There were measurements of the propagation of gravity.

Gravitational waves have not yet been detected.

http://arxiv.org/abs/1208.2293

http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2007-10/uom-mpd100307.php

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn3232-first-speed-of-gravity-measurement-revealed.html

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3077353/#.UK3ObYbLuUk

http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/gr-qc/0206022

Regards,

Joachim

I believe that there are theoretical approaches to the speed of gravitation giving values much much higher that the speed of light. Also there are experimental measurements and considerations with the same results (see the late Tom Van Flandern work and mine in arXiv) . Tom calculates that in the solar system the speed of gravity is about 10^10 times the speed of light.

Hallo, my friends, Dinesh, Joachim, and Antonio,

good question and good the answers. I have a great interest in different wave propagation phenomena concerning how they can be coupled with elastic waves in solids. I have discovered halfhundred new waves propagating in piezoelectromagnetics. These elastic waves in solids are coupled with both the electrical and magnetic potentials (electromagnetic waves). It is wellknown that a vacuum can be treated as a continuum which is I hope isotropic for propagation of both the electromagnetic and gravitational waves. We use the quasi-static approximation for the electromagnetic waves because the speed of light is five orders larger than the speed of an acoustic wave in a solid. The news that the speed of the gravitational waves is ten orders larger than the speed of light is very exciting for me.

Could we develop this discussion in such a way?

Have a nice day!

Best wishes,

Aleksey

Hello Joachim, Antonio, Aleksey,

Thanks for the suggested reading materials. However none of them have a general proof (like the proof given by Maxwell) that the gravity propagates at speed of light. I am aware of the fact that Einstein conjectured or assumed that the the gravity is a wave and its speed is bound by the speed of light. Now again, my question is, though his assumption seems to be correct with all experimental validations, still we are yet to find a sound mathematical proof that nails it down, similar to what Maxwell did. for instance, if Maxwell (or anyone) had not combined the electrostatic field and the magnetic filed to show the wave nature of the combined electromagnetic waves and that its speed is that of the speed of light, yes one can assume or conject it, but if a mathematical proof is found, that would be the ultimate proof.

Having said that, my hypothesis starts from mathematically proving that there exist another inverse square force between mass-momenta, similar to the magnetic force arising between charge-momenta. (its not conjectured, but proved from the principles). Once you do that, you can find the new force constant and its equation.

Then, like what Maxwell did, one can combine these two force fields (Newton's gravitational field which is the static component and the newly proposed momenta force which represents the momenta or dynamic part), and the outcome is a wave. Similar to what Maxwell did, when you calculate the wave speed, the work shows that the wave propagates at speed of light. This work, we believe would strengthen Einstein's claim by giving an exact proof for the wave nature of the gravitation and its speed to be bound by the speed of light.

Thinking about it, one must realize that, if magnetic force filed was not discovered, Maxwell (or for that matter anyone) would not be able to find the wave speed of the combined electromagnetic waves. Only thing you can do is to conject or assume that its speed is bound by speed of light. However, once both the static and momenta/dynamic force fields are found, combining them together would give you the exact mathematical solution. The same argument holds true for the gravitational field and its wave properties from which one can find the propagation speed of the gravity.

Let me know, if you all have any questions.

Regards,

Dinesh.

In a system when acoustic waves in solids are coupled with the electromagnetic waves, the quasi-static approximation is applied to the electromagnetic waves because the electromagnetic waves are coupled with the elastic waves producing piezoelectromagnetic waves which propagate at the speed slightly larger (~10%) than the speed of purely elastic waves. These can mean that produced electromagnetic waves by propagation of the excited elastic waves are strongly coupled with the elastic waves and this system propagates with a slightly higher speed. Therefore, one can create experiments and measure the speed of the electromagnetic waves coupled with the elastic waves and one will make a conclusion that the speed of light is relatively the same to the speed of the elastic waves. However, the speed of light is five orders larger than the speed of elastic waves.

Concerning the electromagnetic and gravitational waves, they can be also coupled and the possible huge difference in their speeds (ten orders) does not mean that the electromagnetic waves can be significantly accelerated due to the coupling with the gravitational waves. Therefore, one can conclude that their speeds are relatively the same!!!! Therefore, to study these two different types of waves in the system is not a good idea due to a possible huge difference in the speeds and this huge difference cannot be revealed in the system.

Who can develop or destroy this assumption?

have a nice day!

Best wishes,

Aleksey

Hi Dinesh: You prove that the waves predicted by General Relativity travel at the speed of light, these particles I believe are the gravitons. They do not transfer the gravitational force at all. The gravitons just distort any mass in its way, with no radial force (atractive) as a result of the interactions. Gravitational forces are the results of the action of the gravity quanta, the quantum of the gravitational field (that it is not the so called graviton). This quantum has a mass of about 10^(-66) grams and a wavelength of the order of the size of the Universe, 10^28 cm. See my works in xxx.lanl.gov (arXiv preprints) with my complete name Antonio Alfonso-Faus.

Cheers,

Tony

Hi Antonio : Yes, I have given a mathematical proof for the wave nature and the speed of the propagation of gravity, by combining the gravitational force filed and the newly proposed momenta force field.

Fields and particles, I believe takes this proof into a different stage, similar to photons in electromagnetic radiations. However, my firm belief (based on some on going research work) is that the quantization comes into effect when one particle interacts with another.

Also, my firm belief is that, similar to photons in EM fields, the proposed gravitons in gravitational fields (quantized energy packets) should hypothetically cover all the energies up to planck energy. In that in mind, it is not proper to say that there is a particular mass (rest mass) associated with the graviton.

regards,

dinesh

Hi Dinesh - I'm just a lay person, but I understood that (in GR) gravitation is generally treated as a static field, so that in most cases no propagation is necessary to impart its effects. I envision then that gravitational waves are only produced in extreme conditions that would produce significant oscillations within the static field; that, as you say, those waves would propagate through the static field at the speed of light.

Also, can you provide some reference for the "the newly proposed momenta force field" - I'm not familiar with it.

I'd appreciate any help you can provide!

Thanks,

Jim

Hi James,

Yes you are right. Gravitation is generally treated as a static field, similar to electrostatic field arising between charge bodies which are static (without any relative motion between them). The static fields give rise to static forces, thus we observe Newton's gravitational force between static mass bodies and Coulomb's force between static charge bodies.

However, when charge bodies have relative motion between them, you get two force fields: electrostatic force field and the magnetic force field.

In my hypothesis, we identify the magnetic force arising between charge momenta. This implies that, if two charge bodies are at rest relative to each other, there is only a static force field and a static force between them, where as if the two charge bodies are in relative motion, they are also associated with a momenta that gives rise to the observed magnetic field and there by the magnetic force between them (apart from the static force field, this means , there will be two force fields between 2 charge bodies in motion, the electrostatic and the magnetic)

In a paper entitled : "On the Energy-Mass and Energy-Charge Equivalences", we derived the energy-momentum relation for a charge body. Einstein had formulated the energy-momentum relation for a mass body in STR.

By observing these 2 energy-momentum relations, for both mass and charge force fields, we showed that a mass body in motion must also possess 2 force fields. The first being the Newtonian gravitational force field between static mass bodies, we hypothesized that there should exist another force field between mass bodies in relative motion, which we termed as the momenta-force field and the force arising between them as the momenta-force (similar to magnetic force).

Once the inverse-square force law for the proposed momenta force is derived, similar to how Maxwell combined both the static and dynamic fields of a charge particle, we combined both the static and the dynamic (momenta) force fields arising between mass bodies and showed that the outcome is a wave propagating at speed of light. ( This is analogous to what Maxwell did, where he combined the electrostatic and magnetic force fields to obtain the Electromagnetic waves and showed that the wave speed is that of the speed of light).

This we believe is the proof that there exist gravitational waves and that its speed is that of the speed of light in free space.

Having said that, if the magnetic field (charge momenta field) was not discovered, Maxwell would have never invented the EM waves, as one requires both the static (electrostatic force field) and the dynamic (magnetic force field) parts of the charge force field domain, to obtain the combined EM waves and then to show that their speed is that of the speed of light in free space.

Similarly, it is immediately obvious that, unless the momenta-force field is discovered and its force equations are formulated, one can not derive the wave nature of the gravity and its wave propagation speed.

I believe my lengthy answer would have helped you a bit to understand this over all simplification.

if you are interested, you can read the following 2 papers.

1. On the Energy-Mass and Energy-Charge Equivalences

2. On the Temporally-Orthogonal Energies of Charge and Mass Bodies in Motion.

Both of them are uploaded to my profile.

Let me know, should you need further help or you have any suggestions.

Regards,

Dinesh.

Hallo, Dinesh,

thank You very much for the information.

I have attended a black hole conference in Pohang, South Korea and I have spoken with Professor T. Harko from Hong Kong (Romania). I have sent him one theoretical paper about the light speed that can be from zero to infinity. However, I cannot find this paper in my e-library. Could anybody say to me about some theoretical works where the speed of light is infinity.

Have a nice day!

Hi Aleksy,

Good 2 hear that you are in touch with your peers regarding your hypothesis.

However, as for what Maxwell showed, the EM waves are bound by the speed of light, and he argued that the light itself must be a form of an EM waves. This was a conjecture he presented based on his work leading to unify the electrostatics and magnetism.

On the other hand, if one were to disprove this mathematical proof given by Maxwell, it must be fully consistent with all the observational phenomena that we have already tested to confirm the validity of the speed of light. Remember the Hodge-podge arised when they said the Neutrinos were faster than light. Any scientist who had fully understood the Maxwell's work and its powerfullness and Einstein's GR would really have to find some brilliant way of showing that the maxwellian proof is wrong.

This I believe is quite a task, though I firmly believe that nothing can out run the light speed, and the speed of light is not just a statement about the light speed, but its a theoretical maximum speed any disturbance or information can propagate in free space.

However, lot of people don't really understand that the speed of light in GR can change, based on the curvature of the spacetime fabric. for instance, a photon traveling in a negative curvature space would behave as if its speed is higher than the speed of light of the observer's frame. These I believe should not be mixed with the claim that the light speed can be faster than light.

I believe this explanation explains why the speed of light constancy should be dealt with carefully.

As for the work that I did and currently working on, the speed of light (EM waves) and the speed of gravity (gravitational waves) are both bound by the speed of light in free space.

This actually simplifies the relations between GR and Maxwell's work and possibly help us in combining them to a much simpler and profound theoretical basis.

regards,

dinesh.

Hi, Dinesh,

thank You for Your answer.

I have read Your two papers You mentioned in your answers. You have tabulated a clear analogy between the electromagnetic waves and the gravitational waves. So, I can state that when one will use the corresponding gravitational thermodynamic functions and thermodynamic variables instead of the electromagnetic functions such as the electrical induction D , also known as the electrical displacement, and the magnetic induction B, also called the magnetic displacement and magnetic flux, one can find that some elastic waves coupled with the corresponding two gravitational potentials can propagate in solids. It is possible to suggest that the thermodynamic functions such as the first gravitational induction J (gravitational displacement that is an analogy to the electrical displacement) and the second gravitational induction G (that is an analogy to the magnetic induction) an exist. How can You call these two different gravitational inductions to distinguish them from each other?

Electrical field E and magnetic field H can be the two thermodynamic variables.

Some thermodynamic potentials use E and H as thermodynamic variables and D and B as thermodynamic function, but some thermodynamic potentials use vice versa.

Regards,

Aleksey

Hi Aleksey,

Good to hear that you went through the papers I mentioned and you found them to be clear.

I can understand your interests and your work related to how waves propagate. The work I presented with related to gravitational waves and their propagation in free space is the basis to further understand how gravity propagates in a media other than the free space etc.

However, as far as I am concerned, the theoretical proof given for the existence of gravitational waves and its propagation speed now needs to be confirmed with experiments. We will have to wait for some announcement from NASA, related to their findings with Gravity probe-B experiment.

If the results are positive and indicates that the speed of the gravity is that of the speed of light, then experimentally we have some confirmation.

However, we need a sound mathematical proof to show the speed limit, and this is exactly what we achieved. However one must note that, in GR, the speed of the gravity bound by the speed of light is not proved mathematically, but it was inherited as an assumption from Special theory of relativity, (which was influenced by the the finding of Maxwell's and the EM wave speed mathematically found by Maxwell) which (STR) prohibits any speed higher than that of the speed of light.

However, in our view, we provided a mathematical piece to pin it down rather than just assuming it to be bound by the speed of light. (like what Maxwell did for EM, where he didn't assume the wave propagation must be bound by c, but he mathematically showed that it must be bound by the speed of light in free space). The same phenomena had been experimentally verified by then (1861 - 1865)

I believe, some of you all have understood the need of a mathematical proof for the gravitational waves and its propagation speed. One can assume that to be speed of light based on other theories and observations, but one can really pin it down by only producing a mathematical proof. This we believe is the need of the hour when it comes to gravitational waves and their propagation, rather than trying to comment on the observations, without having a sound mathematical and theoretical backing up.

Thank you all for your interest in this matter.

Dinesh.

Dear Dinesh,

thank You.

Also, I would like to state that the speed of light can be higher than 3*10^8 m/s near a massive black hole. As a result, a photon can be accelerated by gravitational forces and because there are a lot of photons orbiting the black hole, collisions among photons can exist resulting in possible situation when some photons can even leave the black hole. For this purpose, such photons have to have speeds much higher than 3*10^8 m/s. However, such photons can be slowed down to 3*10^8 m/s when they are around earth anew.

What do You think about that?

Have a nice day!

Aleksey

Hi Aleksey,

If you as an observer, were to measure the speed of light near a proposed BH, still you would observe the constancy of the speed of light to that of c.

Any relative observation would give a difference answer. In STR, the curvature of the space time, gravitational time dilation were not taken into account. However, even with GR , BH , space curvature etc, at the locality of the observer, he would conclude that the speed of light is c.

speed of light is c when we observe them and measure them using the distance, clock measurements on our local frame.

However, if you were to observe them from a different frame and use different measurements, other than that where the actual events happened, obviously, unless you didnt use any suitable conversions, you wouldn't get the speed of light to be c.

So one must be very careful when one says the speed of light is higher or lower than the theoretical speed c.

Also, as for the current explanations, I don't know anyone claims that the photons directly cross the even horizon, but the Hawking's radiation suggests to us that there is an EM radiation coming out. However, the explanation (which is widely accepted) is that there will be virtual particles near the horizon, and out of them, some virtual particles would fall back into the BH where as the others would be falling out of the BH event horizon, giving rise to EM radiation. You could read on Hawking radiation and other related subjects.

But, locally, the speed of light is c, if you were to observe it near the BH.

I trust this is clear to you.

regards,

dinesh.

The rotating masses experiment.

A ‘ spinning- pair’ comprises two masses spinning on opposite ends of a rod. Two such spinning-pairs are needed. (they are only spinning pairs for mechanical balance reasons).

To set the experiment one pair has four times the mass of the other and this pair is twice the distance from the detector. The masses are spun on the ends of their rods so as to keep a detector between them. (Various geometries and rotation speeds enable this to be done, but below is the most obvious).

A 4L lengh bar, pivot in middle, with 4m masses on each end.

A 2L lengh bar, pivot in middle, with 1m masses on each end.

These placed 2a and 1a respectivly from a resonant garvity detector between them ,all coliner.

Both rotate clockwise(or in the same direction keeping the detector proportionaly distant from the masses at all times)

.A laser beam shines radially along the supporting rod and emerges ‘ near’ perpendicular to the direction of travel of the mass.

The rotating masses will gravitationally cancel out at the detector. This means some kind of null gravity detector is used. This detector will also have a light sensor and be able to tell when the masses make their simultaneous closest approach. The null point should coincide with the two simultaneous laser flashes. A resonant detector can be used as the masses rotate at a known frequency.

I suprised no one has tryed this to answer the question of the speed of gravity.

There is a mathematical proof. The linearized Einstein's equations of gravity are very similar to Maxwell's equations, and Einstein's eqs lead to a wave (D'alembert) equation with wave speed = c .

Linearized Einstein's equation of gravity inherits the speed limit as bounded by the speed of light from the special theory of relativity. So its conjectured rather than its being thrown out as a result coming out from the theory. On the other hand, Maxwell's work throws out the speed of the EM waves by combining the electrostatic and magnetic force fields together.

@ Tom

you could find Maxwellian like proof for the speed of the gravity in one of our papers entitled : "On the Temporally Orthogonal Energies of Charge and Mass Bodies in Motion". The work clearly demonstrates that there exists gravitational waves and their speed when calculated in free space turns out to be the speed of light.

The axe man cometh.

There is a stretched elastic cord that is fixed at both ends.

One end of the cord is hit and a wave propagates along the cord . This could take the form of a wave front or a single cycle wave packet. This will propagate at the characteristic speed until it is detected at the other end. This speed can obviously be measured and recorded. This represents the fastest a signal can be sent along this cord. Maybe!

If I took an axe and cut the elastic, could the evidence of this action be registered at the other end in less time than the wave would take?

The answer is probably yes, as some elastic cord wave speeds can be quite slow , especially waves of large mass per unit length cord. The speed of the effects of a cut might be anything up to the speed of sound in the material the cord is made of.

What this might show is that the speed of wave phenomina may not be the same as the speed of creation (or distruction) of the medium they travel in.

yours tom

It seems to me that either a hit or a cut or anything you can imagine are just perturbations, a general impact that will travel at the same speed any perturbation in the same medium will do.

I expect in most cases pertabations and field creation to travel at the same caricteristic speed,but has any one done an experiment to prove this.

Electrostatic field switch-off-speed experiment.

An electrostatic-field is created

There is a charged element, then a photosensitive semiconductor plate and then a ES-field detector; these are arranged coliner.

The element is charged up and the detector should register this, as the electrostatic field can penetrate the unstimulated semiconductor.

A pulse of light is produced near the charged element, this reaches the semiconductor and ‘instantaneously ‘ makes it into a conductor . The electrostatic field will be switched of in the region beyond the semiconductor plate. Some of the flash will reach the region of the ES-field detector and provide a comparison between the speed of information transmitted by the switch off effect and the speed of light. Which should be the same.

has anybody done such an experiment to confirm that static elictric fields collaps at the speed of light. EM radiation only travels at the speed of light because the electric and magnetic components share energy . i dont know of measurments of the speeds of electric field phenomina although expect them to propergate at c,

yours tom

Dear All,

first of all, Happy new Year!!!

Dear Dinesh, how to cite Your papers? Where they are published?

Have a nice day!

Best wishes,

Aleksey

Dear Aleksey,

Currently they are being reviewed @ couple of journals. I shall let you know more details once the review process is through.

However, if you have any questions related to the work that I have presented, please do not hesitate to contact me. Myself and my supervisors would be glad to answer your questions.

In the meantime, if you want to cite my work, I believe you still can cite them as unpublished work and give the author, title etc. Once it gets published (will hope so), I will keep you advised.

regards,

dinesh.

Thanks Aleksey for drawing my attention back to this very interesting discussion - happy New Year!

Dinesh, I'm not able to fully comprehend or evaluate your work but I do find it most intriguing. As a lay person I take the most expedient approach to research. In this case I find the Wikipedia entry http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speed_of_gravity to be very helpful and interesting. It includes sections addressing several theoretical evaluations and for GR, "Background", "Aberration of field direction in general relativity, for a weakly accelerated observer" and "Possible experimental measurements", including some debate about whether experiments have actually measured the speed of gravity or only the speed of light.

Interestingly, very recent research reports results using Earth oceanic tidal observations to derive the velocity of gravitation:

"Chinese scientists find evidence for speed of gravity", astrowatch.com, 12/28/12, http://www.astrowatch.net/2012/12/chinese-scientists-find-evidence-for.html

"China Focus: Chinese scientists find evidence for speed of gravity", English.news.cn 2012-12-27, http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/sci/2012-12/27/c_132067538.htm

Most importantly, the entire Wikipedia entry includes many references. Back to your original question, I think a very interesting article, and the research report upon which it's based, may contain some explanation on the theoretical basis for predicting the speed of gravitational waves:

S. Carlip, "Does Gravity Travel at the Speed of Light?" in The Physics FAQ, http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/GR/grav_speed.html

S. Carlip, "Aberration and the Speed of Gravity," Phys. Lett. A267 (2000) 81–87, http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/9909087

Even the introduction to the Wikipedia entry contains the following explanation (references omitted):

"The speed of gravitational waves in the general theory of relativity is equal to the speed of light in vacuum, c. Within the theory of special relativity, the constant c is not exclusively about light; instead it is the highest possible speed for any physical interaction in nature. Formally, c is a conversion factor for changing the unit of time to the unit of space. This makes it the only speed which does not depend either on the motion of an observer or a source of light and/or gravity. Thus, the speed of "light" is also the speed of gravitational waves and any massless particle. Such particles include the gluon (carrier of the strong force), the photons that light waves consist of, and the theoretical gravitons which make up the associated field particles of gravity (a theory of the graviton requires a theory of quantum gravity, however)."

While, as I understand, GR describes the effects of gravitation using abstract dimensional coordinates to describe a geometric model of spacetime, there is no physical aspect of spacetime described that the abstract geometry might represent. While the default position given the success of quantum particle theories is that there is some material force, at least analogous to electromagnetic force, that physically produces gravitational effects. I am curious about an alternative possibility that it is not properly a force of matter that produces gravitational effects but rather an interaction between potential mass-energy and some physical aspect of spacetime, such as vacuum energy, that produces kinetic energy gradient fields of vacuum energy density. But this is purely conjecture on my part, of course.

BTW, I read a report of some nearly forgotten observational analysis of, I think it was pulsars, describing some apparent superluminal aspect of EM emissions - arguing that they were the product of EM charge state flows that did not violate the speed of light since no motion of matter was required. Sorry I can't remember any more, but this made me wonder - if gravitational waves were only directional flows of charge states, could they not in some conditions at least appear to exceed the speed of light?

Dear James,

If ONE of the 2 KNOWN fields during Maxwell's time, namely the ELECTROSTATIC field or the MAGNETIC field, was NOT KNOWN, he wouldn't have been able to combine the two fields to obtain the electromagnetic waves and find the wave speed to be equal to that of the speed of light, which was known by then.

My argument is pretty simple. I didn't conject that the speed of gravity should be that of speed of light or any further strings of assumptions+approximations. my argument is, if one were to find the wave nature of EM fields or Gravitational fields, we have to first unearth both the STATIC and DYNAMICAL components of the field and their relevant field equations. Without that, all you can do is to conject or to build up a strings of approximations/assumptions leading to your desired result.

Once you understand this, it is evident that, the most simplest answer to the speed of the Gravity, relies upon unearthing both the Static and the Dynamical component of the gravity. Newton's gravitational force law gives us the Static component, but for some reason, we have ignored the Dynamical component (which I term as momenta force). There are good reasons why this force was not observed directly, otherwise we would have obviously taken this into account (just like for the case of magnetic field), The answer to this question is that the momenta force is a very feeble force (based on the proportional constant) and is much feeble than even the Static portion of the gravity, which is known to be the weakest of all known 3 forces (gravity, electrostatic and magnetic).

On the other hand, if there is a clever way to show the speed of gravity is that of the speed of light, without unearthing the DYNAMIC component, then you could apply the same treatment to ELECTROSTATIC field and obtain the EM waves, without taking into account the MAGNETIC field. If you do that, we don't need Maxwell's beautiful piece of work, combining the Electrostatic and Magnetic fields, giving rise to EM waves, and showing the speed of EM waves is that of the speed of light.

The simplest solution is to first understand that that there are 2 force fields associated with a mass body in motion, and give rise to its momentum energy and the rest energy.

It is a prime requirement that we first get hold of the momenta force field. If not, to model the consequences arising from this phenomena, we will have to introduce so much of arbitrary assumptions to get to the same simple conclusion. No wonder why we are in search for some explanations, for some DARK assumptions.

regards,

Dinesh.

Dear all: may be this experiment throws light on the question here. Apparently the experimental result is that the speed of light and the speed of gravity are very close, if not the same. Here it goes: (suggest to read more in "Mapping Ignorance")

"Newton’s theory of gravitation assumes that the speed of gravity is infinite and the gravitational interaction is instantaneous. However, Einstein’s theory postulates that it is exactly equal to the speed of light. A team of Chinese physicists lead by Tang Ke Yun, at the Institute of Geology and Geophysics, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing, China, has measured the speed of gravity with a relative error of about 5% by using Earth tides during three solar/lunar eclipses. The resulting value, between 0.93 to 1.05 times the speed of light, confirms the result postulated in Einstein’s theory. It is expected that new measurements using the same method, but with better gravimeters, could reduce the error by about an order of magnitude." Leer más en Mapping Ignorance.

Dear Dinesh,

Thank you so much for explaining to me in simpler terms. I'd like to mention a few reactions for your consideration: Please forgive improper use of terminology...

- Not to be argumentative, but I think you should be aware that you are presuming that the mechanisms producing gravitational effects are fundamentally similar to those producing electromagnetic effects.

- To the small extent that I comprehend, the static electrical fields are produced by the bipolar charge state of matter. Isn't the presence of particles necessary to maintain a static electromagnetic field distributed throughout space? Isn't the dynamic component of the electromagnetic force produced by directional flows of quantum scale charge states, either through the motions of particles or mediation by photons?

- In contrast, the amplitude of static gravitational fields are associated solely with aggregated static quantum mass quantities. No intervening particles or apparently any exchange of mass mediated by gravitons are necessary to distribute a static gravitational field throughout space. There is essentially no analog to the quantum scale directional charge flow of the dynamic electromagnetic component other than the relative motions of large scale massive objects. Gravitational waves seem to be produced solely by very high velocity relative motions of very massive objects - modulating the frequency of directional static gravitational field amplitudes.

You're correct that my conceptions regarding some physical aspect of the vacuum that can be represented by geometric properties of dimensional spacetime - providing the mediation of gravitation's effects is a conjecture, but it has some reasonable foundation. I must ask - your assumption that a material gravitational force must be very similar to the electromagnetic force does not consider the apparent fundamental distinctions that I've tried to identify above and seem solely predicated on the ubiquity of material forces produced by quantum mechanisms.

If the distinctions I've described are correct, wouldn't some fundamentally different analytical treatment of gravitational force component evaluations be necessary? I can't contemplate what your assessment might be - I'm considering these issues solely from an information analyses perspective... I'm sorry if I seem overly critical - in my extensive experience expeditious resolution requires direct communications. Believe me, I'm exceedingly impressed with your work, and I truly appreciate how little I understand... I look forward to any feedback you can provide!

Jim

Dear Antonio :

Its good to hear that more and more experiments are being carried out to refine the gravitational wave propagation speed and finding it to be converging towards what was conjectured by Einstein. The same speed limit conjectured by him, I managed to unearth the limit from a theoretical stand point and show that his conjecure is in fact correct. So now based on the work we have presented, it doesn't have to be a conjecture any more.

James:

Particle physics is an abstract layer, but a deeper sense can be understood when one only takes into account the mass and charge as two separate quantities representing the measure of a bodies energy content. So before we get to the particle physics, the proposed theorem gives an explanation to how the properties (charge and mass) of a particle interacts with each other.

What makes the gravitational fields and electrostatic field in a particle is still debatable and to be honest my opinion is we still don't have a concrete and consistent theory in this regard. However, based on some of the work that I have been working on (which are not published yet) shows a complementarity between the gravity and the electric fields and how they are being manifested. We could talk about this mechanism and the related mathematical models later, once the work is done.

Mind you, without having a proper reasoning, Oliver Heaviside also conjectured that gravity should have an analogous field , to that of magnetic, and he termed it as "Gravito-magnetic" field. I am not contesting his conjecture, but in our paper, we have clearly shown that there exists a momenta force field, similar to the magnetic force field in charge domain, and thus we don't have to conject that there should exist a momenta force field for gravitational force field domain. It is proven in our paper that the momenta force field must exist.

With regards to some of your other questions, I must emphasize that with the current development work, the work presented may not have a one to one explanation to all the phenomena associated with it. Its like trying to answer the perspectives arising from the "Ether" based theory, using "Relativity". One theory will be superior than the other in explaining and simplifying the facts that we observe than the other and generally this is what we choose to proceed with, until such time we find inconsistencies with the same and find a greater theory to accommodate those inconsistencies.

regards

Dinesh.

"The simplest theory is the more informative one, in the sense that less information is required in order to answer one's questions”

Elliot Sober

Dear Dinesh,

thanks. I wait for the publication (acceptance) of Your theoretical results.

Also, I thank to James and Antonio and I would like to state that my new book was already published two weeks ago concerning the thirty two new acoustic SH-waves propagating in piezoelectromagnetic plates. As a result, I have already discovered by about one hundred new waves. These waves are coupled with both the electrical and magnetic potentials (electromagnetic waves). I have an interest in the Dinesh results because using these results, it is possible to use corresponding thermodynamic gravitational functions and gravitational variables instead of the electrical induction and magnetic flux (thermodynamic functions) and the electrical and magnetic fields (thermodynamic variables) to constitute and to solidly demonstrate that the acoustic waves can be coupled with the gravitational waves similar to the coupling of the acoustic waves with the electromagnetic waves (piezoelectromagnetic waves). In this case, the formulae will be the same for the new SH-waves, but the corresponding gravitational constants must be used instead of the electrical and magnetic constants. Indeed, this is an engineering problem and I hope it is possible to contract sensors and the other technical devices based on the acoustic waves coupled with the gravitational waves which will feel some changes in gravitation, etc. Also, I hope it can give rise to anti-gravitation problems; I mean that both the acoustic waves coupled with the electromagnetic waves and the acoustic waves coupled with the gravitational waves can be useful.

I hope it is now lucid why I have a strong interest in the Dinesh results.

Have a nice day!

Best wishes,

Aleksey

Dear Dinesh,

Very helpful response - thanks very much!

I am very sorry that my ability to understand the mathematical presentation of your work so severely limits my comprehension of your findings - perhaps I'll work on that...

You quotation of Elliot Sober is appropriate, but I think its more correct to say that the simplest theory that most correctly represents the physical processes producing observed phenomena is the most informative in the sense of providing correct results for the greatest range of conditions. Problems ensue when theoretical methods are improperly applied or applied to improper conditions.

I say this primarily because, as an information systems analyst (retired), I've been most interested in some extremely influential misapplications of established methods in gravitational evaluations, as I've very modestly attempted to explain in my brief profile thesis with the unwieldly title, "Inappropriate Application of Kepler's Empirical Laws of Planetary Motion to Vast Spiral Galaxies Erroneously Created the Galaxy Rotation Problem - Thereby Establishing a Galactic Presence for Inferred Dark Matter."

I would mention, though that I've also wondered that the specific proximity ('fudge') factors that, as I understand, are included in GR gravitation to account for Mercury's peculiar orbit might actually represent proximal electromagnetic effects independent of gravitation. Without being able to reasonably evaluate your analysis I should presume that you are not simply identifying attractive electromagnetic effects whose effective range is limited by the required presence of charge mediating particles, but then I'm always the skeptical critic...

As I tried to explain, I'm most concerned that (as I understand) static electromagnetic fields require the presence of charged particles or charge mediating particles distributed throughout the field space. There does not seem to be any requirement for any particles to be present in space to mediate any gravitational effects. If I'm correct about this, it would seem to argue against any particle mediated gravitational force.

At any rate, I really appreciate your tolerance for my repeated harping on these potential conceptual issues without fairly considering your case. In the meantime, I certainly look forward hearing more and hopefully better understanding your work in the future. I certainly wish you the best in your efforts!

Jim

Dear Aleksey,

Its good to know, a few interested parties are getting to understand the work presented in my paper and see the consequences arising thereof. I believe, slowly the work will be accepted into the main stream and there will be interested people like you who could take it to the next stage, applying this theorem to other applications and find its relevance. I certainly look forward to engage with your work, should you need my assistance to integrate the gravitational wave propagation to your work. As for the time being, you can use the momenta force constant that I derived and use that along with Newton's gravitational constant to model Gravitational waves, similar to how you would utilize the 2 constants in EM field.

Dear Jim,

I am thankful for you, for raising questions from different quarters, and directing my attention to them. Since your primary interests seems to rely on DARK matter problem, let me present the following 2 paragraphs from some of the ongoing work.

By using the Ampere's force law, Biot-Savart law and Femming's left hand rule, we can show that the magnetic force between two spherical charge bodies +Q and +q, which are kept a distance R apart and each rotating about their own axes parallel to each other, with angular frequencies \omega_{Q} and \omega_{q} in the same direction, is repulsive.

A similar treatment on two spherical mass bodies M and m, kept apart a distance R , with angular frequencies \omega_{M} and \omega_{m} in the same direction, shows that the proposed momenta force between them is attractive. This we identify as a possible factor, which contributes for the additional centripetal acceleration exerted by a rotational spherical mass-body, on its satellite bodies orbiting around it, in the same direction. This additional centripetal acceleration could possibly account for the proposed “Dark-matter” effect, in part, or as a whole.

As your interests are with DARK matter, hopefully you could go through our work and find its contributions for a potential solution for this problem. I would be more than happy to assist you in this regard.

Let me know should you all need further clarifications/assistance.

Also, I would encourage you all to go through the Energy-equivalences paper, which is a very crucial work in formulating the existence of momenta force fields.

Note :

One could get to the same conclusion that a rotating mass object exerts an additional centripetal acceleration on its satellite bodies, by using Gravito-magnetic force equations or "Frame dragging". However, both these phenomena are based on the assumption that the gravitational effects are propagated at speed of light. Our work clearly distinguishes itself from the said 2 treatments, by showing the existence of a momenta force field and deriving its field equations and the proposed momenta-force constant and thereby showing that the gravitational waves propagate at speed of light. (rather than assuming or conjecturing it)

Thanking you both for your interest in this work.

regards,

dinesh.

Dear Dinesh,

Thanks again for explaining, and especially for your offer to help - I would like to take you up on that later!

However, regarding the additional centripetal acceleration you describe, my first impression is how strikingly similar that seems to the compensatory 'third force' included specifically in GR gravitation to account for proximal effects such as Mercury's anomalous orbital precession. Please see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kepler_problem_in_general_relativity#Einstein.27s_theory_of_general_relativity and especially the subsequent section "Effective radial potential energy" which states:

"The first two terms are well-known classical energies, the first being the attractive Newtonian gravitational potential energy and the second corresponding to the repulsive "centrifugal" potential energy; however, the third term is an attractive energy unique to general relativity. As shown below and elsewhere, this inverse-cubic energy causes elliptical orbits to precess gradually by an angle δφ per revolution..."

"... where A is the semi-major axis and e is the eccentricity.

The third term is attractive and dominates at small r values, giving a critical inner radius r[inner] at which a particle is drawn inexorably inwards to r=0; this inner radius is a function of the particle's angular momentum per unit mass or, equivalently, the a length-scale defined above."

The section "Circular orbits and their stability" goes on to say:

"The inner radius r[inner] is unstable, because the attractive third force strengthens much faster than the other two forces when r becomes small; if the particle slips slightly inwards from r[inner] (where all three forces are in balance), the third force dominates the other two and draws the particle inexorably inwards to r=0. At the outer radius, however, the circular orbits are stable; the third term is less important and the system behaves more like the non-relativistic Kepler problem."

Perhaps I'm misinterpreting your brief explanation - I'm operating at the fringes of my mathematical comprehension here... It is the ability to better explain the precessional orbit of Mercury and the curvature of light, both proximal effects of a singular massive object, that provided evidence of GR gravitation's superiority over

classical evaluation methods - IMO this enhancement is primarily due to the inclusion of this new, undescribed "third force" which, again, I guess might be an electromagnetic attractive effect, perhaps the one you describe.

As for dark matter, as I try explain in my brief essay, I think that the perceived requirement for dark matter's existence was originally established within physics in the 1970s & 1980s by the identification of the falsely perceived galaxy rotation problem - spiral galaxies' discrepancy with the laws of planetary motion requiring that peripheral orbital masses' rotational velocities should diminish as a function of radial distance. Moreover, I provide references to studies (using both classical and GR gravitation dynamics) that more correctly represent the planar distribution of mass (and therefore gravitational) of spiral galaxies and correctly describe the observed relatively flat velocities without any compensatory dark matter or scale dependent modifications to gravitational equations.

In other words, I think I clearly demonstrate that the presence of galactic dark matter is entirely misconceived. Other evidence cited for the inference of dark matter's existence rely on much more complex derivations, including the statistically inferred minute optical distortions of thousands of light from background galaxies used to infer the magnitude of 'gravitational' lensing produced by galaxy clusters - thought to exceed the gravitational lensing effects expected from cluster mass estimates derived from virial theorem analyses of intracluster galactic motion. These exceedingly complex methods are subject to significant potential error.

I'm more interested in questioning the loosely inferred existence of unidentified dark matter to provide compensatory mass inferred by applying established, simplistic methods of gravitational approximation to exceedingly large scale aggregations of innumerable, diverse, compound massive objects. There is a strong, quite understandable preference towards oversimplification in the evaluation of complex mass configurations that I'm afraid simply produces incorrect results - conveniently corrected by the inclusion of unphysical elements. But, then I spent >30 years isolating critical problems in very large scale, time critical systems - my 'intuitive' methods are not generally consistent with standard scientific methods...

I really do appreciate your offer to help understand your work. Within the next week or so I hope to be able to spend some time working to more completely understand it. Thanks very much!

Jim

Dear Dinesh,

thank You for Your interest in my work. Indeed, It is the best thing to use your assistance to integrate the gravitational wave propagation to my work.

Best wishes,

Aleksey

Dear James,

Sometime back, I have gone through this vigorous model and the "3rd" term that you pointed out. Later on, when I formulated the momenta force field, I came to realize the following observation.

As for the article, the 3rd term arising from GR (General relativity) is given by :

\frac{G(M+m)L^{2}}{c^{2}\mu r^{3}}

Note that the constant term appears on the equation \frac{G}{c^{2}} can be substituted with the proposed momenta-force constant as:

\frac{1}{G_{m}}=\frac{G}{c^{2}}

Please refer to my paper for the above equation and its derivation.

Thus, with a little bit of mathematics, one can derive the same expression for the 3rd term, starting from the momenta force field and its constant and obtain the same results.

Also note that, instead of mass, if the two bodies were purely charge, the "3rd" component would be

1. repulsive

2. the term can be shown to be of the same form with the inclusion of either

a. \frac{\mu_{0}}{4\pi}

b. \frac{1}{c^{2}}\frac{1}{4\pi\epsilon_{0}}

where both the terms are same, as \mu_{0}\epsilon_{0}=\frac{1}{c^{2}}

Hopefully you would understand that the 3rd term is not electromagnetic based, if our model is based on mass-energy distribution. On the other hand, had it been a case where the energies associated were charge based, then the relevant each of the terms signs would change, and the 3rd term would then be repulsive, in accordance with the explanation I gave you earlier (by taking two spherical objects).

So we can conclude that both the predictions, when it comes to the 3rd term, based on GR and momenta-force field are same. Its just that, in GR, the speed of the gravitational wave propagation is conjectured to be bound by the speed of light, where as in the present work, it is derived mathematically and shown. I trust you can distinguish the difference between the two. Therefore the present momenta-force work gives a much deeper proof and support for the GR and the assumptions it (GR) is based on.

note :

please use a standard tex editor to visualize the equations I have used above.

Let me know, should you need further clarifications on this matter.

regards,

dinesh.

Dear Dinesh,

Thanks for the excellent explanation. I think I can see that the third term is not electromagnetic - that was admittedly a conjecture, wondering in the GR case what justification there was for the inclusion of a third force, stronger than classical gravitation. Without explanation for what this 'third force' represented, it appeared to me to be merely an adjustment factor inserted to produce the desired orbit of Mercury.

Certainly I might simply be misunderstanding, but I'm compelled now to ask the dumb question (whose answer might be obvious in the equations): might the first term of the equation represent the static gravitational field while the third represents the proposed momenta force? Why did GR specify a distinctive inverse-cubic force while you seem to specify an inverse-square force? Doesn't this difference produce different results? I do appreciate your time - please take as much as necessary!

Thanks very much,

Jim

Dear James,

Yes, you got it correct. The 3rd term represents the momenta-force contribution, or GR specific contribution or Gravito-magnetic contribution, which ever the way you want to call it. Its the same phenomena explained from different stand points, and clearly the momenta-force field and the explanation given thereby are a bit more deeper in explaining the same phenomena, whereas some of the assumptions/conjectures used in GR/Gravito-magnetism are shown to be arising from the momenta-force field.

If you understand this clearly, you would observe that the 3rd term arises in GR case, from a conjecture, which states that the gravitational waves must exist and their speed must be that of the speed of light in free space, inheriting from the STR (Special Theory of Relativity). However, in our proposed work, we managed to show the existence of the momenta force field, its field equation and obtain its force constant , which justifies what was conjectured by GR. Therefore, naturally, our work justifies the conjectures used by Einstein and gives a further detailed analysis of how those assumptions/conjectures arise.

To make it strikingly easier to understand, let me state the following.

During Maxwell's time, if the magnetic (dynamic/momenta) force arising from charge-momenta were not being identified, using only the static force field , one can develop a theorem similar to present day GR with taking into account the contribution from charge, provided the existence of a wave which is associated with the electrostatic waves and its speed is that of the speed of light, are conjectured.

Now, after sometime, if someone claims that there exists a magnetic force field , there by finding its force constant, and then combine the magnetic force field and the electrostatic (known by then) force field to obtain the EM (Electromagnetic) force field and show the wave nature associated with it and finally finding its wave speed to be that of speed of light, will give a theoretical justification for the conjectures earlier used.

so what this means is,

1. one requires to understand the existence of both static and dynamic (momenta) force fields , and their field equations, to combine the two and obtain the resultant wave and to find the wave propagation speed.

2. on the other hand, one can simply use the static force field and conject that there exist a wave propagation with propagation speed that of the speed of light.

Both the above treatments give you the correct mathematical model, but the former justifies the conjecture presented in the latter (2) and shows a much deeper explanation.

On the other hand, as both the static and dynamic force field constants are combined with the speed of light, knowing one force field is enough to predict or explain the effects arising from the other, PROVIDED you conject that there exist a wave and that its speed is bound by the speed of light. This is true for both

1. electrostatic and magnetic force fields

2. static gravitational force field and proposed dynamic momenta force field.

I believe the detailed explanations given above clarifies most of your questions.

regards,

dinesh.

Dear Dinesh,

Yes - your very excellent reply clarifies most of my questions - thank you very much!

I still plan to (very slowly) read your papers. You may not agree with my conjecture, but I'm still interested as to whether the proposed models could not also be applicable to a 'vacuum energy/massive object' mediated gravitational effect rather than a particle mediated material force, but I'll try to better understand your important new work before addressing that...

Sincerely,

Jim

Dear Dinesh,

Back to dark matter and the related remarks from your paper, I think the fundamental issue is that the expected diminishment of spiral galaxy rotational velocity as a function of radial distance was based on Kepler's evaluation of the Solar system, whose central mass (containing 99.86% of total system mass), in effect, independently determines the rotational velocity of each orbital. Using Keplerian equations, the expected velocity of each planet is determined by evaluating with the Sun as a two-body gravitational problem. The mass of all other planets are proportionally so small to the Sun that they generally contribute almost no effective influence.

When producing a similar Keplerian evaluation of planar galaxies (by expecting rotational curves to comply with the Solar system's) it's inherently presumed that orbiting massive objects do not perturb one another. This is an impossibly false assumption. Also, there is no dominating central spherical massive object like the Sun that can control rotational velocity. Even the collective mass of a galaxy bulge cannot properly be treated as a valid point mass.

For these sames reasons, I suspect that it would be very difficult to correctly evaluate whether the proposed momenta force could (along with the vast distribution of mass and its associated gravitational effects) explain the generally flat (or increasing) rotation curves observed for spiral galaxies. I strongly urge you to very carefully consider the the methods employed by Carrick and Cooperstock (relativistic dynamics) and Feng and Gallo (Newtonian dynamics) referenced in my profile thesis for adaptation to your enhanced gravitational theory. As I understand, these analytical models very nearly explain galactic rotation without dark matter. Modifications to include the proposed momenta force might very well improve their results.

IMO, the simpler but improper evaluation of galaxy rotational dynamics using two-body evaluation methods would produce incorrect results (consistent with those that find inferred evidence for galactic dark matter).

Best wishes,

Jim

Dear Jim,

First let me explain a bit on the "inverse cube" relation and how that is related to the fundamental inverse-square law that I formulated.

The inverse square law is the fundamental equation between 2 momenta, kept apart a distance r. However, when it comes to a rotational body (in the case of the 2 body problem , or a model where a satellite body orbiting a slowly rotating body), we have to use the standard electromagnetic treatments to first find the field strength. As you can observe, based on the symmetry between the mass and charge domain inverse square equations, knowing the field strength arising from charge momenta (magnetic force), we can directly write down the momenta-force field strength, based on the symmetry of the 4 inverse square equations. This is what "gravitomagnetism" had done. Even if you were to take a charge sphere (where the charge is evenly distributed), then apply the known laws (biot-savart etc) to obtain the magnetic field strength, one would end up with a similar relation, where the magnetic constant appears in the equation.

Once you obtain the momenta-force field strength, then its relatively easy to obtain the so called 3rd term, using Lorentz force equation. This is how you obtain the 3rd term, where you get a cubic inverse square. Its all related to treating a rotating sphere and obtaining its field strength at equatorial plane.

Getting back to the Dark energy problem and some of your suggestions.

I am not saying this treatment would single handedly account for the observed anomaly. As I have showed, the additional attractive term will certainly help us to close the gap.

On the other hand, I haven't taken into account (in this paper) the relativistic effects. For instance, both the momenta based equations which are dynamic, must be corrected with the relativistic treatments. ( I have done some initial work, but I have to finish it up later). This means both the magnetic and momenta force fields will have to account for the relativistic effects when we deal with massive mass objects with relativistic speeds. Those treatments would obviously help us to refine the model further. But for obvious reasons, I didn't want to mix the relativistic treatments with the present work, as I wanted to direct everyone's attention to the proposed momenta force and the magnetic force equations (which are non relativistic at its present status).

As I have already proved the relativistic nature associated with charge-energy and charge-momenta energy and the covariant nature arising there of, one can easily accommodate the same with the present work and obtain the relativistic relations for both magnetic and momenta force relations. This must be a piece of cake for any one who knows relativity and its treatments on how to change the physical quantities between inertial frames (taking into account the newly proposed relativistic charge energy and relativistic charge-momenta related work.)

As I emphasized earlier, anyone who want to understand the momenta force relation must first go through the energy-equivalence paper. Once the relativistic charge-energy and relativistic charge-momentum relations are obtained, showing the existence of a momenta force field is relatively easy.

Let me know should you need further clarifications.

Thanking you for your interest in this work.

regards,

dinesh.

Dear Dinesh,

Thanks very much for your extensive clarifications - they've been very helpful to me.

Best wishes,

Jim

The suggestion of gravitons is strictly based on a hypothesis that gravity, as one of the energies in the Universe, must be quantified. The fallacy is the assumption, that gravity can be separated from mass and energy.

When the formation of the Universe from the initial energy singularity was modeled, the model predicted that gravity is anti-energy. Thus, energy (and thus mass) are permanently bound together. According to Einstein, mass and energy are equivalent. Since mass is associated with gravity, the same must be true for energy, thus, gravity is associated with energy in any of its forms.

‘Energy’ is not just a fuzzy undefined thing in the Universe. Continuously, mass is converted to energy in the form of photons (e.g. the Sun, Stars, and Galaxies). Photons are the final energy form of mass. Thus, photons must carry gravity. This was shown by Einstein in 1911, before the invention of the 'bending of space' model. Actually, Einstein mentions that photons, because they are at the speed of light, carry twice the gravity of the same energy at rest. He re-iterates this in his autobiography. Einstein and his followers missed the connection that photons and gravitons are the same and form a duality. Thus, gravitons have been known, but had not been recognized. I have followed up on this fact and have modeled the quantization of gravity. It predicted laboratory experiments to prove the connection between photons and gravitons. The experiments are simple enough that they could be done in about any University physical laboratory without much investment, and using existing equipment. I am willing to share the manuscript with anyone who is willing to check the science, who and is willing to be a reviewer for submission to a journal. Ingo H. Leubner

Dear Ingo: I would be glad to review your work.

Dear Ingo,

could you clarify what you meant by : "Einstein mentions that photons, because they are at the speed of light, carry twice the gravity of the same energy at rest".

I am quite aware that the conjectures used for this argument is the source behind the spin-2 graviton. However, I appreciate if one can point me out the formulation/derivation related to this statement.

However in my opinion, mass and charge are like ingredients which are associated with energy. Particles are a set of combined stable energy packets with different stable mass/charge configurations.

Also, the statement you have mentioned" mass is converted to energy in the form of photons" is not fully correct. As for the current particle models, there are two sets of contributions for mass, one from the gravitational mass and the other from the electromagnetic mass (based on the charge). Now for my understanding, the photons are being generated from the electromagnetic portion where as the gravitons are generated from the gravitational mass. In my opinion and based on some of the work we have presented, consistent with relativity and energy-momentum relation, these two energy carrying entities (photons/gravitons) are different. However, there is a possibility of combining the two to form a true unified field.

regards,

dinesh.

Dear Dinesh,

You say " In my opinion and based on some of the work we have presented, consistent with relativity and energy-momentum relation, these two energy carrying entities (photons/gravitons) are different. However, there is a possibility of combining the two to form a true unified field."

In my opinion, given that the gravitational energy is negative, and therefore it has different sign than photons (+) there seems to be no way to unify these fields. Except that a mass emitting photons will decrease its energy, but a mass emitting gravity quanta will increse its positive energy.

Dear Antonio,

My primary concerns are related to understanding the photons and gravitons and their related mathematical models.

though i agree with your points, I still claim that with a profound new way of seeing these phenomena, one could one day combine these two together. This doesn't necessarily mean that they loose their identify, but combining the two to a grand theory which will tell us how these two entities arise. This is what I meant by "combining the two to form a true unified field".

positive and negative are a set of notation we have assigned for our convenience and to have a consistency in applying them. In any sense, photons and gravitons carry energy. I am still of the view that mass emitting photons must be thoroughly understood as photons are associated with EM phenomena. Thus, we can safely claim that :

1. electromagnetic mass emitting photons will decrease its total energy

2. gravitational mass emitting gravitons will decrease its total energy

Now as I mentioned earlier, positive and negative terminology are nothing but .a set of notation for our convenience. For instance when you mentioned that mass emitting a graviton will increase its positive energy, what you really meant was to state : "mass emitting a graviton will loose its negative energy". So one must be careful when it comes to using these notations and mixing them inconsistently. As I mentioned above, the less ambiguous means to state them is :

1. electromagnetic mass emitting photons will decrease its total energy

2. gravitational mass emitting gravitions will decrease its total energy

ofcourse, like how you presented in your claim, we can use the +ve and -ve notation and state the following.

1. electromagnetic mass emitting photons will decrease its positive energy (total energy being positive)

2. electromagnetic mass emitting photons will increase its negative energy (total energy being positive)

3. gravitational mass emitting gravitons will decrease its negative energy (total energy being negative)

4. gravitational mass emitting gravitons will increase its positive energy (total energy being negative)

As you can see, the first set of statements (two statements) I made are the prime statements out of which the other 4 arise, when one assigns the notation of +ve and -ve energy for electromagnetic mass energy and gravitational mass energy.

regards,

dinesh.

Dear Ingo,

I will be glad to review Your work because I have a great interest in any similarity between theories of the electromagnetism and the gravitation. It is clear from my several previous answers. However, I do not see them and I think that they were deleted by an admin. It is very strange. therefore, I have to mention that I have an interest in any coupling between the elastic waves and the gravitational waves because I have discovered by about one hundred elastic waves coupled with the electromagnetic waves and using the theory (analogy between the gravitation and the electromagnetism) by Dinesh, it is possible to use the gravitational induction instead of the electrical induction and gravitonal induction (the second possible induction, I called it so) instead of the magnetic induction (magnetic flux) to constitute equations of motion to obtain the piezogravitogravitational waves similar to the piezoelectromagnetic waves. It is strange that my discussions are deleted!

Have a nice day!

Best wishes,

Aleksey

Dear Ingo,

I would be also glad to review your work You has mentioned.

Have a nice day!

Best wishes,

Aleksey

Dr. Joseph Uphoff - the appearance side-by-side regions of redshifted and blueshifted EM emissions from a discrete object certainly does indicate rotation, but does not represent the detection of gravitational waves. In some cases it might represent conditions in which gravitational waves might hypothetically be produced, but as Arno Gorgels states above, none have yet been detected.

That the effective propagation speed of light though a material medium is slowed does not indicate that the actual propagation speed of light has been reduced. As I understand, it is the rate of absorption and reemission of discrete photons by particles that has slowed, not the speed of light between particles.

Please see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speed_of_light#In_a_medium

"In exotic materials like Bose–Einstein condensates near absolute zero, the effective speed of light may be only a few meters per second. However, this represents absorption and re-radiation delay between atoms, as do all slower-than-c speeds in material substances..."

Maxwell did not show that the electromagnetic waves propagate at a speed of light. In his 1861 paper on physical lines of force he made a lot of mistakes (see the works of Pierre Duhem and Dan Siegel).His conclusion that V=c was a lucky guess!

Dear Rinat, it is a usual thing in science. I have recently read one review paper on the room temperature superconductivity and have found in the paper that Cooper has created his famous theory (the Cooper paring phenomenon) only from the third attempt. The previous two attempts were unsuccessful. However, he is a Nobel price laureate. Note that Cooper created his theory after the Landau theory on the superfluidity was launched. In my papers on the superfluid helium-4 on can find that the Cooper paring phenomenon exists in the superfluid helium-4, too. This corrects the Landau theory. Landau is a Nobel price laureate as well.

Then there's Einstein's "now famous" initial publication of faulty field equations in Oct. 1915, one month before his scheduled presentation of GR to the Prussian Academy of Science in Nov. 1915.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_relativity#History

Einstein suddenly realized the equations "were inconsistent with the local conservation of energy-momentum unless the universe had a constant density of mass-energy-momentum. In other words, air, rock and even a vacuum should all have the same density. This inconsistency with observation sent Einstein back to the drawing board. However, the solution was all but obvious, and in November 1915 Einstein published the actual Einstein field equations..."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_general_relativity#The_development_of_the_Einstein_field_equations

So a less lucky Einstein might have had his theory of general relativity roundly discredited before it was ever seriously considered - we might otherwise now have Hilbert's theory of general relativity...

This anecdote also demonstrates that Einstein's theory of gravity was developed more or less haphazardly from a conceptual analysis ('thought experiment') rather than being derived through careful mathematical analysis - perhaps something to consider before routinely dismissing silly ideas from the mathematically impaired, such as I

Hi ALL my friends!

first of all i would like to congratulate all of You with this jubilee year, namely 100 years ago Einstein has predicted the existence of the gravitational waves. The gravitational waves propagating with the speed of light were experimentally confirmed in this 2016 year in a space experiment by a team of 1011 researchers wirking on the problem since 1970s. Also there is one very interesting paper by Fusfa published in 2016 that some gravitational field can be controled by the magnetic field. I have also published one paper in 2016 concerning the new surface acoustic wave propagation coupled with the four potentials: the electrical, magnetic, gravitational (i.e. gravitoelectric), and cogravitational (i.e. gravitomagnetic) potentials. See my attached paper CJPAS 10(3) 4011 (2016).