Dear Eue Jeong,

The gravitational induction, caused by moving and spinning masses (gravitational dipoles) perfectly solve many issues, as you seem to state in your book.

For your interest, I add a book with many examples and applications in the cosmos.

It would indeed be useful to get a numerical gravity simulation project. This can be copied from electromagnetism, while not considering repulsion of masses, but only attraction.

Best Regards,

Thierry De Mees

http://gsjournal.net/books/De-Mees-Gravitomagnetism-and-Coriolis-Gravity-2011-A4.pdf

Dear Thierry De Mees,

It seems like we are trying to solve the same problem in different ways. My original suspicion on gravito-magnetism was when the theory claimed to have explained the jet phenomenon from the black hole accretion discs. I was convinced that there must be a next term in the linearized solution in general relativity that should explain the jet phenomenon.  It was in 1983 at the University of Michigan Ann Arbor.

I realized that the reason the second term was thrown away is because there is no known physically meaningful translation of the center of mass. I didn't have answer at the time. I finally got the answer in 1996 by pure coincidence, 13 years later since I started wondering about the mystery. It was the relativistic shift of the center of mass in the case of rotating hemisphere that I noticed by chance. So basically I revived the second order term of general relativity in the linearized solution. The rest was pure calculation and comparison with observation. I noticed also that this realization reproduced the Lense-Thirring force including the z component of force.

It was r dependent force that means long range force multiplied by cosine function of the angle theta measured from the z axis. Basically the rotating hemisphere is a gravitational magnet where the domed side becomes repulsive pole and the flat side becomes the attractive pole. 

This force can be used to prove the flat rotational velocity curve of the rotating galaxies, black hole jets, flat disc shaped galactic plane, Saturn rings etc. 

We can add this dipole gravity term in addition to the Newtonian gravity, and the Coriolis force in the time delay computer simulation and it will show the detailed process of galactic transformation. We may have flexibility to choose the initial mass and the rotational frequency of the black hole at the center of the galaxy. 

So basically the dark matter is the ordinary matter en route to the galactic plane and they will be pulled back into the center of the galaxy and will be ejected through the poles of the black hole to repeat the entire process again. 

I'm sure there will be many exciting scientific papers that can churn out of this simulation. Your extensive knowledge regarding the Coriolis force will be very helpfull for our collaboration. 

Sincerely,

Eue J Jeong

Dear Eue,

Thank you for your reply.

I need to tell you more about the Coriolis force. Such a force is a mechanical effect of a moving object that is in contact with a rotating object, like a merry-go-round. When one tries to walk on a merry-go-round radially, one is projected away aside, because the local velocity of the contact point changes.

Thirring and Lense have falsely used the Coriolis force, because there is no mechanical contact at all in the case of the gravity of a rotating object. However, they knew that a magnetic-like term had to be found in order to explain some effects. (see discussion of the link below). The gravito-magnetic term is in fact of that same form.

Hence, in gravity, the so-called (and wrong) Coriolis term must be replaced by a gravito-magnetic term.

Best regards,

Thierry De Mees

https://www.researchgate.net/post/Thirring-Lense_effect_what_is_the_truth_Relativity_of_Gravitational_Induction

Dear Thierry,

I don't think Coriolis force was put in by hand by Lense-Thirring arbitrarily. It came out naturally as one of the off diagonal components in the tensor metric elements. The problem with Gravitomagnetism was in the fact that it is not general relativity nor Maxwell's equation. The expectation that the rotational motion dependent gravity will be accounted for by gravitomagnetism that is a hybrid theory between general relativity and Maxwell's equation was a huge assumption that has never been rigorously proven.

GPB experiment was an attempt to prove this conjecture and it failed. NASA announced that the GPB experiment was a flop but it makes you wonder why they never suspected that the theory (gravitomagnetism) they tried to prove could have been flawed instead. 

Dipole gravity doesn't have any unverified assumption. It is general relativity itself by incorporating the relativistic mass increase effect for rigid rotating source like hemisphere to account for the dynamic shift of the center of mass that the second term in the linearized approximation needs to make it physically meaningful. 

In general, the fewer assumption it has and the more mystery it solves, the better chance for the theory to succeed. 

Dipole gravity doesn't attempt to disprove anything. It just fulfills the original spirit of general relativity. It reproduced the long range, distant dependent component of Lense-Thirring force with stunning accuracy. 

Best Regards,

Eue J Jeong

Dear Eue,

The Thirring Lense metric was a new metric fabrication, which was not issued from Einstein's equations.

So, it is an assumption, as much as Maxwell's analogy.

I think you confuse gravito-electromagnetism, as proposed by Shiff, and true gravitomagnetism, as proposed by Oliver Heaviside in 1893.

It is well established that Maxwell's analogy complies with the Gravity Probe B, within the experimenbtal errors.

http://dipoleantigravity.blogspot.be/2017/07/direct-proof-of-dipole-gravity-by-nasas.html

Dear Thierry,

The observed Lissajous curve number 8 means there are two opposing magnetic gravity during one revolution around the earth when the GPB took the data. Mass current analogy of electromagnet does not produce this result. Mass current analogy generates only one gravity magnet not two. And in such case, the Lissajous curve will have to be number 0. But the observed Lissajous curve by GPB experiment turned out to be number 8. 

On top of that, when a rotating sphere becomes a gravity magnet, which side becomes the north pole and which side the south? Does it depend on whether the rotation is clockwise or counter clockwise? Division of north and south pole in gravity magnet means that one side must be gravitationally attractive and the other side be repulsive. So, what determines this polarity? 

Best regards,

Eue J Jeong

Dear Eue, 

The number 8 is due to the velocity of the Earth in it's orbit as a second gravitational induction field. 

You write: "when a rotating sphere becomes a gravity magnet, which side becomes the north pole and which side the south? Does it depend on whether the rotation is clockwise or counter clockwise?"

Yes, that is correct. Also, when several spinning spheres are approaching, you will have attraction or repel, depending from the position. 

The theory is consistent with observation if one considers that parallel moving masses attract a bit more when they move in the same direction, and they attract a bit less if their velocities go in opposite directions. For parallel spinning spheres, as in the solar system, the closest matter speed of both spheres determine if their will be attraction or repel. 

Best regards, 

Thierry

Dear Thierry,

The z directional component of the original Lense-Thirring force is inward toward the center of the rotating sphere but the x-y components are outgoing which was interpreted as the centrifugal force. So how did Einstein and Lense-Thirring interpreted the z component of the Lense-Thirring force? 

Best regards,

Eue J Jeong

Dear Eue, 

A centrifugal force simply doesn't exist. Only centripetal forces can exist to counter the inertia in a circular motion. When that centripetal force disappears, no forces are left and inertia will make the objects move with their actual speed, which is tangential. 

Dear Thierry,

I agree that the centrifugal force is a result of the momentum conservation. I don't know if you can say centrifugal force doesn't exist because you can feel it when you rotate an object hanging at the end of the string. But I see your point. 

In regard to the Lense-Thirring force, then what is your interpretation of the x-y axis dependent force and also the z axis dependent force shown in the form of the equation motion? Do they have any cosmological implication?

Best Regards,

Eue J Jeong

Dear Eue,

You say : "I don't know if you can say centrifugal force doesn't exist because you can feel it when you rotate an object hanging at the end of the string."

In fact, you feel only inertia, when a centripetal force is trying to get you towards the center of rotation. You don't feel a centrifugal force.

In regard to the "Lense-Thirring force", what are the equations and the derivation you are referring to?

Dear Thierry,

There are three sets of equations of motion in Lense-Thirring's description of the forces near the center of the rotating spherical shell derived from general relativity. The radial component of force in the equatorial plane has the form of falling off force like the centrifugal force that's why Einstein interpreted it as such which we know to be a false. But there is another force in the z direction that looks like a harmonic oscillator along the z axis. So what are the cosmological implications of these forces according to your interpretation?

Best Regards,

Eue j Jeong

Dear Sue, 

With regard to the "Lense-Thirring force", can you give me the equations and the derivation you are referring to?

Best regards, 

Thierry

Dear Thierry,

Here is the attached file for Lense-Thirring force in the form of three sets of equation of motion. 

Best Regards,

Eue J Jeong

Dear Eue,

Thank you for the information. These equations are only due to the assumptions of the metric they invented, but they don't mean anything physically.

Thirring-Lense's original paper is not even easy to find on the internet, but in the annexed paper, you will find the corrections to Thirring-Lense's calculus (without references, though), which imitates gravitomagnetism in equation (1).

Given by gravitomagnetism, a spinning sphere, in terms of a steady system, gives the following total forces on the surface of a sphere (see annex figure and equations).

In this calculus of steady systems, no account is given to retardation of the fields by the speed of light, because there is full symmetry.

Dear Thierry,

The original Einstein's equation is not arbitrarily changeable or modifiable. It has strict rules following the original assumption that gravity is equal to acceleration. I don't know where you got the idea that the Einstein's original equation means nothing physically.

Gravitomagnetism is not the original theory created by Einstein. It is a modification that came afterwards when they realized that Einstein's equation doesn't "seem" to account for the rotating source. They introduced the concept of mass-current like electric current to modify general relativity to suit their needs. In a vulgar yet correct description, gravitomagnetism is a bastardized version of general relativity not the original one. Many people these days seem to think gavitomagnetism is general relativity itself. Far from it. I'm sure gravitomagnetism violates equivalence principle very badly. 

I described in my book how you find the real magnetic gravity  that is "dipole gravity" in the second chapter. 

Please give a little bit of time to at least scrutinize what is in the book. 

Best Regards,

Eue J Jeong

Eue Jeong, Thierry De Mees,.....I would like to recommend you to read my paper in regards to your question on centrifugal force and inertia......https://www.researchgate.net/publication/323316385_A_Simple_Course_of_Relative_Acceleration_in_Physics.