Naked Science Forum
On the Lighter Side => New Theories => Topic started by: jeffreyH on 12/06/2014 02:00:43
-
The poles of a magnet may be seen as a convergence of both the electromagnetic and gravitational fields. Opposite poles would consist of one electromagnetic and one gravitational field. Both virtual photons and virtual gravitons would be involved. Like poles repelling. This reflects the fact that virtual photons must repel at like poles. Therefore a repulsive component of virtual gravitons can be implied. The surface emission of gravitons would be enhanced when metals are structured in such a way as to give rise to a magnetic field. This would demonstrate a unity between electromagnetism and gravity.
-
This way of looking at things could also explain why superconductors levitate and why the effect is relatively short in range.
-
Firstly like poles i.e. two north poles repel.
[/quotes]
Oops. Sorry. I don't know what I was thinking.
Secondly the positive charge comes from the proton and not the electron
So what? Who was talking about charge? And what charge are you talking about?
-
The poles of a magnet may be seen as a convergence of both the electromagnetic and gravitational fields.
The magnetic field does converge at the poles of a magnet, but not the gravitational field.
Opposite poles would consist of one electromagnetic and one gravitational field.
A gravitational body does not have opposing poles.
Both virtual photons and virtual gravitons would be involved. Like poles repelling.
The like poles of a magnet attract. They don’t repel.
Firstly like poles i.e. two north poles repel. Secondly the positive charge comes from the proton and not the electron. Which is where I suspect gravity originates. Thirdly no one knows if gravitation can ever have an opposing polar state.
-
Could it be that instead of opposite poles, gravity could be composed of opposite forces, and that what we feel as gravity is really the net difference between the two forces?
-
Could it be that instead of opposite poles, gravity could be composed of opposite forces, and that what we feel as gravity is really the net difference between the two forces?
The electric and magnetic fields separate into perpendicular component parts. This is the basis of my current research into the effects of gravity. Gravity operates on a two field electromagnetic system but this doesn't imply opposing gravitational forces.
-
A photon may not follow a geodesic path near an event horizon but would curve away. It would ultimately end up at the poles where rotational velocity is less and it has no option but to leave the vicinity as a relativistic jet.
-
A photon may not follow a geodesic path near an event horizon but would curve away. It would ultimately end up at the poles where rotational velocity is less and it has no option but to leave the vicinity as a relativistic jet.
The only interaction acting on photons is the gravitational interaction. Therefore all photons follow geodesics.
-
A photon may not follow a geodesic path near an event horizon but would curve away. It would ultimately end up at the poles where rotational velocity is less and it has no option but to leave the vicinity as a relativistic jet.
The only interaction acting on photons is the gravitational interaction. Therefore all photons follow geodesics.
Just my musings Pete. A geodesic is the shortest path.
-
A geodesic is the shortest path.
Not really. A geodesic is a path of extremal length. For example: A great circle is the curve defined by the intersection of a plane which passes through the center of a sphere. Think of yourself and two friends on such a great circle on the earth. One friend is 1 mile away on the great circle while the other is on the opposite side of the earth. A path to each friend is a geodesic. But one is obviously much shorter a distance than that other. So think of geodesics as paths of extremal length, not shortest length. This happens in curved spacetime too.
-
A geodesic is the shortest path.
Not really. A geodesic is a path of extremal length. For example: A great circle is the curve defined by the intersection of a plane which passes through the center of a sphere. Think of yourself and two friends on such a great circle on the earth. One friend is 1 mile away on the great circle while the other is on the opposite side of the earth. A path to each friend is a geodesic. But one is obviously much shorter a distance than that other. So think of geodesics as paths of extremal length, not shortest length. This happens in curved spacetime too.
This is the shortest path on a curved surface.
-
Could we have gravity without time? Could gravity just have spatial dimensions without acceleration? Minus time as a dimension could we have three dimensions and an extra spatial dimension? What would that do to Maxwell's or Einstein's equations?
-
Could we have gravity without time? Could gravity just have spatial dimensions without acceleration? Minus time as a dimension could we have three dimensions and an extra spatial dimension? What would that do to Maxwell's or Einstein's equations?
Gravity affects the rate of change in a particle. So, no you have to have a time element.
-
Could the change occur as an interaction with another dimension, not time, that causes a displacement of 3-Dimensional space?
-
Could the change occur as an interaction with another dimension, not time, that causes a displacement of 3-Dimensional space?
I very much doubt it. The complexities in physics have come about because no easy way could be found to reconcile Maxwell's equations with gravity.
-
If we want to travel the vast distances we know exist we need to come up formulations where time goes to zero. The possibility of such formulations seems an eventuality, all it takes is someone with the right imagination.
-
If we want to travel the vast distances we know exist we need to come up formulations where time goes to zero. The possibility of such formulations seems an eventuality, all it takes is someone with the right imagination.
I very much doubt that time dilation can ever reach a value of zero time. Imagination is not enough. Following the sequence of equations through from those of the late nineteenth century and finding the links will provide answers but not what people expect. I doubt if we can ever reach even halfway to light speed.
-
It is not a question of speed, just a change in position. The intersection of two lines is a dot, the intersection of two separate planes is a line, having two separate planes indicates the existence of three-dimensional space, 3D or R3. This could also be stated that the intersection of two subspaces of R3 is a line. Extrapolating to higher dimensions the intersection of two subspaces of R4 is a plane, that is the intersection of two 3D spaces is a plane. Extrapolating still further to arrive at a result of intersection as a 3D space we would need to have the intersection of two subspaces of R5, or in other words, the intersection of two four-dimensional spaces is a 3D space. That we live in a 3D world implies that the minimum configuration of reality is R5. If you extrapolate the relationship between subspaces and the overarching Rn spaces, Rn space touches each subspace at all points. To travel between two points in a 3D space we would need to calculate the vector connecting the coordinates of the 3D space from some point of origin, along with the modifying coordinates associated with 4D space that touches each of the three dimensional spaces. There are two ways to visualize the vector. You can look at it as an external value as an added dimension, sort of like a shell surrounding a shell. Alternatively you could visualize it as a single 4D coordinate point on the 3D space that you must align to the aim point of the 3D destination point. The angle of view is all important for this alignment. As you can shift your angle of view infinitesimally, but there is only one point of view, one angle from your present 3D position where the two 4D coordinates align, to allow the vector to intersect both three dimensional coordinates. As 4D space touches every 3D position simultaneously travel in an R5 subspace would not incur any significant cost in time. There would merely be a near simultaneous change in position. Could time actually then be thought of as even independent of R5?
-
We have x, y and z coordinates for 3 dimensions so we can consider this to be cubic. We can think of the fourth dimension as a one dimensional row of such cubes. Each with a unique state that has evolved over a time increment. The one dimensional arrangement reflects the direction of time. We can expand this with a square arrangement of such cubes in two dimensions. We can therefore move forward one cube or theoretically diagonally sideways and forward one cube, thus preserving the direction of time. We cannot move directly sideways as that would require time to stop. This would involve moving into another dimension, however it would also require the removal of our mass from one dimension which would increase the mass in ther adjacent dimension. If we carried on doing this by moving more and more mass we would change the overall gravitation within dimensions. We would however still be unable to jump over cubes to attain speeds faster than light. We could consider a fifth dimension as a cube of such cubes. We would still only have movement in one direction of time and be limited to moving into at most one of eight other possible dimensions. Any dimensions further away would only be accesible by passing through intervening dimensions. How would this help?