cannot move along the hypotenuse; they move along the other two sides of the triangle of distances. We must use the taxi-cab metric, or equivalently use fields that aren't measured between charges (as in Coulomb's, or the Biot Savart Laws). We must measure between 'centres of rotation' which is what Bohr was using to get the famous Bohr Radius.

Notice that this metric singularity (when r=0, which corresponds with v=0) is probably what produces the singularity calculated inside Black-Holes.

http://www.unifiedphysics.com/unified-physics/a-major-revision-of-mathematical-physics/

What about an apple hanging on a tree Tony, it's not moving relative to the planet.

If EM were involved, building a Faraday cage around it should make the apple weightless, but the tension in the stalk is unaffected.

I would imagine a Faraday cage won't effect dipolar (dielectric) fields, only monopole (electric) fields. Don't forget we are talking about the gradient of the electric field on the apple being the gravitational force and not the electric field itself. The dipole field must be pretty penetrative since all atoms in a planet are involved in gravitation, especially the heavy metals at the core and within the mantle, whereas the electric fields can be shielded. There is a build up of electrical energy at media interfaces and absorption of that energy within conducting and absorbing material, e.g. the Faraday cage.

For example human life is protected (somewhat) from the radioactive decay at the core of the Earth by the non-conductors in the Earth's crust, same as life is protected by the ionosphere from the high-energy particles coming from deep space. Our 'goldilocks' zone extends only to a strip of surface between the planetary crust and the ionosphere. This principle of life forming at media interfaces holds at all interfaces, such as at the bottom of expanses of water at the interface with rock and soil at the bottom.

So when we get to exoplanets, we're going to have to search the entire surface bottom of oceans before we can be definitive about life as well as the surface of the planet facing any atmosphere.  

I would imagine it would be efficient to first search where there's the possibility of high electric fields so we should search near volcanic sources where there is a link to perhaps highly conductive atoms at the core of the planet or moon (Jupiter).

Life is dependent on high energy levels being present, and this dependency is reflected by the relationship of biological dielectrics with frequency; it may be that such relationships have been present throughout evolution of both the structure of the Solar System AND biological life as cosmological evolution has changed the conditions on the surface(s) of Earth.

Let me add George that I think you'll find the 'graviton' may be linked to the gravitational waves observed recently. This theory shows that some form of EM, in this case DEM (dielectromagnetics - a differential of EM) is possibly the underlying analytic form.

What this means for a resonance condition between two gravitating objects I'm not sure but I'll look into it. My first thought, Jerry, is that we're looking at a kind of Planck's 'constant' suitable for gravitation, hG. Perhaps it's a function of Earth's orbital speed same as Planck's 'constant' is a function of the electron's orbital speed in the atom. So it would appear to be pretty small at first look.

So, if there's different resonances that depend on the physical parameters of the two objects e.g. Earth and Sun, all the other objects orbiting the Sun would be resonances too.

TF: I would imagine a Faraday cage won't effect dipolar (dielectric) fields, only monopole (electric) fields.

No, it blocks both, I work in a company designing radio transmitters and receivers and this type of screening is key to getting the best performance.

TF: Don't forget we are talking about the gradient of the electric field on the apple being the gravitational force and not the electric field itself

If there is zero field, it has zero gradient.

TF: The dipole field must be pretty penetrative since all atoms in a planet are involved in gravitation

Gravity is not an EM effect.

TF: For example human life is protected (somewhat) from the radioactive decay at the core of the Earth by the non-conductors in the Earth's crust,

Radioactive decay products are particles blocked by collisions, their range is only cm at most in any solid. Conductive is irrelevant, it is density that matters.

TF: Let me add George that I think you'll find the 'graviton' may be linked to the gravitational waves observed recently.

Yes, if gravitons exist then a binary system is a coherent source of gravitons since they those forming the waves all share the same phase (related to the phase of the binary system's orbital) motion.

TF: This theory shows that some form of EM, in this case DEM (dielectromagnetics - a differential of EM) is possibly the underlying analytic form.

No, EM is carried by the photon which has spin 1 hence the radiation is dipole. The graviton is a spin 2 particle so gravitational waves are quadrupole.

George a long time ago when the world was younger I too worked in a company, a large public one in a section looking at bioeffects of EM fields near antennas and other technological devices using numerical modelling including wire models of antennas. 

I can assure you what you say is only approximately true, and that's not good enough as I said previously the difference between gravitation and EM fields is about 10-39. maybe 10-41 so your shielding designs would normally be specked to a much lower degree of confidence and not at the distances we are dealing with in gravitation.

And of course  most antenna designers use approximations for screening, very like a finite element model of a perfect conductor; they tend to use as little metal as they can get away with; so most grids you'll find for antenna purposes will be a grid of some fraction (about 1/5 th?) of a wavelength. So they are filled with holes, they're not 'perfect' shields; no E=0, no gradient E = 0, just down to a few dB.

The results although a form of EM are very different to our technological devices; in terms of frequencies we might deal with antennas in GHz while the period for the Earth is one period per year which is very low indeed when written as Hz!!

However what you say about the graviton being spin 2 is interesting. SFT finds the photon has non-negligible mass (around 10-55 kg); there's no such thing in SFT as a 'massless' boson so this is perhaps not that surprising. It wasn't that long ago when particle physicists claimed neutrinos where massless. By having fields that are 'non-zero', we can explore a fractal structure which appears to be what physics and biology among other fields of study are observing. 

I'm wondering if what we are observing on Earth is a difference in dipole moments, i.e. a quadrupole?

In the meantime I'm working on an approximate for the Planck's constant for gravitation hG. I'll probably have an estimate tomorrow. So see you then

TF: just down to a few dB.

The measurements I was doing yesterday measured breakthrough of signals, the results were between -180 dB and -185 dB down. Any external interference had to be less than that or I couldn't even do the measurements. Screening is easily that effective, and if you experienced a 180 dB decrease in your weight, you would know all about it! Remember just 6dB down would halve your weight. EM doesn't work at all to explain gravity.

I'm wondering if what we are observing on Earth is a difference in dipole moments, i.e. a quadrupole?

Maybe longrange coupling?

Longrange coupling. Ulla @Ulla Mattfolk can you expand on this please?

I'm imagining a similar phenomenon of longrange coupling, an 'antenna' (two moving planets) that is transmitting dipole moments instead of an EM field. This 'antenna' is formed physically and geometrically by one planet moving and one planet being (approximately and relatively) 'fixed' in position relative to the other.

George I appreciate what you are saying from an engineering perspective  but I'm not sure the  measurements you performed were done at 90 million miles apart so what do they mean as far as gravity is concerned?  And I'm not sure the theory behind such measurements would tolerate close scrutiny. What frequency band did you measure across,and how does this match to dielectrics? I'm sure the dielectric theory at such frequencies does not exist apart from simply assuming the answer. When studying metallic implants in the body we had to calculate the temperature rise as a consequence of the near-fields inside the body and this required previous knowledge of the dielectrics; we might assume such matter is homogeneous but there is no a priori knowledge to be confident in a scientific sense. We don't know the science of how matter is organized on a cosmological level; I'm wondering if there are other resonances besides planet-sun wavelengths.

It seems our scientific knowledge at both ends of the EM spectrum is 'a work in prgress'.

 I've been thinking about hG, the planck's constant for gravitation. I think we have to convert the masses into equivalent numbers of 'hydrogen atoms' and convert this to one hydrogen atom to compare the two constants.

First assume the gravitational constant is analytically similar to h for atoms:

h_bar = q2/(8*Pi*eps0*ve_orb) where ve_orb is the electron orbital velocity. h-bar is energy per revolution.

So assume h_barG = q2/(8*Pi*eps0*vE_orb) where vE_orb is the Earth's orbital velocity, again energy per revolution.

UM: I'm wondering if what we are observing on Earth is a difference in dipole moments, i.e. a quadrupole?

The difference between two dipoles is still a dipole.

TF: George I appreciate what you are saying from an engineering perspective but I'm not sure the measurements you performed were done at 90 million miles apart so what do they mean as far as gravity is concerned?

Gravity is what holds me to the ground and I'm not 90 million miles from the Earth. What it means is that if EM were in any way involved, my weight should decrease when I walk into a screened room, but that doesn't happen. Gravity is a separate phenomenon, it is obviously not an aspect of EM.

TF: It seems our scientific knowledge at both ends of the EM spectrum is 'a work in prgress'.

Our understanding of EM through Maxwell's Equations and quantum field theory is remarkably accurate while GR as a model of gravity has been perfectly accurate in every test to date. LIGO is just starting to probe mergers of compact bodies that have never been accessible to us, it's a brand new class of instrument and may give us some surprises in relation to gravity.

Totally agreed George about Maxwell and GR. We have been studying them for 150 years and 100 years respectively. The new SFT now suggests a way to have two gravitating objects and the fields they are immersed in in the one formulation, with a new metric, so no imbeded metric singularities, an improvement on both Maxwell and GR

The question we are talking about quickly became is there a possible EM resonance between Earth and Sun. What I find intriguing about Jerry's question is that the distance c/yr is relatively the same distance traveled by the photons when we search for resonance inside a single hydrogen atom according to SFT. In this case the wavelength at resonance is 2*Pi*rPlanck. So I think there IS a resonance between gravitating objects when the wavelength is 2*Pi*R where R is the radial distance between gravitating objects. The distance traveled by light in a year is c/yr. There's a number of parallels with SFT and GR that will need discussion. 

George, in terms of screening a lot of what you just said can be found at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_shielding. I noted the view expressed is that no such shielding has been found as at 2008. But you never know..Maybe...one day.

And in terms of a difference in dipoles, we are probably looking at an ongoing planetary BALANCE so the two 'beacons' are pretty equal where the difference may very well be a quadrupole.

TF: The question we are talking about quickly became is there a possible EM resonance between Earth and Sun.

No, orbital resonances were mentioned that have nothing to do with EM.

The question for you is why doesn't shielding which is effective at blocking EM have any effect whatsoever on gravity.

TF: I noted the view expressed is that no such shielding has been found as at 2008. But you never know..Maybe...one day.

Perhaps, but shielding gravity is unrelated to shielding EM which is well known, gravity is not an EM effect.

I just don't believe you George when you say you've shielded dielectric fields using a Faraday cage; this isn't what Faraday ever claimed. He was talking about monopole electric fields, not dipolar fields 10-39 lower than any EM fields. 

In terms of atomic dipole moments the Earth is a conglomerate of dielectric and diamagnetic dipoles with no places on Earth where the dipolar fields are prohibited; in fact the dipolar fields are found throughout the INSIDE the Earth. One cycle of these photonic fields can be described as follows: The photons are received from the Sun at the Equator, once inside the Earth 90o they turn towards the North and South Poles becoming a dipolar magnetic field. These magnetic fields flow back to the Sun where they funnel down both poles of the Sun; these photons again turn 90o to the Sun's equator where they are emitted towards the equator of the Earth and other planets; this is one period of the dielectromagnetic (DEM) cycle.  That distance going from the North Pole of the Earth to the North Pole of the Sun is exactly that distance c/yr these photons perform. 

The geomagnetic fields we measure around the globe are a result of this flow of fields that form a giant dipolar structure. So we have a flow of photons causing a dipole response from the Earth (and the Sun) which can be measured at long range as quadrupoles.

And this matches the atomic self-field theory where the outer shell electrons can be coherent in non-conducting crystals; all move synchronously in phase with all other outer shell electron in crystals for instance except that we measure dipolar distances.

TF: I just don't believe you George when you say you've shielded dielectric fields using a Faraday cage;

All propagating EM waves have a dipole structure, that's what a Faraday cage blocks. In the equipment I design, we have to screen to better than 150 dB in many areas and our verification testing checks that it is successful.

As you said even a mesh structure is effective provided the holes are at least an order of magnitude (ten times) smaller than the wavelength. When you look into a microwave oven, you don't get your face cooked because there is a mesh in the glass of the door which cuts the level from hundreds of watts to a harmless level. Lower frequencies have longer wavelengths so are more effectively blocked. Electrostatic fields are also completely bocked for the same reason. Higher frequencies need smaller holes or solid metal. When we need to test to the highest levels, we work in screened rooms similar to the attached image.

At the very highest frequencies, gamma rays can penetrate very thin layers of metal but those don't create gravity, they just give you cancer! Other than that, wrap yourself in a sheet of cooking foil and you can virtually eliminate EM.

TF: not dipolar fields 10-39 lower than any EM fields. 

Hold your hand near a battery and the dipole field from the terminals won't pull you towards it. Gravity is much stronger that the electrostatic effect because the mass of every atom in the planet combines while EM fields tend to cancel because dipoles have both positive and negative charges. Work out how much voltage in a dipole field you need to create a force equal to your weight.

http://m.eet.com/media/1162499/134557-tme00_08et1spell.gif

For EM signals

20 log (EM2/EM1) = -150 dB

where EM1 is the EM level of the reference level, and EM2

that of the EM signal in question. Divide both sides by 20:

log (EM2/EM1) = -7.5 

EM2/EM1 = 10-7.5 

Not quite 10-39 

Your room looks like other rooms in labs I've seen such as 'anechoic' chambers where baffles are used to absorb EM fields. I'm presuming you're using your screening to shield houses or perhaps special labs? I've heard of similar screening material where there's high fields from mobile towers etc. So I'm interested in what you say.

What about across the spectrum? And you refer to 'electrostatic' but this field is NOT electrostatic nor electromagnetics, but a form of dielectromagnetics. DEM is not detected by coil or dipole antennas as Hertz used to prove the theory of radiation in 1888, what did you use?  

And don't forget if both are inverse quadratic, have you tested this across 90 million miles? or just a few million atoms? How can you be sure of what you claim? 

Have you used this screening in space? How does it affect gravity on an object and the dipole fields across deep space? 

You say your screen shields dipole fields yet doesn't affect the gravitation on an object. What evidence do you have for your claim? And if you say 'I measured them', WHAT did you measure and HOW? What method did you rely on to test to 150 dB?

Finally (for now) how come the physics of DEM matches what we observe such as the dipolar fields inside Earth-Sun?

Let me give you a little tip for the future George, keep making your chambers but think about chambers for high energy applications including medical chambers to test the acoustic fields being transmitted by the body as part of a nuclear reaction e.g. from the brain. I think there'll be a market for psychological/psychiatic testing and therapy into the future. Seriously.

TF: EM2/EM1 = 10-7.5 

That's a factor of about 30 million in voltage or 1015 in power where the factor of 20 becomes 10.

TF: Not quite 10-39 

What has that number got to do with anything? If your weight reduced by a factor of 30 million, you would float away. Even a factor of 10 would be obvious.

TF: Your room looks like other rooms in labs I've seen such as 'anechoic' chambers where baffles are used to absorb EM fields.

Yes, like everyone else, that's what we use, the photo is just typical of commercial products.

TF: What about across the spectrum?

It's effective from DC up to light (sheet metal is reflective or opaque).

TF: And you refer to 'electrostatic' ..

Only because you mentioned the low end of the frequency range.

TF: but this field is NOT electrostatic nor electromagnetics, but a form of dielectromagnetics.

It's not sensible to invent meaningless words. A dielectric is an insulating material that can be polarised, EM waves are a propagating solution to Maxwell's Equations.

TF: DEM is not detected by coil or dipole antennas as Hertz used to prove the theory of radiation in 1888,

All EM radiation is dipole. The antenna just needs to be of a size related to the wavelength to be effective.

TF: have you tested this across 90 million miles

Gravity keeps my feet on the Earth. As I said, I'm not 90 million miles away. It's all very well thinking about orbiting planets but your ideas are worthless if they don't work on the more obvious cases too.

TF: You say your screen shields dipole fields yet doesn't affect the gravitation on an object. What evidence do you have for your claim?

If I go inside the screened room, I can't receive environmental signals that would swamp my measurements outside, but I don't float off to the ceiling as I would if gravity were reduced by a factor of 30 million (or 1015).

TF: how come the physics of DEM matches what we observe such as the dipolar fields inside Earth-Sun?

It doesn't, dipole effects are inverse cube, gravity is inverse square.

We seem to have come full circle, back to the the original point, so let me give you a little tip Tony, gravity and EM are independent phenomena. Your approach is a very old and very common mistake.

Well I have yet to categorize your mistake(s) (overconfidence is one)

OK the factor of 20 becomes 10

-150 dB is equivalent to 10-15 still way off 10-39

When you get to 390 db talk to me about shielding of dipoles, 240 dB to go.

There is no mistake Tony. I don't know if your maths relates gravity to the power or the amplitude but either way, it only needs to be effective to 102 to reduce your weight to just 1% of what it would be outside the screened room, your figure of 10-39 is of no relevance at all to the argument I presented. That fact is obvious.

So now you're saying your screen changes gravitation?? I think you're confused George.

See http://www.plasma-universe.com/index.php/Electromagnetic_force

You'll notice that in this comparison of various 'elementary' particles they are compared with respect to their electrostatic and gravitational fields. So if you wish to debunk the theory that gravity is based on the dynamics of electric and magnetic dipole moments (DEM) you'll have to test down a whole lot deeper in the very low noise.  There's a flow of photons in both cases but the relationship between the monopole and dipole fields is differential

TF: See http://www.plasma-universe.com/index.php/Electromagnetic_force

If I walk into a screened room, which of the following is plasma:

TF: you'll have to test down a whole lot deeper in the very low noise.

No, if screening reduced the EM effects by just a factor of 2, then my weight would be halved. Screening as we agreed is more like factors of 10 million and better.

George I've got to concentrate on finishing a paper by 25th February, so I'll take up my epee again then. In the meantime you think about what I've been saying about dipole moments and this NOT being an EM field. 

You've managed to high-jack this conversation into talking about screening and I've tried to reply (politely) that your arguments are not standing up to scrutiny.

Nevertheless it IS a worthwhile discussion because you seem to want to claim I'm talking about an equivalence  between EM and gravity which I'm not. I'm saying (for the tenth time?) that DEM is different to EM. I know you have no idea what I'm talking about but I'm guessing there are others out there that see what I'm saying about dipole moments.

Would anyone have a good journal for such a paper about dipole moments being the basis of gravity? I don't think Nature or one of the big journals is appropriate but maybe a broader publication where novel theories can be aired? I have thought Physics Essays is perhaps a good candidate. Maybe there's some others.

There's more than enough fodder for a paper about this discussion and the curious link to resonance via the circumference of the photons involved in mediating the dipolar forces between the Earth and the Sun. I have described the path of these photons as they cycle between the Earth and the Sun as both electric and magnetic dipolar fields Finally there is the analogous relationship between the photon cycle in the hydrogen atom and its direct correspondence to the photon cycle between gravitating bodies such as the Sun and the Earth.

I might remind you all that a similar possible resonance is also found in biology and that is precisely the paper I'm having to finish by 25th February where the chromosomes inside biological cells appear to be acting as resonating loop antenna involved in cell-cell communication and other processes of mitosis.

See you all soon.

TF: George I've got to concentrate on finishing a paper by 25th February, so I'll take up my epee again then.

I know the feeling, I'm working on a paper too.

TF: In the meantime you think about what I've been saying about dipole moments and this NOT being an EM field. You've managed to high-jack this conversation into talking about screening and I've tried to reply (politely) that your arguments are not standing up to scrutiny.

The argument is entirely valid and you have not fund any way to dispute it, but you are right, it is specifically aimed at electromagnetism, However, that isn't my "hijacking" anything, you have been talking about EM throughout. Look at what you say in this latest post:

TF: I'm saying (for the tenth time?) that DEM is different to EM.

Okay, let's see.

TF: I know you have no idea what I'm talking about..

Right.

TF: but I'm guessing there are others out there that see what I'm saying about dipole moments.

A dipole is nothing more than the field created by a combination of a positive and negative charge. Now we have those in electromagnetism of course but we don't in gravity, there is no such thing as negative mass, so either you are talking about EM or some other "fifth force" which has been speculated about but never found. Until you prove the existence of such a field by experiment, it is no more than mythical.

TF: There's more than enough fodder for a paper about this discussion and the curious link to resonance via the circumference of the photons ..

Photons are quantised interactions of the EM field, so if you are talking about photons, you are talking about EM.

TF: I have described the path of these photons as they cycle between the Earth and the Sun as both electric and magnetic dipolar fields

Again, electric and magnetic fields are of course EM, so you can't accuse me of "hijacking" your posts since you have been talking in terms of EM throughout.

On that basis, what I said about screening remains completely valid, screening that is very effective against EM has no effect whatsoever on gravity, they are obviously not the same.

Gravity is said to have a quadrupole moment but no dipole moment.

Just a quick reply while I’m still working on my other paper, George.

Let me deconfuse you and apparently one or two others.

I think there’s one or two physicists who are getting confused about antenna theory and terminology.

https://van.physics.illinois.edu/qa/listing.php?id=204

“Would a gravitational dipole radiate?”

“Oscillating electric dipoles radiate electromagnetic waves.  But for gravitational radiation you need an oscillating quadrupole moment.  The difference is that electric charge comes in two varieties of charge, plus and minus.   When you interchange the two charges, as in an oscillating electric dipole, you get a change in the electric field distribution.  Gravitational mass, on the other hand, comes in only one sign: plus.   There are no minus values.    So if you interchange two masses you don't get a change in the gravitational field.   Hence, no dipole radiation.”  

This is just not true; it’s a mistake born out of terminology I would imagine. I think it’s called ‘fake news’ in recent parlance.

Although the antenna is called an ‘electric dipole’ it is in fact transmitting  photons, not a dielectric wave.

When we look at a ‘dipole antenna’ it’s called a dipole because it has two ‘poles’ or pieces of wire separated by a feed-point.  If it has ONE piece of wire or 'pole' it is called a MONOPOLE antenna (not the monopole field but the monopole antenna).

The electric dipole does not transmit electric dipoles, rather it IS an electric dipole antenna; it has a feed that oscillates between plus and minus charge and yes, it does radiate EM waves, but it is NOT transmitting as a dielectric antenna!!

LeeH: if you interchange two masses you don't get a change in the gravitational field.   Hence, no dipole radiation.”

TF: This is just not true; it’s a mistake born out of terminology I would imagine.

It is true but you are right in that the terminology may be causing confusion. "Dipole" is being used to describe the source and also the radiation pattern but in a slightly different way.

TF: If it has ONE piece of wire or 'pole' it is called a MONOPOLE antenna (not the monopole field but the monopole antenna).

That's right but it needs to be mounted on a ground plane. It's often called a vertical whip and the radios I design have to drive them. The ground plane acts like a mirror reflecting the whip, but the reflection introduces an inversion hence the reflection looks like the opposite pole. The combination is vertically polarised but otherwise the same as a dipole antenna fed at the centre. However, that is still talking about the source, not the radiation.

If you feed a sine wave to a dipole antenna, one end goes positive while the other is negative. The electric field between the ends follows that polarity. As the charge changes, there is a current flowing in the middle which results in a magnetic field. The combination of those propagates away as an EM wave. Obviously you get one wave for one cycle of the signal sent to the antenna. The link shows an animation of that.

Compare that with a binary star system of equal mass stars. As the two stars rotate, you get a change depending on whether they are aligned with your line of sight or perpendicular to it, but it doesn't matter which star is which. For example, the gravitational wave alternates between compression and expansion in the orbital plane and the attached diagram shows a typical pattern at some distance from the source. What that means is that we see two cycles of the gravitational waves for every single orbital cycle of the stars. In the image there are two maxima and two minima of strain hence four "poles" in the pattern, hence the name "quadrupole".

TF: The electric dipole does not transmit electric dipoles

Right, it disturbs the field in a manner that has a dipole pattern in space. The EM wave pattern is the same no matter what kind of antenna emits it. (A dielectric antenna also emits a dipole wave).

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/ad/Electromagneticwave3Dfromside.gif

That's very interesting George; I'm listening carefully. So allow me to pick out what you are saying. (keep in mind I'm still convinced of my calculations which come out to within 11% of G and have eps_0 as one of the factors in its solution, so I have no reason not to have credence in what I've been saying for the last fortnight or so).

Looking at the first gif, we have a binary star system and the two are rotating around each other. We get 'compression' and 'stretching' and 'displaced' sections of the orbital cycle.

I've heard of those terms in relation to acoustic (or vibrational) fields but not in regard to EM fields. Can you describe what you mean please perhaps the gif comes from a more descriptive article?

This seems to be a diagram of what we would see with ANY rotating objects; we would get this 'double' cycle; so what's the fuss?

INTERESTING ASIDE Let me add that at this very time I'm describing the generation of EM fields across the spectrum by rotating dipolar proteins within the plasma membrane of biological cells. These proteins poke through the membrane and are thus either plus or minus charges on either side of the membrane. So circulating charged particles are able to generate EM fields depending on the speed of their rotation. These proteins diffuse so as to self-organize.

Obviously we are not talking about EM fields, because the dielectrics involved are not charged particles like the dipolar proteins in the last paragraph. So why not dielectric and diamagnetic material like atoms? Long range dipole-dipole forces?

The best examples of gravitational dipoles are in the close binary neutron stars, where a decrease of period is evidence of energy radiated away. Other examples and claims are published, but with less robust data.

TF: I've heard of those terms in relation to acoustic (or vibrational) fields but not in regard to EM fields. Can you describe what you mean please perhaps the gif comes from a more descriptive article?

The diagram is one I drew rather quickly myself to illustrate a question I had. Now that I know the answer, I am working on turning it into a paper but I have quite a bit of work to do on that yet.

For a simple animation, have a look at the link. On the right you see the effect the wave has on a "ring of particles". These are objects that are entirely isolated and the wave changes the distances between them. If you think of the two at either side, they move apart then together, the distance between them expanding and shrinking alternately. In the case of the LIGO detectors, the "particles" are 40kg cylinders of fused silica mirrored on the end.

TF: This seems to be a diagram of what we would see with ANY rotating objects; we would get this 'double' cycle; so what's the fuss?

No, if the two objects in the centred were charged, one positive and one negative, you would get plus on one side of the ring and minus on the other, just two maxima, not four.

TF: So circulating charged particles are able to generate EM fields depending on the speed of their rotation.

True but the fluid around them is conductive so acts like a weak Faraday cage hence their range is very limited.

TF: Obviously we are not talking about EM fields ..

Yes you are, you are talking about fields generated by electrical charges on molecules so they produce variations of the electric field. A dielectric is a just neutral insulating material which responds to the electric field. See the second link which starts "A dielectric material (dielectric for short) is an electrical insulator that can be polarized by an applied electric field."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_wave#Effects_of_passing

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dielectric

I've sorted out what's happening. I guess I should have woken up more quickly, but nevertheless it goes like this. (The short answer; I'm still busy with my biology paper.)

What I say about 'ordinary' gravitation within a solar system  is fine; it involves just the electric and magnetic properties of matter, When we come to the gravitational waves, we are talking about a different form of gravity. We are looking at galactic motions near black holes etc.

We must add in another field, the acoustic field and this is what we need within galactic gravitation. Each of these three fields is orthogonal to the other fields; acoustic fields tend to compress and expand in the direction of propagation so the wave is in part acoustic  also partly DEM (dielectromagnetics -what George insists incorrectly is EM), but the whole wave (consisting of three orthogonal waves) is now based on three fields; including pressure waves as we see in the wikipedia article about gravitational waves where the particles forming a ring are bending to and fro .

More later, enough for now.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_wave#/media/File:GravitationalWave_PlusPolarization.gif

TF: What I say about 'ordinary' gravitation within a solar system is fine; it involves just the electric and magnetic properties of matter

No it doesn't, or standing inside a Faraday cage would make you weightless.

TF: We must add in another field, the acoustic field ..

Acoustics involve longitudinal pressure waves through a material so they don't propagate through a vacuum. Gravity and gravitational waves are undiminished by passing through a vacuum, their strength depends on the distance from the source, not the contents of space in-between.

TF: (dielectromagnetics -what George insists incorrectly is EM)

Concocting words that have no meaning is pointless Tony, a "dielectric" is a material, typically a plastic or ceramic. It is not a wave. A "dielectric antenna" for example is a quarter-wave antenna that radiates a dipole field and is made from a dielectric material. In fact you said above that gravity "involves just the electric and magnetic properties of matter" which we abbreviate as "EM".

TF: the whole wave (consisting of three orthogonal waves)

No, gravitational waves are transverse to the direction of propagation while sounds waves are longitudinal. Note that in the animations, all the effects are in the plane perpendicular to the direction of travel, there is no longitudinal component. The 3D animations on the linked page show this well but you may need to give them a little time to load.

http://www.einstein-online.info/spotlights/gw_waves

What is not being understood here is that dielectromagnetics (only applicable for solar system gravitation) and therefore the gravitional version for galaxies is orthogonal to the 'ordinary' (undifferentiated) force that is found in strong nuclear regions due to the differential being applied to that force. This is a field that is made up of an EM field and an acoustic field. Therefore the (differential) acoustic field is applied to the rotation of a galactic object as an 'up and down'  wobble; this is similar to the magnetic moment which applies to the axis of the Earth (900 to the plane of the magnetic field in electromagnetics). This wobble is known in galactic dynamics as a ' galactic tide' I think it is called.

Gravitation is quasic, made of two orthogonal elliptic speres, that start to wobble a bit. It is kind of vibrational energy. One possibility is that it is on the critical Point, one sphere dark or virtual, one 'real' and very complex.

Ulla 'quasic' means quasistatic, quasiconformal? Can you give us some more of what you are saying please?